﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-02-12</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="">Monday, 12 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 10:00, 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>Petitions Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 20th report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PETITIONS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT No. 20</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions and Ministerial Responses</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 February 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Sam Birrell MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Alison Byrnes MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Lisa Chesters MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Garth Hamilton MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Tracey Roberts MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Meryl Swanson MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 15 November 2023, 29 November 2023, 18 January 2024 and 7 February 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee resolved to present the following 90 petitions in accordance with standing order 207:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions certified on 15 November 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 16 petitioners—requesting the removal of barriers to industrial action from the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009 </inline>(EN5565)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 355 petitioners—requesting the rejection of the World Health Organisation's new amendments to the International Health Regulations (EN5566)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 43 petitioners—requesting that proposals to develop marine zones of the Illawarra into industrial zones be rejected (EN5568)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 13 petitioners—regarding the development of a plasma fusion energy industry in Australia (EN5571)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 78 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into journalistic practices at the ABC (EN5572)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 23 petitioners—requesting legislation that would require the AEC to not publish demonstrably false information (EN5573)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 32 petitioners—regarding Indigenous representation in Parliament</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(EN5574)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 10 petitioners—regarding the publication of electoral results prior to the closing of polling places (EN5575)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 11 petitioners—requesting the integration of political education into the curriculum (EN5576)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 81 petitioners—regarding the conflict in Gaza and requesting an inquiry into alleged human rights violations (EN5578)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 22 petitioners—requesting a Royal Commission into all deaths of Indigenous peoples in rural and remote communities (EN5579)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 51 petitioners—requesting the removal of the 10% GST on residential electricity (EN5580)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 29 petitioners—requesting the introduction of a corporate windfall tax</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(EN5581)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 262 petitioners—regarding formal treaty negotiations with First Nations representatives (EN5582)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 45 petitioners—regarding the processing of visas for Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian applicants (EN5583)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 24 petitioners—requesting that NAPLAN be cancelled (EN5584)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 11 petitioners—requesting the reform of public interest immunity as it relates to commercial government decisions (EN5587)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 63 petitioners—regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza (EN5590)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 53 petitioners—regarding Israel Defence Force actions in Gaza</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(EN5591)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1523 petitioners—requesting changes to the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (EN5594)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting an overhaul to the legal frameworks and conventions concerning nuclear technology (EN5595)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 4 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5596)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 61 petitioners—regarding physical banking locations and a cashless society (EN5599)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 32 petitioners—requesting support for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict (EN5600)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 69 petitioners—requesting support for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict (EN5601)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 263 petitioners—requesting the condemnation of Israeli aggression in occupied Palestine (EN5603)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 38 petitioners—requesting that non-citizens and non-permanent residents receive equal access to healthcare (EN5604)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 15 petitioners—requesting that seatbelts be mandated in buses Australia-wide (EN5606)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 89 petitioners—requesting that lies in political advertising campaigns be outlawed (EN5609)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 39 petitioners—regarding the resettlement of Palestinian orphans in Australia (EN5611)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2848 petitioners—requesting support for a targeted national skin check program (EN5615)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5619)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5620)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 185795 petitioners—requesting support for a ceasefire in the Israel- Hamas conflict (EN5622)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5623)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 8 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5624)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 79 petitioners—requesting the closure of the Israeli Embassy (EN5625)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 44 petitioners—requesting that Australia support future proposals for humanitarian pauses in Gaza (EN5626)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 10618 petitioners—requesting additional Paid Parental Leave entitlements for families with babies in specialised care (EN5627)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 33118 petitioners—requesting support for a ceasefire in Gaza and the withdrawal of Australian support for the Israeli government (EN5628)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 170 petitioners—requesting the return of the Australian Ambassador to Kyiv, Ukraine (EN5629)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 16 petitioners—requesting a moratorium on any Australian military interventions in the Middle East (EN5630)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 379 petitioners—regarding human right concerns and Australia's development partnership with Sri Lanka (EN5631)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 255 petitioners—requesting support for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict (EN5632)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 64 petitioners—requesting that Australia make representations to the International Criminal Court regarding Israeli and Hamas actions (EN5633)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 483 petitioners—regarding the introduction of a National War Widows Day (EN5634)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 18390 petitioners—requesting that the Prime Minister advise the Governor-General to call an early election (EN5636)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2049 petitioners—requesting support for an urgent ceasefire in Gaza and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador (EN5639)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1552 petitioners—requesting that it be made illegal for businesses to not accept cash (EN5640)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 184 petitioners—regarding religious tax exemptions (EN5643)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2068 petitioners—requesting a Royal Commission into Australia's immigration detention regime (EN5644)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 15 petitioners—requesting that any legislation regarding a prominence framework for connected television devices be rejected (EN5646)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 136 petitioners—regarding European emission standards for Australian vehicles (EN5647)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 91 petitioners—requesting the upgrade of Melbourne-Sydney rail infrastructure (EN5648)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 136 petitioners—requesting the redirection of subsidies for road transport toward the revitalisation of rail infrastructure (EN5653)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 7663 petitioners—regarding support for a ceasefire in all world conflicts (EN5654)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1098 petitioners—regarding applications for permanent residency for Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa holders (EN5655)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions certified on 29 November 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 35 petitioners—requesting support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (EN5657)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3 petitioners—requesting amendment to the First Home Super Saver Scheme (EN5658)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 20 petitioners—requesting the appointment of a federal Minister for Disability (EN5659)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5664)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 54 petitioners—regarding a ceasefire and humanitarian assistance in Gaza (EN5665)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 petitioner—requesting that Australians who reside overseas be able to vote in Australian elections (EN5666)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 180 petitioners—requesting that any ongoing solar radiation management and geoengineering activities cease (EN5667)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 8 petitioners—requesting the Government sign the Intergovernmental Declaration on Children, Youth and Climate Action (EN5668)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 105 petitioners—regarding pathways to permanent residency under the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa (EN5672)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3903 petitioners—requesting the removal of GST on exercise physiology services (EN5674)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5675)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 5 petitioners—regarding closures of private maternity units across Australia (EN5676)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 29 petitioners—regarding a cut to the fuel excise for a 12-month period (EN5678)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 29 petitioners—requesting a Royal Commission into Centrelink's conduct when dealing with pensioners (EN5679)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 3794 petitioners—requesting a moratorium on all renewable energy projects and infrastructure (EN5680)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 28 petitioners—regarding the myGovID app replacing myGov for the ATO website (EN5681)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 petitioner—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5683)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 97 petitioners—requesting the recognition of a Palestinian state (EN5685)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 28 petitioners—requesting the official recognition of the Armenian genocide (EN5686)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 80 petitioners—requesting that whistle-blower protections be strengthened (EN5691)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 832 petitioners—requesting support of a ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict (EN5694)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 59 petitioners—regarding permanent residency pathways for essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN5695)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 165 petitioners—requesting that all MRI referrals from GPs be made bulk billable (EN5699)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 165 petitioners—requesting the removal of GST from exercise physiology services (EN5701)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 250 petitioners—regarding the conflict Gaza (EN5704)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 12 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5705)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 18 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into misuse of microphone access by digital companies and applications (EN5706)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 48 petitioners—requesting legislation to prevent the misuse of materials by artificial intelligence (EN5707)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions certified on 18 January 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 235 petitioners—requesting an investigation into the Anindilyakwa Land Council (PN0579)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 63 petitioners—regarding the visa reinstatement of a long-term Australian resident (PN0587)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 143 petitioners—requesting an audit of the Laura Johnson Home (PN0588)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Petitions certified on 7 February 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 642 petitioners—requesting improved mobile phone coverage to the local area of Texas, Queensland, and surrounding suburbs (PN0589)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 12872 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into the involvement of Australian citizens in IDF operations (PN0591)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The following 108 ministerial responses to petitions were received.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 18 January 2024</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding partner visas (EN4109)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition regarding reinstating JobKeeper for individuals receiving the Disaster Recovery Allowance (EN4125)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding delayed processing times of Bridging B visa applications (EN4177)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the processing of Skilled Regional visas (EN4271)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the New Skilled Visas (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 (EN4400)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding parent visas (EN4419)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding government services eligibility and residential property acquisition for Skilled Work Regional visa holders (EN4433)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding Skilled Work Regional visa holders' placements in regional areas (EN4448)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting that political asylum be granted to Chinese students currently in Australia (EN4660)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for the Environment and Water to a petition regarding the proposed Chalumbin Wind Farm development (EN4675)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visa applications (EN4685)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the restriction of access for vaccinated people to Australia who do not have health insurance (EN4799)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the Turkish Family Scheme visa (EN4824)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the work hours of student visa holders (EN4842)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding a permanent residency pathway for family members on long-term bridging visas (EN4857)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding new policies to expand battery infrastructure for households (EN4917)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition regarding protected identity for veterans and their families (EN4991)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding the use of low emission coal power and gas to meet energy demands (EN4992)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding processing times for Business Innovation and Investment visas (EN4999)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding visa pathways for parents of Australian citizens and permanent residents (EN5001)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting that the proposal for a windfarm off the coast of Newcastle and Port Stephens be scrapped (EN5004)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding issues experienced by users attempting to access the ImmiAccount system (EN5034)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition requesting a ban on the purchase of nuclear-powered vessels including submarines (EN5066)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition regarding a proposed inquiry into cost of living and inflationary pressures (EN5068)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition regarding defence posture in Northern Australia (EN5088)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding a deportation decision made under section 198 of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>(EN5096)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition regarding Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines (EN5099)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the removal of the radio broadcast royalty caps (EN5134)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting a ban on online access to adult content for individuals under the age of 18 (EN5139)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Treasurer to a petition regarding the responsibility of the banking sector to address scams (EN5156)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition requesting an inquiry into First Nations funding and the associated results of this spending (EN5182)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition requesting a referendum to unify Australia and New Zealand under one currency treaty (EN5222)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding the charging of electric vehicles (EN5227)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding misuse of designated disability parking bays (EN5243)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting that trauma-informed police training and exams be mandated in recruitment processes (EN5250)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting the designation of the Russian Imperial Movement as a terrorist organisation (EN5260)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Treasurer to a petition requesting the ACCC take action to address issues with online queue systems for popular events (EN5262)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding student work hours, workforce shortages, financial constraints and employee exploitation (EN5263)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Treasurer to a petition regarding the rights of citizens to repair their own goods without hinderance from companies (EN5278)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition regarding military assistance to Ukraine (EN5279)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding permanent residence pathways for Temporary Graduate visa holders (EN5284)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding delayed processing times for the offshore partner visa SC309 (EN5288)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting an increase in the number of physiotherapy sessions available to people with chronic conditions through Medicare (EN5302)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to a petition regarding the rate of pay and working conditions for Disability Employment Services' consultants (EN5304)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Housing to a petition regarding government collaboration on regulation of short-term rentals (EN5307)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in the Constitution (EN5318)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Defence to a petition regarding military assistance to Ukraine (EN5319)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition regarding a detailed financial analysis of taxpayer-funded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs (EN5324)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting the extension of the Defence Reparation Scheme (EN5328)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Treasurer to a petition regarding access to financial services (EN5329)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the 14 October 2023 Referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (EN5331)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting that the proposal of a wind farm off the coast of Newcastle and Port Stephens be halted (EN5332)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting the cessation of further progress on the proposed Port Stephens offshore wind zone (EN5334)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to petitions regarding human rights in India (EN5372, EN5392)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) access to antiviral treatments for long COVID-19 (EN5373)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Skills and Training to a petition regarding the timeliness of VETASSESS' skills assessment services (EN5377)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the subsidy of i-Port injection devices (EN5378)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a petition regarding a possible unfair decision under the Veterans' Entitlement Act (EN5380)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding a change to food regulations to fortify foods with folate instead of folic acid (EN5381)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting the incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution (EN5383)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the independent inquiry into Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic (EN5385)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding proposals to establish an offshore wind zone off the coast of Port MacDonnell, South Australia (EN5394)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the creation of Pacific Island cultural hubs (EN5395)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to a petition regarding the provision of menstrual leave (EN5396)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting the closure of the Russian Consulate-General in Sydney (EN5399)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting the cancellation of the proposed Illawarra offshore wind farm (EN5402)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to a petition regarding the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZIC) categories for workers' compensation schemes (EN5403)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Speaker to a petition regarding lobbyists' access to Parliament House (EN5411)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting constitutional protections for the right to freedom of speech (EN5429)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Communications to a petition requesting a ban on explicit content (EN5435)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Housing to a petition requesting a Royal Commission into the housing and rental crisis (EN5440)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding offshore wind turbine developments in the Illawarra and Greater Newcastle regions (EN5442)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding plans to approve wind turbines being developed off the Illawarra coast (EN5444)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition requesting the legalisation of the death penalty for persons convicted of child sexual abuse (EN5445)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Early Childhood Education to a petition regarding discrimination in early childhood education and care against children with disabilities and complex medical needs (EN5446)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting an increase to the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme's Basic Boarding Allowance (EN5455)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting that the Paid Parental Leave scheme be amended from 20 weeks to one year (EN5473)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding Mr Julian Assange and targeted sanctions on the UK and the US (EN5493)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting an investigation into the live export trade (EN5496)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting an increase to the Medicare Benefits rebate to allow GPs to bulk bill for every patient (EN5528)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting the separation of nuclear fusion and nuclear fission in legislation (EN5544)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition requesting the consideration of an additional budget component for First Nations participants of the NDIS (EN5549)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the Temporary Protection visa and the Safe Haven Enterprise visa (PN0554)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding refugee and asylum seeker policies (PN0563)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the re- examination of the changes to the access arrangements for opioid dependence treatment (PN0571)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 7 February 2024</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition regarding the listed price for the selling of goods or services (EN4838)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition regarding a ban on financial sector directors and executives in certain circumstances (EN4951)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Treasurer to a petition requesting a 'Mercy Amendment' to the</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001 </inline> (EN5140)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for the Environment and Water requesting the establishment of a National Wildlife Patrol Service to prevent the illegal shooting of wildlife (EN5408)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the 14 October 2023 referendum (EN5419)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Attorney-General to a petition regarding the contribution of settlers to the development of Australia (EN5427)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting additional flights from reputable airlines under Australia's bilateral air services arrangements (EN5453)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting to list Visanne (dienogest) on the PBS for endometriosis (EN5454)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting the Australian Government implement a passenger compensation scheme in the aviation sector (EN5456)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the introduction of a minimum legal age for purchasing caffeinated energy drinks (EN5461)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding Japan's release of Advanced Liquid Processing System-treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (EN5462, EN5463)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding an increase to the number of Medicare-subsidised mental health sessions (EN5465)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy requesting an inquiry into geoengineering (EN5472)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding relationship status considerations in social security payments (EN5477)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government regarding subsidised air travel, service enhancements and expanded accessibility (EN5483)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence to a petition regarding family, domestic and sexual violence in the Northern Territory (EN5490)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding allegations of foreign interference and threats to the Sikh community in Australia (EN5499)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Assembly (EN5509, EN5517)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the approval of tumour treating fields for use in Australia (EN5518)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting the release of weekly COVID-19 death numbers (EN5529)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting additional capacity under Australia's bilateral air services arrangements with Qatar (EN5537)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition regarding facilities for remote Aboriginal communities (EN5555)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Speaker to a petition regarding the prayers read at the commencement of sittings of the House of Representatives (EN5562)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Susan Templeman MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair—Petitions Committee</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the following 90 petitions:</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Health Organization</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Broadcasting Corporation</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Electoral Commission</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Representation</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Elections and Referendums</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Curriculum: Civics Education</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Literacy and Numeracy</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Sector Governance</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Political Advertising</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skin Cancer</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Embassy of Israel</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Scheme</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Embassy: Ukraine</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sri Lanka</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>War Widows Day</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Charitable Organisations</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Local Content Broadcasting</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New Vehicle Efficiency Standard</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rail Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rail Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Home Super Saver Scheme</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>People with Disability</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Roll</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Declaration on Children, Youth and Climate Action</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax: Allied Health Services</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: Maternity Services</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Centrelink</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Information and Privacy</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Occupied Palestinian Territories</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Armenia</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whistleblower Protection</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare: Imaging Services</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax: Allied Health Services</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Information and Privacy</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intellectual Property</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anindilyakwa Land Council</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>28</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Responses</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the following 108 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Partner Visas</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration Program</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: China</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee and Humanitarian Program</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee and Humanitarian Visas</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Students</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Business Innovation and Investment Visa</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sponsored Parent Visa</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Home Affairs: IMMIAccount</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Defence</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taylor, Mr Julian Richard of Living</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUKUS</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost Intellectual Property: Music</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Currency</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Disability Parking</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Russian Imperial Movement</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consumer Protection: Event Ticketing</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Students</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Waste Management and Recycling</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ukraine</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Industrial Relations</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Freedom of Speech</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ukraine</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: India</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Long COVID</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skilled Migration</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Diabetes</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Food Additives: Folate</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Response</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Multiculturalism: Pasifika</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consulate-General of the Russian Federation: New South Wales</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workers Compensation Insurance</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards: Lobbyists</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pornography</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capital Punishment</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Disability Services: Child Care</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme: First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Refugee And Humanitarian Program</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asylum Seekers</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Opioid Dependence</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consumer Law</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking And Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Animal Welfare</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment: Japan</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Geoengineering</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions And Benefits</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic And Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Relations: Australia And India</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Health Regulations</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Glioblastoma</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Mortality</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statements</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to note that two of the petitions—one paper based, with 12,872 signatures, and one electronic, with 185,795 signatures—concern the conflict in Gaza. From the size of both those petitions, I can only imagine the effort that people have put into the collection of these signatures, and that reflects very strong feelings about this issue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DELEGATION REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>DELEGATION REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 44th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 44th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly held from 5 to 11 August 2023. I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the report.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 44th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, or AIPA. The 44th assembly was hosted by the Republic of Indonesia and was held between 5 and 11 August last year in Jakarta. It was a pleasure to be joined by the member for Lyne to form a two-member delegation. This year marks the 50th anniversary of Australia's relationship with ASEAN. It was back in 1974 that Australia became one of ASEAN's first dialogue partners. We were one of 10. The cooperation continues to this day. Australia recognises that continued dialogue and cooperation are important in order to foster stability and economic security in the region. It also recognises that ASEAN is at the centre of that dialogue. Its role is critical to providing a stable, peaceful and prosperous region, which is why it was a pleasure and honour to lead the delegation.</para>
<para>The theme of the 44th assembly was 'Responsible parliaments for a stable and prosperous ASEAN'. It was opened by Her Excellency Dr Puan Maharani, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia and the President of the 44th AIPA. Her Excellency highlighted the ongoing need for commitments to create peace and prosperity in South-East Asia. Her Excellency also highlighted the role of AIPA as a vehicle for its member states to find a middle ground in achieving these commitments.</para>
<para>I was pleased to make a statement on behalf of the delegation. It was a statement that reinforced the important relationships that Australia has in the region and the importance of South-East Asia as an economic, trade, defence and cultural partner to Australia. The statement acknowledged the important role of Indonesia in its ASEAN chair year. It also reinforced Australia's report for the road map of Timor-Leste's full membership in ASEAN. I recognised the significance to Australia of the ASEAN-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in combating climate change, building health security and advancing the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific.</para>
<para>The themes of addressing climate change and the transition to clean energy were consistently raised through AIPA and I appreciate the opportunity to observe this discussion. The need for addressing supply chain insecurity due to the war in Ukraine and continuing post-pandemic recovery efforts were also a focus. Australia is an observer country to AIPA and, as such, was invited to participate in a dialogue with other member countries chaired by Mr Ravindra Airlangga MP, from the House of Representatives for the Republic of Indonesia. During the week, four bilateral meetings were held with delegations from Ukraine, Lao PDR, Indonesia and the United States of America. In making recommendations for the next assembly, Australia recommended that future delegations seek further engagement in other aspects of the program as observers or contributors, if agreed.</para>
<para>The delegation wishes to thank the Indonesian House of Representatives for hosting the event. The delegation would also like to congratulate the Republic of Indonesia on their successful year as ASEAN chair and a successful and productive 44th AIPA. Thank you to the team who made the delegation a success—Jeff Norris, Tom Coghlan, the Australian Mission to ASEAN and the Australian Embassy Indonesia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was a great pleasure for me to represent Australia at the 44th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly held in Jakarta and to be accompanied and led by the member for Swan. This is a really important strategic meeting of parliamentarians, and it is coming up for its 50th anniversary. All the ASEAN members were there, but I note that Myanmar did not attend. We were welcomed by the Secretary-General of AIPA, and the President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, gave a keynote address focusing on a prosperous and stable ASEAN as a driver of global economic growth. He really focused on the power of ASEAN, as a calm middle power across the world, as a force for good. Peace, prosperity and stability are the aims of everyone in ASEAN.</para>
<para>I found it very interesting to have the formal dialogues as well as the informal dialogues. In Indonesia we met many very senior politicians who will be very prominent in the current election cycle. Accents were put on our comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN, and we also noted we give not just ASEAN nations but South-East Asian and East Asian nations aid to the tune of $1.24 billion annually. We do make, with our ASEAN-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, a contribution of $204 million and we've also been heavily involved in the Indo-Pacific endeavour since 2017.</para>
<para>Many people in this building don't focus as much on these really important ASEAN and Asian focused diplomatic events, but it is critical to our wellbeing that we foster deeper ties with all the ASEAN members. In meetings and in private conversations, Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam thanked us for our help for them during the COVID pandemic—with both PPE and vaccines. I would like to thank Jeff Norris and the other members of the secretariat who accompanied us and made it such a smoothly run show from our side, and I thank the Australian embassy. Congratulations to Indonesia for putting on a really good meeting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Annual report of committee activities 2022-2023</inline>. I'm pleased to present the committee's annual report on the activities of 2022-23. In line with the requirement under section 31 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 that the committee report annually on its activities, this report provides details of the committee's work in the financial year ending on 30 June 2023.</para>
<para>Following the May 2022 election, the committee was established on 7 September 2022 and immediately recommenced work on four statutory and oversight reviews that carried over from the previous parliament. The committee's workload then grew steadily in the ensuing months. In its 10 months of operation during the reporting period, the committee worked on 14 inquiries and reviews—that's a lot. We held 50 meetings and briefings and seven public hearings and also undertook three site visits within Australia. The committee completed eight reviews and reported to parliament on them.</para>
<para>Key matters before the committee during the review period included the review of 13 terrorist listings under the Criminal Code and overlapping work on two annual reviews of intelligence agencies' administration and expenditure. The committee also completed four bill inquiries referred by ministers, which have since been passed by parliament and become acts. These were the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022; item 250 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022; the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023; and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023.</para>
<para>Between September 2022 and June 2023, the workload of the committee grew steadily to what I would probably say as an understatement was a high pace of activity which continued throughout the remainder of 2023. Management of a consistently heavy workload remains a challenge for our committee. Legislation presently before parliament that would further expand the oversight responsibilities of the committee promises a further significant increase in the demands on all members going forward. In this light, the committee has encouraged the government to be realistic in its expectations, particularly in relation to requested time frames for bill reviews. In a kind and polite way, just give us a bit of breathing space because there are a lot of reviews underway at the one time. A healthy democratic process and quality national security oversight requires that wherever possible the committee be provided the appropriate time and space necessary to do its work well.</para>
<para>The committee looks forward to continuing to exercise its functions in the remainder of the 47th Parliament. On behalf of the committee I wish to thank all those who made contributions to the various inquiries and reviews undertaken over the 2022-23 financial year, with a special mention to the very hardworking staff of the secretariat. Obviously, we couldn't do our job without them. They were exemplary. I also thank all of the member of the committee who worked so hard, in a largely bipartisan way, as we worked towards the best possible recommendations for the government for the best possible results for the national interest. I commend the report to the House.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>89</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Amendment (Telecommunications Offences for Suicide Related Material—Exception for Lawful Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>89</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="r7146" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Criminal Code Amendment (Telecommunications Offences for Suicide Related Material—Exception for Lawful Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am pleased to introduce this bill today because unlike many issues we face in this House, this is a policy problem with a simple solution.</para>
<para>Currently, doctors and pharmacists are at risk of criminal prosecution if they use telehealth, email, text or phone calls in relation to any lawful voluntary assisted dying services.</para>
<para>This means people who are:</para>
<list>terminally ill and suffering;</list>
<list>and have the right to VAD services</list>
<para>have to travel for face-to-face appointments.</para>
<para>Even worse, patients that rely on telehealth services due to distance or discomfort don't have equal access to end-of-life services that are supposed to be available to anyone who qualifies.</para>
<para>This problem can be fixed by passing this bill, which makes a minor amendment to the federal Criminal Code to make it clear that voluntary assisted dying is not suicide.</para>
<para>This change has the broad backing of the states, medical professionals, academics and patient advocate groups.</para>
<para>It is simple and could be done today.</para>
<para>So what's the problem the bill aims to fix?</para>
<para>Let's look at four facts.</para>
<para>First: VAD is an accepted part of our health system</para>
<para>Since 2019, every state has passed legislation allowing VAD under strict conditions, with territories expected to legislate soon.</para>
<para>Within this legislation, every state already has strong safeguards—at least three requests that are voluntary and enduring, at least two assessments by medical practitioners, the consideration of all treatment options and detailed processes set out to ensure this very serious decision is given appropriate weight.</para>
<para>Second: telehealth is an integral part of our health system</para>
<para>Telehealth has been hugely important in improving the access of people in rural and remote Australia to a variety of health services, especially where specialists are needed.</para>
<para>Third: there's an anomaly in the federal Criminal Code that prevents telehealth from being used for anything to do with VAD</para>
<para>An amendment to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act was passed in 2005, making it an offence to counsel, promote or provide instruction on suicide through the use of a carriage service. That was 12 years before any jurisdiction in Australia had a VAD law. The stated intent of the amendment was to target pro-suicide websites, internet chat rooms and online cyberbullying.</para>
<para>'Suicide' is not defined in the code, but has been construed in its literal sense as 'intentional self-killing'.</para>
<para>The federal Criminal Code over-rides state legislation so the laws made by the states allowing telehealth VAD services do not protect doctors and other medical practitioners.</para>
<para>But VAD is not suicide.</para>
<para>There is a huge difference between the act of a desperate person who takes their own life because they see no other way out and a rational decision made by a terminally ill person enduring intolerable suffering, after discussion of their options with their medical professionals.</para>
<para>Voluntary assisted dying is not about a choice between life and death.</para>
<para>It's a choice between a painful, drawn-out and possibly traumatic death, or a peaceful death with dignity.</para>
<para>Those who access VAD services are making a choice between a hard death or a calm death.</para>
<para>Fourth: there is a need for access to VAD services via telehealth</para>
<para>The way VAD laws have been taken up in every state shows the importance of choice, dignity and compassion when it comes to people who are terminally ill and suffering.</para>
<para>Not allowing the use of telehealth in relation to VAD undermines all three of these core values—people are robbed of the choice, or travel distances in pain, which robs them of dignity, in a system that lacks compassion.</para>
<para>At the moment, doctors have three choices for patients who want to discuss VAD services but can't get actually get to the doctors:</para>
<list>deny their lawful right to medical assistance in dying;</list>
<list>risk prosecution to deliver compassionate care using telehealth; or</list>
<list>insist on face-to-face consultations only. This involves not only pain and indignity for patients but also significant expense and inconvenience for doctors.</list>
<para>This means in many, many cases people are suffering greatly, especially outside capital cities. This is particularly bad in WA with our vast distances—there is a significant lack of equity in the provision of VAD services.</para>
<para>This tragic anomaly is causing unnecessary harm, pain and distress to dying people and also to their friends and families.</para>
<list>I have heard heartbreaking stories of terminally ill people travelling long distances in agony to meet doctors for a consultation in a car park or to pick up a prescription.</list>
<list>Pharmacists are afraid to even discuss processes with doctors over the phone.</list>
<list>The NSW VAD Board can't even have its meetings online, because members are concerned they may be in breach of this law. When people don't have many hours left to live, it is not compassionate or dignified to make them spend those hours travelling long distances, often in pain.</list>
<list>I have heard WA stories like a man who was left deteriorating and in pain because his assessing medical practitioners were away in rural WA when the time came and he requested administration.</list>
<list>I have heard about the ridiculous logistics of trying to get a practitioner, a Care Navigator and an interpreter to a rural location in person, which proved too challenging and meant the man died in pain, without access to his preferred end-of-life choice. The stories are plentiful and heartbreaking.</list>
<para>How the Bill solves the problem</para>
<para>This Bill makes a simple amendment, clarifying that lawful VAD is not within the definition of suicide under the relevant section. That's it. It's that simple. That's all it takes and it could be done today.</para>
<para>This Bill has very broad support</para>
<para>It is supported by medical professionals—VAD doctors, nurses, hospital pharmacists.</para>
<list>It was identified as the number one reform priority at the inaugural VAD ANZ conference in Sydney last year.</list>
<list>I want to thank Dr Cameron McLauren, medical oncologist and President of the VAD ANZ who is in the gallery today for his tireless work in making sure this issue is understood.</list>
<list>[I also want to thank Dr Nick Carr, Ben White, Lindy Wilmott, and Steve Walker for all their support in bringing this Bill to Parliament.]</list>
<para>It is supported by State A-Gs—this has come up repeatedly on the agenda of the regular meeting of the Attorneys-General of all the States.</para>
<para>[Multiple State Attorneys-General and Health Ministers have told me they are keen to see the Act amended to protection partitioners and enable greater access, particularly for regional patients.]</para>
<para>It is supported by the community</para>
<para>There is an active Dying with Dignity community group in every State and Territory in Australia as well as the impressive Go Gentle working on this issue nationally.</para>
<para>In conclusion:</para>
<list>This a significant problem with a very simple solution.</list>
<list>It's good for patients and medical professionals. It's backed by State Attorneys-General, Health Ministers and academics.</list>
<list>We have introduced VAD because as a society, we value choice, compassion and dignity.</list>
<list>I'm now calling on the Federal Government to fix this problem so that:</list>
<list>all Australians, irrespective of their postcode, have equal access to this choice if they qualify and comply with the strict conditions.</list>
<list>And so that we show them compassion and dignity by not asking them to spend their precious last days travelling in pain.</list>
<list>And so that we respect the medical professionals who undertake this important work by not prosecuting them as criminals.</list>
<para>I commend the Bill to the House.</para>
<para>I cede the remainder of my time to the member for Kooyong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. I'm proud to support this motion. The two most vulnerable moments of our lives are those in which we enter this world and those in which we leave it. When we are vulnerable, we rely on other people's care and kindness, and today I would like to acknowledge and thank the nurses, doctors, pharmacists and social workers who provide end-of-life care in this country.</para>
<para>Every state and territory in this country has passed laws permitting voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is the act of assuming control over one's inevitable and imminent death. It allows people who are suffering and dying to choose the manner and timing of their death. Suicide is the decision to take one's own life. They are not the same thing, and their conflation by this legislation is wrong.</para>
<para>The current legislation permits VAD, but it doesn't allow doctors and nurses to use telehealth to deliver VAD-related services. Healthcare professionals can't conduct reviews by phone. They can't check on symptoms, adjust medication doses or even email a script to a pharmacy. Best-practice care is generally face-to-face, and, in an ideal world, only a minority of VAD services would be provided by telehealth. But clinicians need that option so that they can provide adaptable, calibrated care.</para>
<para>Terminally ill people should not be required by outdated legislation to travel long distances for a 10-minute, in-person consultation or to pick up a prescription. Doctors and nurses should be supported in providing the very best care possible to dying patients. They shouldn't face prosecution for doing their job as well as they possibly can. Australia should not be a country in which people living in rural and regional settings receive worse end-of-life care than those living in the cities. This legislation has to be updated. In addition to the state Attorneys-General, doctors and patient support groups, there is broad community support for amending this law. The only thing standing in the way is the federal government. It's not this parliament's job to impede doctors and nurses caring for Australians in their final illnesses and in their deaths. I urge the government to let us debate and amend this bill in this House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Foreign Entities Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>91</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="r7147" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Foreign Entities Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to introduce the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Foreign Entities Bill 2024.</para>
<para>The great Australian dream of home ownership was once the birthright of every Australian.</para>
<para>But in recent times, hardworking Australians, no matter how hard they strive and no matter how much they save, have been locked out of the residential property market.</para>
<para>The great Australian dream is slipping away before our eyes.</para>
<para>It's clear: immediate action is needed to ease demand and crack this housing crisis.</para>
<para>Boosting housing supply is going to take a long time, perhaps decades. A ban on cashed-up foreign buyers purchasing Aussie homes would take pressure off the market straight away, and that is the aim of this bill.</para>
<para>Clause 6 of the bill introduces a prohibition on non-Australians and foreign entities purchasing residential property during the two-year period starting on commencement of the act.</para>
<para>Noncitizens, non-permanent residents and foreign controlled companies will be included in this prohibition.</para>
<para>It covers the purchase of residential property either directly or indirectly, alone or jointly.</para>
<para>It does not apply if a non-Australian is purchasing property jointly with a spouse or de facto partner who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.</para>
<para>Properties purchased for diplomatic or consular purposes are also not caught by the prohibition.</para>
<para>There obviously need to be penalties for breaching the provisions of this bill, and these are also provided in clause 6.</para>
<para>The penalty for contravening the prohibition is 800 penalty units, which equates to $250,000.</para>
<para>This in itself is a substantial monetary penalty; however, for wealthy offending foreign corporations this may not be a large enough fine.</para>
<para>In this regard, it's important to note that pursuant to section 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914, a penalty of five times this amount may be imposed upon an offending foreign corporate entity, which equates to $1.25 million.</para>
<para>Importantly, the bill also provides for the Federal Court of Australia to order the disposal of foreign-held residential property that contravenes the prohibition in the bill.</para>
<para>An application for disposal would need to be made by the minister, and the court would have the power to make such an order in such a manner and under such conditions as the court deemed appropriate.</para>
<para>In keeping with paragraph 51(xxxi) of our Constitution, the order for disposal could not contravene our Constitution and could not be otherwise than on just terms—that's an important safeguard.</para>
<para>This bill is not about turning our backs on the wider world.</para>
<para>Rather, it's about making thousands more homes available to hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>It's about helping Australian homebuyers, especially first-home buyers, finally get a foothold on the residential property ladder.</para>
<para>It's about helping more Australians get their shot at the great Australian dream.</para>
<para>The latest available data on foreign investment in residential real estate covers the 12 months to June 2022. This period included the COVID-19 pandemic global lockdowns, which undoubtedly would have affected the number of homes bought by non-Australians, given that they could not travel here.</para>
<para>In the years since June 2022, regularity has returned to the housing market, so anecdotally the current figures would be much higher. In any case, the data reveals a real problem that this bill aims to help solve.</para>
<para>In the year to June 2022, 4,228 homes were snapped up by foreign buyers. That scarce housing stock could have gone to 4,228 Aussies, desperate for a home to call their own, who are being crowded out of the market.</para>
<para>Now, more than 75 per cent of these properties sold for less than $1 million. The year before, in the 12 months to 2021, 83 per cent of the homes purchased by foreign buyers were under $1 million.</para>
<para>That shows that foreign buyers and foreign speculators are snapping up entry-level homes.</para>
<para>That's a shocker of a statistic for young families and first homebuyers trying to get their first start.</para>
<para>And in the five years to June 2022, almost 37,000 residential properties on our shores were snapped up by foreign buyers. That's a huge number of homes that could've been the first rung on the property ladder for Australians.</para>
<para>Constituents of the Calare electorate are frequently contacting me to indicate just how difficult it is to find an affordable place to purchase or rent in our area.</para>
<para>The fact is, when demand increases in a city, speculators look to park their wealth in properties located in regional centres and thriving towns—causing regional house and rental prices to skyrocket.</para>
<para>Allowing foreign buyers to snap up Aussie homes adds unnecessary heat to the housing market that so many are finding themselves locked out of.</para>
<para>It's a vicious cycle.</para>
<para>By banning foreign buyers from the residential property market for two years, more housing would be available for Australians, which would be part of the solution to the housing affordability crisis.</para>
<para>Importantly, this is a measure that can make a real difference quickly—it's much faster to implement this bill than build tens of thousands of new homes to make up for those bought by foreign investors.</para>
<para>The government needs to bring this bill on for debate on the double.</para>
<para>In these difficult economic times, we need to be putting the interests of Australians ahead of wealthy foreign property speculators.</para>
<para>The bill would bring the goal of home ownership into reach for thousands more Australians each year by banning foreign buyers from snapping up homes on our shores.</para>
<para>It has been modelled upon a similar piece of legislation that was passed into law by the Trudeau government in Canada.</para>
<para>This month, Canada announced it would be extending its ban on foreign home purchases in Canada for two extra years to 2027.</para>
<para>They are not our only Commonwealth cousin to do so. New Zealand has a similar measure, as does Singapore.</para>
<para>It's not enough just to believe in the great Australian dream.</para>
<para>It's our role as members of parliament to empower Aussies to achieve it. This bill does just that.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House, and I cede the rest of my time to the member for Mayo.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to second the motion of the member for Calare.</para>
<para>This is an eminently sensible bill that's following on from Canada and New Zealand, and I thank the member for Calare for his great work in this area. We know that we are in a housing crisis. We also know that we need to do everything possible in this place to look at taking the heat out of the market, because in one generation we have taken away the dream of home ownership. I would argue that part of that is the fact that we have allowed foreign ownership. We know that post-COVID, anecdotally, this has increased dramatically. And, as the member for Calare rightly says, in just one year, that's 4,000 homes that could have gone to Australian buyers. It is not easy to build 4,000 homes. It takes time. We have a huge housing shortage. It is going to take decades for us to boost the supply.</para>
<para>An issue that's related to this is the rapid increase in population that we have allowed, with respect to migration. We're 20 years ahead of where we should be with our population. That's 20 years of housing supply that we haven't done; that's 20 years of infrastructure, social infrastructure, roads that we have not done. This is an incredibly sensible thing to do.</para>
<para>As a member for Calare said, Canada has done this. Canada has extended their two-year pause. Canada, another liberal democracy that we have a lot of public policy symmetry with. New Zealand is the same. There are many nations in the world where, if you are a foreigner, you cannot buy real estate. We're not saying that; we're saying that there needs to be a pause. We need to boost our own supply. We need to do this sustainably and we need to make sure that we don't have people living in sheds.</para>
<para>I receive so many emails every week from people who are absolutely desperate, who are on every possible app, who have gone to every real estate agent in their area. They're desperate for a home to rent or to purchase. They turn to me and say: 'Rebekha, what can we do? Do you know anyone? Do you know anywhere we can live?' That's ridiculous. Yet at the same time, in the year to July 2023, we had net migration of over half a million people. That's bigger than the population of Tasmania or, indeed, Canberra. We can't be doing that year on year and then saying: 'Oh, gee. I wonder why we have a housing crisis. I wonder how we could fix this.'</para>
<para>So I think that this is a very sensible bill. It is not xenophobic. It's not racist. It's just saying, 'Let's pause this, have a think about it, and see if we can take some of the heat out of the market and get back to the Australian dream.' Most Australians over generations have managed to buy their first home in their 20s or early 30s. We've taken that away in one generation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>There is a genocide being carried out by the State of Israel against Palestinians in Gaza, and still this Labor government stands with Israel and supports the invasion of Gaza. That is the bottom line. The South African case against Israel laid out in stark, horrific detail the undeniable evidence of genocide in Gaza, and if South Africa was able to find this evidence then we know now without a shadow of a doubt that Labor know as well. They knew last year when the Israeli defence minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.</para></quote>
<para>They knew that the Israeli defence minister then said to solders, 'I have released all the restraints,' and that Gaza would never be the same, or when the Israeli President said that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. Israel has made its intentions brutally and horrifically clear.</para>
<para>Labor know now that 20,000 Palestinians have been murdered by the Israeli military, including over 10,000 children. What about al-Nasr hospital? I quote from the <inline font-style="italic">Washington Post</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was the height of Israel's assault on northern Gaza last month, and al-Nasr Children's Hospital was a war zone. The day before, airstrikes had cut off the Gaza City facility's oxygen supplies. Israeli tanks had surrounded the hospital complex, and the Israel Defense Forces were calling and texting the doctors, urging them to leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But ambulances couldn't … reach al-Nasr to transport the wounded … five premature babies were particularly vulnerable. They needed oxygen, and medication administered at regular intervals. There were no portable respirators or incubators to transport them … Then the IDF delivered an ultimatum … Get out or be bombarded. An Israeli official, meanwhile, provided an assurance that ambulances would be arranged to retrieve the patients.</para></quote>
<para>All five of those babies were found decomposing two weeks later, having died slow, painful deaths. Labour know that more will die from Israel's engineered famine in Gaza than from bombs, yet still they stand with Israel and support the invasion.</para>
<para>But then Labor went one worse and followed the United States in pausing crucial UNRWA aid funding to Palestinians in Gaza. I quote from the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… as of January 2024, 500,000 Gazans were forced into Phase 5 'catastrophic' levels of hunger—imminent risk of mass starvation and death. This represents fully 80% of all people in the world currently at risk of death by hunger. Each malnourished child, starving family, and refugee camp without access to food is a tragedy—collectively, it is a crime, the liability for which rests on those who actively and knowingly prevent access.</para></quote>
<para>These are little Palestinian boys and girls dying slow, painful deaths, growing weaker by the day while their parents, if they haven't been murdered themselves, watch on in horror, unable to do anything to prevent their deaths. International lawyer Francis Boyle say these states 'are now directly violating genocide convention article II(c) by themselves':</para>
<quote><para class="block">Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.</para></quote>
<para>I want to be clear: what he is saying is that Australia is breaching the genocide convention.</para>
<para>Now Netanyahu now orders 1.4 million Palestinians who Israel has corralled into a very small area in Gaza to evacuate. But where to? We aren't told, and now we know that the Israeli military is on the verge of turbocharging this genocide in Gaza. God only knows the horrific outrageous crimes against humanity and furthering of the genocide that will occur.</para>
<para>South Africa has proved what moral and political courage look like. South Africa has proved what a middle power can do to prevent genocide. Labor keep saying, 'We're doing all we can,' issuing these weasel words without ever directly doing what is clear they should do in these scenarios and circumstances. Indeed, this is a moral and political test for this government that so far they have catastrophically failed: call for a permanent and immediate ceasefire, ban immediately the sale of military equipment or weapons to the state of Israel, apply sanctions on Israeli ministers and government ministers facilitating the carrying out of genocide, and join and support South Africa's case in the ICJ against Israel and the case of genocide in Gaza. It is so clear that what we need right now are moral clarity and understanding regardless of the actions on 7 October, which were horrific. Nothing that happened 7 October or the terrible death of Israeli civilians can surely justify the mass murdering and genocide of Palestinian civilians. This will not bring about peace; this will create more radicalism, more hate, more death. At the end of this there will be weasel words from this government, who claim they care about peace. What nonsense.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bates</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have dreamt of seeing peace between the Israelis and Palestinians my whole life. It is something that has been passed down from generation to generation in my family. I hold deep sympathy towards the Palestinian people. I want to see peace in my lifetime. It is absolutely true to be able to say that, in this country, we can have sympathy and empathy for both people. We have empathy towards the Israelis who were brutally attacked on 7 October and we must have empathy towards the real suffering of innocent Palestinians caught up in this terrible conflict.</para>
<para>The way we talk about it matters. The way we talk about it here in Australia matters. Our language matters. We cannot use this to talk about gaining political points or wedging people. We need to be respectful of each other in Australia, and the debate has disintegrated.</para>
<para>In many things over my political career, I don't find myself that far away from the Greens but, at the moment, I am absolutely in shock about the way in which they have ignored standards within their own party. Jenny Leong, in December last year, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Jewish lobby and the Zionist lobby are infiltrating into every single aspect of what is ethnic community groups. … Their tentacles reach into the areas that try and influence power and I think we need to call that out and expose it.</para></quote>
<para>That is one of the most blatantly racist and bigoted statements by any elected official in Australia. That is a matter for Ms Leong. But the thing that is really hurtful, the thing that really matters, is that not one, not one Greens MPs, state or federal, has called out and publicly rebuked Ms Leong—not one. They all have remained silent in a blatant anti-Semitic statement by one of their colleagues. If that happened in the Labor Party, whether directed at the Jewish community, the Islamic community, any community, it would be unacceptable. Do not take my word for it. At the moment, there are Jewish people who are leaving the Greens. I want to read a quote from a friend, who said, 'We do not advocate for repeal of 18C or the Indigenous voice in ethnic forums to influence power. Jews on the left advocate for what we believe in based on values that speak to us from our ancient holy books which remind us: what is hateful to you, do not do onto others.' That is from a Greens member who has publicly spoken out about how disillusioned they are with the Greens and how a party that is meant to be progressive is allowing this to fester within their own circles.</para>
<para>Let me say this from another Greens member, who, in the last week, has publicly come out and spoken out against the Greens. I'm not going to name this person, because they said it on their own social media, but they said this: 'I am disgusted, saddened and hurt that the party purporting to be the party of antiracism, in which I've tried to find a place over the past two years, is letting this rhetoric infiltrate its highest levels. This isn't about Israel or Palestine. It's Jew hatred, plain and simple. Believe a Jew when he says so. Where is the outrage from my Greens colleagues? I find the silence deafeningly isolating.'</para>
<para>This conflict in the Middle East is absolutely shattering. I want to see an end to it as soon as humanly possible. I want to see an end to innocent lives being lost. I want to see an ability for Palestinians to rebuild their lives in Gaza. I also want to see an ability for Israelis to return to their home in southern and northern towns. There is a real terrorist threat that they have faced that we saw on 7 October. It is a complicated, deep history, one that we must be mindful and respectful of when we're talking about this issue. But the way we talk about this in Australia really matters. And to have blatant racism and targeting of a minority community from a major political organisation in this country is just shattering.</para>
<para>I would say to the Greens, be mindful of the way in which you are talking about this issue. Be mindful of the way in which it is impacting a minority people in this country, because that is something that we can control. We have an ability to make sure Australians feel safe and respected, and right now Jewish people in Australia don't feel safe and respected by the Greens. I think it's a great shame, and I pray for more peaceful days ahead.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Israel's invasion of Gaza, which this parliament has backed, has seen to the death of more than 28,000 people—children, mums, dads, teachers, nurses, countless journalists, doctors. The City University of New York's Graduate Center has worked to map destruction across several of the war zones. From space, Gaza is now a different colour. Israel's offensive has likely either damaged or destroyed more than two-thirds of all structures in northern Gaza, including tens of thousands of homes as well as schools and hospitals. In fact, UN monitors have estimated that 70 per cent of school buildings across Gaza have been damaged. More than a million people are displaced from their homes, starving, living in appalling and cramped conditions. Many are in camps that are flooding, with one toilet for hundreds of people and extremely limited options to bathe.</para>
<para>There are, though, humanitarian organisations on the ground in Gaza. These agencies, against all the odds, are trying their best to prevent deaths. One of the largest of these, though, had their funding cut by this government. The government responded to allegations with no solid evidence to deprive millions of Palestinians of help that is desperately needed. The government's choice to suspend funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, in Gaza was a grave mistake. The needs of the people in Gaza have not suspended. The needs for basic supplies of shelter, of clean water, have not suspended. There are surgeries being performed with dirty or no water at all, with no anaesthetics, with no chance to sterilise tools and with no drugs to fight resulting infections. It is inhumane and it is heartbreaking.</para>
<para>This government must restore and maintain funding to UNRWA as a matter of priority. And it's time for Australia to join other countries and uphold our obligations under international law to prevent genocide. Despite the evidence presented at the International Court of Justice, where it was concluded that there is a plausible case of genocide happening in Gaza, this government has not withdrawn its support for Israel's invasion, called for a permanent ceasefire or committed to ending military exports to the Israeli government. What is the point of a government recognising the International Court of Justice when it then takes no actions in light of its findings?</para>
<para>And why is it that the ICJ came to this conclusion? Well, it was based in part on statements from the Israeli government itself, such as defence ministers stating, 'We are fighting human animals; we will eliminate everything.' This invasion is well beyond self-defence. This has become a slaughter. Israel's imposition of a total siege now threatens to kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over the coming months through hunger and infectious diseases.</para>
<para>The laying to waste of Gaza through indiscriminate mass bombardments has already seen whole residential neighbourhoods razed. This situation deserves international pressure. It's our best chance to stop this carnage. Australia has a role to play in this, and the government has a responsibility as well. We have seen the majority of the world's countries call for a full and permanent ceasefire. The foreign minister is on record as saying that the government has taken a constructive approach to this conflict, but the actions of the government demonstrate nothing of the sort. Labor cannot keep sitting on its hands while this horror goes on. Enough is enough.</para>
<para>As parliament sits today, Israel has announced its intention to start a ground incursion into Rafah, telling civilians to move. Rafah was supposed to be the last remotely safe space for civilians. Where are they supposed to go? More Palestinians in Gaza will be killed. Around half of those killed will be children. Statistically, a child will have been killed while I've been delivering this speech. The government must not continue its support of Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza. We want to see Palestinians and Israelis living in equal justice, in equal peace and in equal security. We must have a full and permanent ceasefire. We must have an end to the invasion and occupation. This chamber and parliament must join almost every other nation in the world and say enough is enough.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I last spoke here about both the scale of civilian deaths in Palestine and the murders and kidnappings by Hamas four months ago and I'm appalled that the hostages are not all home and that there has been increasing loss of life in Gaza, beyond what I could have imagined. Despite the calls by Australia and 152 other countries for a humanitarian ceasefire and a permanent peace, despite the efforts to negotiate a peace by countries with influence in the Middle East and despite the calls by Australia and so many others for Israel to abide by the International Court of Justice ruling that it take measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, the death toll and destruction continues and the safer space for Palestinians gets smaller and smaller.</para>
<para>More than 28,000 Palestinians have been killed, the vast majority of them women and children. There are now around 1½ million people in the southern district of Rafah, people who are reported to be thirsty, cold and hungry—many wounded. With disease spreading, many are no doubt exhausted and traumatised. They crowded into schools, hospitals, mosques and tents. Yet we are told Rafah is Israel's next offensive. Our aid is struggling to get in, with the World Health Organization warning that there are near-insurmountable challenges. It is a humanitarian crisis.</para>
<para>I think most of us struggle to comprehend why this is happening and we want it to end. It's the last thing many Australians see before they go to sleep and it's there in their social media feeds when they switch on in the morning. Is it any wonder the levels of distress at home are so high? For many, it has raised issues about which they knew little—issues about decisions made more than 75 years ago, about the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Gaza and the West Bank, about decades of illegal settlements and about the increasing violence in the West Bank. These are things people have not had the opportunity to see firsthand, as I did seven years ago. But I know that many elected representatives on all sides of this parliament have been to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and are well aware of the complexities and of the urgency of reaching peace in this region. That's why I'm profoundly disappointed by the way the distress of good and compassionate people across our communities is being manipulated and their grief weaponised to create greater division here in Australia.</para>
<para>At our national conference last year I remarked that, as tensions continued to escalate and more lives on both sides were lost, I couldn't imagine there was a single person in that convention room who would want anything other than for us to work together towards a just and enduring peace. I would hope there is not a single person in this parliament who doesn't also want to see a just and enduring peace for Palestinians and Israelis. We've called out the obstacles to this on both sides and we've said consistently that there can be no enduring Israeli presence in Gaza after this conflict and no reduction of territory. We support the Palestinian aspiration for statehood as part of a negotiated settlement, and I personally have spoken of my desire to see that sooner rather than later.</para>
<para>Rather than seek to divide and attack people who for decades have advocated for a two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis for the sake of some likes on social media and to pick off votes, I especially urge the Greens to resist the instinct to fuel the conflicts, spread misinformation and set one side against the other. Instead, work with us on what we can do as a respected player in the Middle East. We may not have the role that we have with our closer Pacific and South-East Asian neighbours, but Australia has long had a commitment to playing whatever role we can in a two-state solution. I urge the opposition and Greens not to continue to peddle errors. For instance, Australia has not provided weapons to Israel since the conflict began, nor for the last five years. Contrary to the claims of the opposition leader, our legal advice is that our funding of UNRWA is entirely within the law. We hold firm with the view that UNRWA is the only aid organisation that can effectively deliver large-scale aid into Gaza. We welcome their swift response to allegations against their staff, and the independent review that is currently underway.</para>
<para>Research out of Britain shows that, when conflict is portrayed as a simplistic, two-sided thing, people can feel forced to take a side and that social media portrayal 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. Don't let this continue in Australia. Set aside the politics, for the good of our fellow Australians. Help to rein in the Islamophobia and antisemitism and work with us for a two-state solution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>Australians are hurting. Nationally, over the last 18 months, we've seen groceries go up by more than nine per cent and housing go up by more than 12 per cent. For many, electricity has gone through the roof and is now up by over 18 per cent. Insurance costs have risen by 22 per cent, and gas is up by an incredible 27 per cent. Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister promised every Australian that they would have a saving of $275 on their energy bill. Now we see the reality of his promise. It is not worth a cracker—zero—because now we're seeing a situation where many Australians cannot afford to heat or cool their homes. This is just the first of many broken promises from this government when they said people would be better off under their leadership. It just hasn't happened.</para>
<para>With inflation remaining higher than in any other developed country, Australian households are no longer able to keep up. In real terms, net disposable income per person has fallen by 8.6 per cent across the same 18-month period. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of just over $8,000 a year. This has translated into disposable incomes falling over the past year more than in any other developed country. More and more Australians are being forced to use what money they have saved just to stay afloat. We heard that in the testimony from the Reserve Bank governor in Friday's committee hearing. She confirmed that people are running down their savings in order to continue to make ends meet—savings that in many cases are there for a rainy day, not to cover everyday costs.</para>
<para>Compounding all of this, households have faced a record 12 interest rate rises since May 2022. Australians with a $750,000 mortgage are now paying an interest bill some $24,000 a year higher than when the Prime Minister said at the election that mortgages would be cheaper under a government he led. That $24,000 of higher interest costs is out of after-tax income and it doesn't take into account the capital repayments on top of that, so many Australian households are not just $24,000 a year worse off; they are far worse off than that. This pain has continued to spread and is now being shared by those who are renters. Renters are not only experiencing the tightest market globally in terms of supply, but they have also been forced to take on higher increases to their weekly rents because of the increase in the interest costs that landlords have had to bear. All of these things feed through to a feeling of Australians being worse off than they were when this government came to power.</para>
<para>Also, we have failed to hear anything from this government in support of small to medium business, who are also paying the price for these poor decisions by those opposite. We have continued to see the government fail to address the issues raised by the cost of living. We see presently before the House some proposed reductions of on average $15 a week for an average income earner, but that's just a fraction of the $150 a week-plus in additional living costs that have been incurred by Australians under this government, and we see no sign whatsoever of this government having the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to rein in the cost of living. As we have seen consistently from this government—we see great consistency—they break every single promise they took to the last election and expect the Australian people to continue to believe them. It is just not good enough.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Young</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am proud to talk about the real and tangible work that we as the Albanese Labor government are doing to support local people in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast as they deal with the cost of living. The most recent consumer price index figures put out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics have shown that quarterly inflation moderated to 4.1 per cent in the December quarter, down from 5.4 per cent in the September quarter; headline inflation is now at its lowest level in two years; and the monthly CPI is now around half what it was at the time of the election. That isn't a coincidence. It's the result of this government's carefully calibrated, targeted cost-of-living plan. The ABS data shows that, without these policies, inflation would have been half a percentage point higher through the year to the December quarter in 2023. Policies that the Liberals voted against, like our energy price plan, our support for renters and cheaper child care, are all putting downward pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>Just last week I was really delighted to join with the member for Cunningham and the member for Whitlam to announce that more than 1,500 local people across the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands have been helped into their own homes thanks to the government's improved Home Guarantee Scheme. It's an all-too-familiar story on the South Coast: people who were born and raised in our communities, when it comes time to buying a home, are forced to move away because they can't find an affordable place to buy or rent. We're suffering from a workforce shortage. How can we address that if our young people are continually forced to move away? Our Home Guarantee Scheme is on top of our $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund and, importantly for so many local people in my electorate, the biggest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years.</para>
<para>What else is there? What about $3 billion in electricity bill relief, co-paid with the states? Since July last year, this has been providing eligible households up to $500 and small businesses up to $650 off their electricity bills. There are cheaper medicines. I jump for joy every time we talk about cheaper medicines. Twelve thousand eight hundred and fourteen 60-day prescriptions were dispensed for people with chronic illnesses in my electorate between 1 September and 31 December last year. That's just the first stage of medicines released under this policy, which cuts the costs of those medicines in half. Not only this, but a further 119,075 scripts in Gilmore were dispensed last year at a cheaper rate of $30 per script. This has saved local people more than $1.3 million just on the cost of medicines under the Albanese Government, because we reduced the copayment.</para>
<para>We've also tripled the bulk-billing incentive for the most common GP consultations for children under 16 and Commonwealth concession cardholders. This will not solve a decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare by the Liberals, but, in the first two months of this change, bulk-billing rates in my electorate have increased by 4.3 per cent. That's more than an estimated 6,000 additional bulk-billed trips to the GP, saving an estimated $252,000 in gap fees. In just two months, that's a huge difference. Another fabulous health investment for local people in my electorate is the Batemans Bay Urgent Care Clinic, which is helping local people access urgent critical care using just their Medicare cards, easing pressure on GPs and the local emergency departments. The Batemans Bay Urgent Care Clinic opened on 4 December, and, in its first two months of operation, nearly 1,900 patients were treated there. How great is that?</para>
<para>There's so much more in our plan, too. There are nearly 4,800 local families benefiting from cheaper child care. There's our expanded Paid Parental Leave scheme. Don't forget the local students now studying fee-free TAFE, the workers who've received pay rises, like those in aged care, who are now getting 15 per cent more, or the thousands of local people who have seen their income support payments boosted. We haven't stopped there, either. With our improved tax cuts plan set to leave 87 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate better off than under the Liberals' plan, we're delivering a tax cut to every local taxpayer, because it's the fair and right thing to do. The fact is our cost-of-living plan is supporting those doing it tough with targeted assistance while also tempering inflation. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering for our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the private member's motion moved by the member for Forde. The people I serve in the Longman electorate are just good Aussies, who simply want to be safe in their homes and out and about. They want to ensure that they have good roads and infrastructure to support our fast-growing community and a good healthcare system that ensures, when there are medical issues, they can be dealt with professionally, efficiently and affordably. And they want to be able to pay their kids' sporting fees. But the No. 1 thing they expect from their governments of all levels is to be able to afford to live their lives in a comfortable way. They want to be able to afford to pay their rent, mortgage, power and grocery bills without having to get a second job, which takes away from precious family time. Unfortunately, many are telling me they feel that this Labor government has let them down in these areas, especially in the cost of living.</para>
<para>When the coalition was in government, my community and all Australians enjoyed the lowest interest rates, the lowest credit card debt, the highest personal savings and the lowest unemployment rate in decades. They were promised at the election that they would be better off under Labor. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Forget the spin; the numbers simply don't lie. In its first 18 months of government, this Labor government has overseen a personal income tax rise of 27 per cent. Core inflation is at an incredible 5.4 per cent. Energy prices have risen despite a promise before the last election to reduce energy bills by $275. Interest rates have risen an incredible 12 times, which means someone with a $500,000 mortgage is now paying an extra $18,000 per annum, which is $346 per week. This not only affects homeowners but also renters, as we know that most rental properties are owned by mum and dad investors who have no choice, in most cases, but to pass on these interest rate hikes to already suffering tenants.</para>
<para>Labor sort of adopted the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts, which people do appreciate, but they simply do not go far enough. To put it into perspective, a worker on an average income has had their real net disposable income fall by an enormous 8.6 per cent. In dollar terms, this equates to a figure of just under $8,000 per annum—no wonder people are struggling. We have to stop talking about gross wages and talk about net wages after tax and real wages, which is where we measure what people actually get for their money and, quite simply, the only true measure.</para>
<para>What Labor has always failed to understand is that when you increase gross wages, this puts pressure on inflation. I know Minister Burke will say that the member for Longman is against wage growth. Let me state right now: that is not the case. I, more than anyone, want to see the financial burden on low- to middle-income earners ease, and I support real wage growth. But the fact is that when you keep increasing gross wages, this increases prices as these higher wage costs must be recouped by businesses. So I pose the question: what is the point in getting a $50 gross wage increase if $15 goes in tax and your weekly grocery bill goes up by $70? In real terms, it means you're actually $35 worse off—and that is exactly what is happening. Of course Labor aren't interested in helping people; they are only interested in the headline, which is reprehensible.</para>
<para>I was shocked that one of Labor's first decisions in government was to not continue the coalition's excellent low- and middle-income tax offset. This initiative gave workers on $120,000 per annum a boost of up to $1,500 when they did their tax return. I've had so many people ask me, after they had done their tax, why this cost-of-living measure had been quashed. My only reply is: good question.</para>
<para>Good government is about prioritising the most important issues that the people of Australia face, and I can tell you that many in my electorate are questioning the way this Labor government prioritises. They watched in dismay and disbelief as this government spent their first 15 months in charge using time, energy and money on a divisive referendum that cost taxpayers $450 million at a time when interest rates and inflation were increasing dramatically. It's what my constituents describe as being 'completely out of touch'. After this divisive referendum was soundly defeated, the government almost had an awakening and decided, due to the polling results, to do something about it. Unfortunately, as always with Labor governments, their solutions are rarely effective and I fear that Australians have not seen the worst of this government and that there is more pain to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion, to rebuff some of the things that have been said and to talk about some of the great things this government is doing to put downward pressure on living costs for Australians. It gives me the opportunity to talk about our policies on electricity, rent and child care, let alone the cheaper medicines that we have brought into fruition during this government, which are directly putting downward pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>Like all of us in here—you'd hope!—we talk to people in our electorates. I talk to people in my electorate of Adelaide; I talk to constituents continuously. There's no doubt that the cost of living is hitting hard no matter where you are. But before we dive into the present, let's not forget who steered us into this mess over the last 10 to 12 years. Under coalition leadership, Australia faced its deepest recession since 1959. With the Albanese Labor government, the ABS data provides that without our cost-of-living policies—in other words the policies that this Labor government has put into fruition—inflation would be 0.5 per cent higher. Strange they would say that—that is, if we were not in government, inflation will be higher. That's from the ABS data, which proves that, without our cost-of-living policies, inflation would be 0.5 per cent higher. The ABS also shows our policies on electricity, rent and child care have directly put downward pressure on inflation. Yet this opposition voted against all of those measures that are putting downward pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>Our budget strategy is solid. It's backed by the RBA, the IMF, the OECD and Fitch, and it has secured Australia's AAA rating. Let's keep it plain and simple: we should all be here to ensure every Aussie not only meets the basics but has more, that they have enough to put food on the table, a safe home, peace of mind that their hard-earned money is staying in their pockets. This cannot be a political game for either side. This ensures that whatever we do in this place has an effect on real lives. That's why I was proud to deliver in my electorate of Adelaide the news that every taxpayer will receive a tax cut under Labor's plan, with approximately 84 per cent receiving a bigger tax cut from 1 July. That's more money that they will have in their pocket. If we weren't in government, it would be less money.</para>
<para>It's a big deal, when you think that 11.5 million Australians, or 84 per cent of taxpayers, get a bigger cut than what was planned by the opposition and the Morrison plan back then. But here's the twist: the opposition wants to scrap it; they want to get rid of it, leading to higher taxes for those who can't afford it and who genuinely need the relief. It's quite baffling, when you think about it. They criticise us for not addressing the cost of living while constantly voting against measures aimed at fixing. The logic just doesn't add up. We heard the debate last week on those tax cuts, where they all spoke against them, yet they're voting for them. Why are they voting for them? Because they know it will put extra dollars into people's pockets.</para>
<para>Yet, regardless of the barriers facing this House, the Albanese government is not just talking. We are delivering. Things are tough for households—we know they are—and for businesses. But we've got a plan that is working. I'd just ask those on the other side to check the numbers. Quarterly inflation is down to 4.1 per cent, the lowest in two years. Its progress is maybe not perfect, but we're moving in the right direction. The Albanese Labor government is making changes because it sees what's really going on in 2024, in the present. Flash back five years and the coalition's plan, stage three, was locked in, but the world was a very different place back then. When things change, you've got to change your plan as well. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>We're boosting wages, keeping inflation in check, fighting for fair prices and giving real help for daily costs, like energy bills. And we're fighting for cheaper medication. We've seen the great things that have come into fruition here. So, when you hear what those on the other side are saying, I would tell the public to ignore it, because they're playing politics, and that's not what we do. Our record is straight and plain. It's a sign that we're doing something right. We're urging everyone to see the progress and to join us in securing a prosperous future for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an important motion that the member for Forde has raised today. The cost of living is impacting many people across the community, and the member for Forde has got a lot of support for this motion, including from the Prime Minister himself, at the Press Club. He likes to talk about how he stood up at the Press Club—as though anyone outside the Canberra bubble actually watches the Press Club addresses; let's be honest. But he did say in that address that the reason he broke his promise and misled the Australian people over 100 times was because his policies are not working. Eighteen months into this government and they have not addressed the cost-of-living crisis that this Prime Minister promised to solve before the last election. And they're actually making it worse every day: energy prices up, food prices up, electricity prices up, inflation continuing to increase.</para>
<para>It's interesting that the government's solution—a very good little political trick that this government has done—is to take with one hand and give back with the other. As the member for Longman said last year, many Australians were shocked when they got their tax return and it was about $1,500 short of what it normally was. The reason for that is that the low and middle income offset had ceased. We didn't hear anything from this government at the height of this cost-of-living crisis, 12 months ago. So, they were happy to take $1,500 from low- and middle-income Australians last year, in the middle of the year. They took that money away. And then in January the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the cabinet and the caucus broke their word to the Australian people that they took to the election. Their solution for Australians is not a dollar of relief today, not a dollar of relief in March, not a dollar of relief in April. Members of the Australian public who are on a low or middle income will get an extra $15 a week starting on 1 July. That is this Prime Minister's, this Treasurer's and this government's solution to the cost-of-living crisis that people are experiencing today. That's what happens when you have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who have spent their whole lives in this building, in politics. They don't understand the challenges that people are facing. They look at the challenges the Australian people are facing, and they look for a political solution.</para>
<para>We know that in December the Labor backbench were getting a little bit antsy. The member for Bennelong, the member for Macarthur and the member for Hunter all spoke out about the government's lack of focus on the cost-of-living crisis. Others, unnamed backbenchers, didn't have the courage of the member for Macarthur and others and didn't put their name to their challenges, but we know there was unrest. That's the real reason that this Prime Minister broke his word: because he didn't want to lose power. He must've rewatched <inline font-style="italic">The Killing Season</inline>. We know he loves documentaries. He probably put that on over Christmas and realised he had to do a little bit of work.</para>
<para>And then what did the Treasurer say? The Treasurer had one of those Freudian slips last week on ABC, on <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>. He misspoke. Mind you, Sarah Ferguson didn't pick him up on it—not a surprise. He misspoke and he said that we had to get these changes in before Dunkley. We have to get them in before the Dunkley by-election—those were the words of the Treasurer last Monday on ABC.</para>
<para>In one sentence, he summed up everything that is wrong with this government. They are focused on the politics and the spin. They think that $15 a day in five months time is the solution to this cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing. Let's be honest: under this government, Australians need to keep every dollar that they earn because costs are going up and up. A $275 decrease in electricity bills was what this Prime Minister promised before the election. We're not going to see that. We are seeing inflation continue to rise. At 4.1 per cent, it's almost double the target of 2.5 per cent. It's a long way off. The RBA governor herself has said this inflation is home grown and demand driven—because this government continues to make the wrong decisions on the economy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>The rising cost of living is something that the Albanese Labor government takes extremely seriously. There are many aspects to the rising cost of living involving the bare necessities—the cost of keeping a roof over your head, the cost of keeping the lights on, the cost of feeding yourself or your family. Buying groceries recently has been an experience in which all but the wealthiest among us would have noticed the cost of our weekly shops going up and the quantities in our trolleys going down.</para>
<para>This is a crisis that affects everyone, no matter where you are in the country, but it is certainly something that regional communities and those already doing it tough are feeling the hardest. My home state of South Australia, in particular, is hardest experiencing these rising costs at the check-out. In fact, between 2021 and 2023, Adelaide grocery prices experienced a cumulative increase of 16.4 per cent, a steep increase compared to the 14.8 per cent increase in Sydney.</para>
<para>In the 2022-23 financial year, only 18 per cent of the food and grocery sector market share went outside the four biggest players in that market, with 10 per cent going to Aldi and seven per cent going to Metcash, who owns stores such as IGA and Foodland. This means that a whopping 28 per cent of the market share went to Coles and 37 per cent went to Woolworths. With 65 per cent of the market concentrated between two players, you would be forgiven for using the term 'duopoly' to accurately describe the state of play in the food and grocery sector. This is contrasted against the UK, where the big two, Sainsbury's and Tesco, account for 42 per cent of the food and grocery sector.</para>
<para>These findings go hand in hand with those of the UBS Evidence Lab, who tracked online prices of around 60,000 grocery items at Coles and Woolies over the last financial year. Across those 60,000 items, it was noted that prices increased by 9.6 per cent during that time—a time when CPI figures for food and non-alcoholic beverages increased by 7.9 per cent.</para>
<para>This is just one of the symptoms of a highly concentrated grocery market, with many more negative impacts being felt all the way down the line from farm gate to dinner plate—impacts like families relying on charity for their household groceries and food banks noticing an increase in families using their services on a more regular basis from households with one or two incomes. This has meant that families have been resorting to buying and making do with less after many have already sacrificed fresh protein, fruit and vegetables due to the prohibitive costs compared to just a few years ago. This is in stark contrast to what is experienced by many in the agricultural sector who are not seeing the price increases experienced by consumers correlate to anywhere near the price they are taking from their biggest customers. 'The price they are taking' is an apt phrase indeed, as many farmers, some more quietly than others, are relegated to being price takers in a market that is as concentrated as it currently is.</para>
<para>As a member of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, I was proud to have been part of the inquiry on food security. The committee's reported entitled <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">ustralian food story</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">feeding the nation and beyond</inline> touches on food security through a number of lenses, from health all the way through our national security. It also emphasises the impacts of food insecurity. It speaks to the impacts of losing Australia's agricultural industry, which supports thousands of jobs nationwide beyond the 1,700 direct jobs the industry supports in my electorate of Spence. I would also direct members to read the <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">nquiry into price gouging and unfair pricing practices</inline> final report, launched by Professor Allan Fels AO, for further commentary on the impacts of our food and grocery market. That forms a part of his report. Also, I would direct members to the ongoing inquiry being undertaken by the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices.</para>
<para>Some of the issues relating to supermarket pricing, the structure of the market and the impact on the cost of living are systemic and structural. This is why the Albanese Labor government appointed Dr Craig Emerson to lead the government's 2023-24 Review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. This is coupled with an additional $1.1 million in funding to consumer group Choice to provide price transparency within the sector and provide much-needed pricing information for consumers so they can make better informed choices while this report and others are ongoing.</para>
<para>In closing, I would encourage as many stakeholders as possible to engage with the consultation process and to be part of a solution that positively impacts on producers and consumers alike.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to start by commending the member for Spence. I'm lucky enough to serve on the Agriculture Committee with him. We spent some time together on that inquiry into food security. I know his words and his passion for this industry are heartfelt, so I want to commend him for that. We do have a lot of back and forth in this house, but I think it's important that, when we are bipartisan, we should acknowledge that. This is a complicated and challenging issue that we need to address for consumers and for suppliers and farmers.</para>
<para>It would be remiss of me if, at the first time I've had this year to speak about farmers and suppliers to Woolworths and Coles, I didn't mention and acknowledge the passing last week of Bill Montague at the age of 97. Bill Montague started helping his father with fruit through his primary school years. He started his own company in 1948 at 22 years of age, and he planted that first orchard in Narre Warren North, in my electorate, in 1950. If anyone in this House or at home—or yourself, Deputy Speaker—has eaten a Jazz apple, that's a Montague's apple. The Montague family brought the Jazz apple into this country in about 2003, I believe it was. It's an example of why we need to support farmers and small businesses when they start back in the fifties and grow through to the Jazz apple.</para>
<para>Bill and the Montague family have had a huge impact on agriculture in Casey and across Australia. That was recognised when Bill received the Order of Australia medal, the OAM, for his services to the fruit industry in 2006. He was a man of character, a man of business and definitely a man of good judgement. That good judgement was demonstrated through his successful businesses but also through his love of the Collingwood Football Club. He clearly had great character. I know that for Bill and the family it did mean a lot that Collingwood won the premiership this year. I know the member for Spence is a good Collingwood man as well. It genuinely meant a lot to Bill that he was able to see that last premiership. I want to acknowledge Bill Montague. Vale Bill.</para>
<para>The reason I wanted to share Bill's story was because these are the challenges that we are trying to address. We need to make sure in the future other young farmers and other entrepreneurs can start an orchard and then 70 or 80 years later it become a successful, thriving, family business that feeds the nation. That is the challenge that we face. It is under pressure, as the member for Spence said, due to the size of Woolworths and Coles.</para>
<para>I spent over a decade working in food manufacturing, supplying products to Woolworths and Coles, so I have seen first-hand the tactics that they use to put pressure on suppliers and on farmers and, in many cases, it is unconscionable and unacceptable. We also need to recognise that it is the supplier in most cases who feels the brunt of that. We saw today in media reports that Coles are putting pressure on to suppliers to drop their prices so that they can pass it on to consumers. Without looking at the details, I can guarantee that Coles will not be dropping the margin that they take home; they will make sure they deliver their profitability at an executive level to get their bonuses.</para>
<para>What is happening as we speak is a buyer from Coles is going to a small business and there is a strong chance that Coles makes up about 50 to 60, maybe 70, per cent of that business's sales. The buyer is saying to that business owner who has taken a risk, invested millions of dollars of capital into the family business today and last week and in the weeks to come, and saying, 'You need to make a decision. You need to drop your price. I don't care what your unit cost is. I don't care if it profitable or not. You need to drop your price so we can pass it on to the consumer.' The business has to decide: do they die a death by 1,000 cuts and deliver an unprofitable product? Because if they do not give it to the Coles buyer today, they might not get delisted today, but, we all know in the industry that in six months time when the range review comes around, they will cop it in the neck. That is the reality of what happens when you have a duopoly controlling the market. It is a complicated, challenging issue, but we need to do everything we can to make sure we protect farmers, suppliers and small businesses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Spence for moving this motion and for highlighting the importance of ensuring a competitive and robust marketplace for both consumers and suppliers. There is no better example of the impact that anticompetitive practices can have on people in my community than at the supermarket checkout. We saw this last week when the ACTU released the report from its inquiry into price gouging and unfair pricing practices led by Professor Alan Fels, which documented many examples of uncompetitive behaviour experienced by Australians at our supermarkets. For example, one consumer, John, submitted to the Fels inquiry the following: 'Up until August 2022, Coles and Woolies sold 200 grams of Robert Timms coffee for eight bucks, or $4 when on special. In early August, Coles increased the shelf price to $12.70 per jar. However, a couple of weeks later, the price was reduced to $10.70 per jar, with a shelf tag saying the price was now down, down.' Practices like this, where retailers advertise 30 per cent price increases as discounts, are unfairly and deceptively punishing consumers at a time when cost-of-living pressures are already putting Australians under the pump. That is why the Albanese Labor government has committed to an ACCC review of supermarket pricing to examine the competitiveness of retail prices that Australians are paying for everyday groceries. This comprehensive inquiry will consider the structure of the supermarket industry right up and down the supply chain to ensure that all factors influencing prices are considered and that Australians do get a fair deal.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is also partnering with the respected consumer group Choice to provide price transparency and comparison reports on supermarkets to better equip Australians to make informed decisions about where they shop. It is a basic economic principle that giving buyers more information about pricing will boost the efficiency of markets and ultimately give consumers a better deal. The Choice reports will do exactly that by providing better information on the comparative costs of grocery goods at different retailers, highlighting those charging the most as well as those charging the least.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is also committed to ensuring that supermarket suppliers get a fair deal—that the Aussie farmers and producers stocking our shelves right around the country are getting a reasonable price for their produce. That's why we have commenced an independent review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, led by Dr Craig Emerson, to look at whether the code is effective in improving the conduct of supermarkets towards their suppliers. We know that there is an enormous imbalance of bargaining power between farmers and our major supermarkets, which can result in harmful practices and poor business behaviour at the supermarket end. For example, the Fels inquiry found that power imbalances in the grocery sector often result in farmers being forced to accept prices that don't cover their costs or reflect the fair value of their labour and investment. Given that our supermarkets are enjoying record profit margins while consumers and suppliers alike battle with rising costs, these reviews are essential to ensure that the sector gives all Australians a fair deal.</para>
<para>This is just another example of how the Albanese Labor government's focus on the cost of living, wages, jobs and competition is ensuring that everyone does their bit to provide much-needed relief to taxpayers and consumers. That's why we've introduced tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer from 1 July. It's why we're delivering $23 billion in targeted cost-of-living relief. We're making medicines cheaper, delivering cheaper child care, providing electricity bill relief, expanding paid parental leave, providing more fee-free TAFE places and seeing wages rise at the fastest rate in a decade. We've done this while delivering the first budget surplus in 15 years—the first surplus since Labor was last in government. After nearly a decade of Liberal economic mismanagement that left us with flatlining wages, the worst productivity figures for 50 years and $1 trillion of Liberal debt, the Albanese Labor government is getting on with building a stronger and more competitive economy that works for Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to hear this. I commend the member for Spence for bringing this motion forward. However, I've been around long enough to have heard a lot of these discussions before. I take you back to the Rudd-Gillard government. In the run-up to the 2007 election, the person who was to become the Prime Minister said: 'We're going to drive down your grocery prices and your fuel prices. We're going to have an inquiry, and then we're going to have GroceryWatch and FuelWatch.' The minister charged with that responsibility during that government was Minister Chris Bowen, who is now the energy minister. The minister who then took over from Chris Bowen was a minister named Craig Emerson, who saw the farce of GroceryWatch and FuelWatch and knew that it wasn't working at all, and he just dropped it and wiped it away.</para>
<para>So it is rather interesting to consider. I have the greatest respect for the minister and Craig Emerson in his capacity and appointment. He certainly has the ability to come up with a very good inquiry. But I think also that, deep in his heart of hearts, he knows that he will not be able to make any difference whatsoever, as my mother used to say, to the price of paint. You won't make any difference to the price of groceries.</para>
<para>What we have is a market in Australia dominated by two main players. No government—not this government, not the three governments we had, under three different prime ministers, while we were in government, or before that the two governments, under two different prime ministers, on the Labor side—have made any difference to grocery prices. No. They just keep going up and up and up. And the sizes of the products—as the shoppers who are watching this debate will know—get smaller and smaller and smaller. My wife happens to like a certain brand of marmalade, and the jar used to be about that big. Then it went to that big and got dearer. Now it's down to that big, and it's dearer again. So we're losing at both ends. We're not only seeing the prices increasing, but the size of the product and the volume are decreasing.</para>
<para>After all the fine speeches here today around reducing prices at the supermarket, with investment by government to do that—so we will direct—I put it to you that not one thing will change with regard to the structure of the grocery industry in Australia. Things will only change when the buyer, the shopper, decides to be very clear and concise about their shopping and, rather than taking the convenient Woolies store or the Coles store—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Go to Dandenong Market!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>goes to Dandenong Market or perhaps Aldi for this, Woolworths for that, Coles for that and IGA for something else. Me, I'm a shocker. I like to go to IGA because they're not owned by the big guys. They're not owned by the internationals. They're just us, and there are good local people working down there. I love going to IGA. This, to me, just reeks of a government saying: 'The cost of living is high. Look at us. Look at us. We're doing something about it.' No, they're not. Don't be hoodwinked. This is just all froth and bubble and will continue to be. In two years time, when this report finally comes through from Craig Emerson, and all the recommendations are there about what they might do—it is the same report that the Rudd government worked on before. I think Mr Emerson could walk into the room, write the report and walk out—just change the date. It won't make any difference until you completely deregulate.</para>
<para>I'll leave you with this. I spoke with an independent grocer the other day, and he said, 'There's the real price of the product, and here's the majors' price of the product—'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I thank the honourable member for Monash. I call the honourable member for Hasluck.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be difficult to find anyone in Lesmurdie, Midland or Ellenbrook—anyone across the suburbs of Hasluck—who hasn't noticed the increase in the cost of the weekly grocery shop. There are many factors that feed into increased costs at the supermarket. They include fuel and other transport costs and supply issues. It is, however, a good time to ask questions about competition in the sector and whether the settings and regulation are right for the time. Unlike the member for Monash, this government is not defeatist, and we will investigate and look into where there may be unfair behaviour or price gouging occurring in the supermarket sector, because it affects every Australian, at a time when making ends meet is difficult.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has already acted to assist with the cost of living. We have delivered an array of cost-of-living measures, including electricity bill relief, making medicines cheaper by reducing the maximum cost of a prescription and allowing 60-day dispensing. We've done the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's 40-year history, with bulk-billed urgent-care clinics opening up across the nation, including in Midland, in Hasluck; cheaper child care; expanded parental leave; fee-free TAFE; support for real wage increases; and, of course, now tax cuts for every working Australian.</para>
<para>The supermarket inquiry needs to be viewed in this light because it's another way that the government can take action to ensure there are no extra or unnecessary pressures on the household budget, because grocery retail is big business. In Australia our supermarket system is dominated by two large players, and questions over healthy competition need to be directed towards them in the first instance. When it comes to the range of supermarkets, Australian consumers basically do not have much choice when they purchase their daily necessities. Growers are also hostage to the lack of choice.</para>
<para>For each product we buy at the shops there is often a multitude of primary producers who labour to create the products that we eventually buy. Unfortunately, it is always going to be easier for a large supermarket to deal with a much smaller number of distributors, and easier still to deal with just one. This, however, can become a choke point insofar as competition goes. A sole distributor—even in one state or region—can wield much greater power than a single small grower or producer. An example of this sort of choke point has arisen recently in Hasluck, where local Swan Valley table grape growers are having difficulty moving product because of the actions of a distributor and the attitude of the large supermarket chains. I've referred the matter to the ACCC for investigation and hope for a speedy resolution of these immediate issues, but it is an example of why it is useful to have this inquiry and why we need to address competition issues in every sector from time to time. It is a moving feast. When we feel or suspect that our local growers—some of whom have carried on family businesses in our local areas for generations—are being exploited by big business, then we are compelled to investigate and to take action.</para>
<para>Relationships within the supermarket sector are governed in part by the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Regulation 2015. Division 4 provides for certain notice periods and reasons to be provided when a retailer decides to delist a product. The reasons for these provisions are fairness and predictability. When there are grapes on the vine or a perishable product in cold storage or goods in transit and contracts precedent in place for products or their component ingredients, then proper periods of notice are required for forward planning. It must be made clear to retail giants and distributors that hold great market power in a particular region that the provisions of the code are not optional extras but are to be enforced strictly. We need to keep in mind who is actually creating the products in the first place.</para>
<para>The seriousness of the government's approach is exemplified by the fact that we are not sitting on our hands or relying on one measure. The ACCC is charged with a review of competition in the sector, and former government minister Dr Emerson is conducting an independent review into the efficacy of the code. The government is partnering with CHOICE, an independent source that I trust and that I know has the trust of many Australian consumers to help keep an eye on prices and price movements. Consumers and local growers only have power when they have choice. The government has a role to play in ensuring that competition is fair and rules are enforced. The Swan Valley growers and all of the primary producers in Hasluck and across this nation can know that I have their back in ensuring that the framework they work within is fair to all players and is not biased towards the big end of town.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Spence for his important motion today. There's no doubt that cost-of-living pressures are a critical issue for Australians across the country right now. The high inflation rate has triggered 13 interest rate rises and increases in energy, petrol and grocery prices. On top of that, the housing shortage crisis has seen rents soar. Australians are doing it tough.</para>
<para>Although I acknowledge these inflationary pressures are largely the result of global events out of the government's control, there is still much the government can do. As recently as last week, an inquiry commissioned by the ACTU and conducted by Professor Allan Fels found that some of the highest price increases have occurred in sectors where a few players have disproportionate market power over consumers, supply chains and their workforce. The inquiry also found that the surge in corporate profits after the initial stage of the pandemic could not be explained by increasing sales or output. The supermarket sector, where there is an effective duopoly of market share, is one such example, so I very much welcomed the government's January announcement of the ACCC investigation into pricing practices of supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale, farm gate and retail prices. In other words, are the big supermarkets engaging in anticompetitive behaviour and price gouging? This is a start.</para>
<para>But, critically, Professor Fels found that it was not just in the supermarkets where these price increases have been the sharpest. Other sectors where just a few players enjoy a large share of the market, including banks, airlines and electricity providers, were also named as having potential for anticompetitive behaviour. Supermarkets are, indeed, an important place to start, because grocery prices affect us all, but every Australian also needs banks and electricity, so these, too, must become the focus of the government's attention.</para>
<para>I'd like to talk specifically about the electricity providers and energy prices today, because last month we learned that, due to the growing proportion of renewable energy supplying the sector, wholesale energy prices across Australia's main electricity market had almost halved in 2023 when compared to the previous year. This resulted in a drop of 24 per cent in the prices paid by retail customers. This is, indeed, wonderful news. But, unfortunately, these lower wholesale prices have yet to be translated into lower household energy bills.</para>
<para>We know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy and that transforming Australia into a renewable energy superpower will be an enormous win for consumers, as cheaper energy means that cheaper prices will flow through not only to electricity bills but also to every sector of our society as it becomes cheaper to run businesses and to transport goods. The use of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy will eventually eradicate petrol bills. It is critical, however, that we ensure these lower wholesale energy prices are not gobbled up as profits by energy provider companies but, instead, flow through as savings to households and businesses so we can see lower prices on our power bills. The government must also pay close attention to this space.</para>
<para>On 1 July the Default Market Offer will set the annual price cap. This is the default safety net price for consumers. It is a price cap on how much energy retailers can charge electricity consumers on default plans. This is when we will see whether the lower wholesale energy prices are being passed on to Australian businesses and households.</para>
<para>While I very much welcome the government's announcement of the ACCC inquiry into supermarket competition and prices, more needs to be done in other critical sectors as well, to identify and stamp out the potential for anticompetitive behaviour by energy providers, airlines and banks. Most pressing, I believe, is ensuring the reduction in wholesale electricity prices is passed on to our households and our businesses. This must be a priority for government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor knows that cost-of-living pressures and, especially, the cost of groceries are putting Australians under the pump. Last year, this government put in measure after measure to provide cost-of-living relief: cheaper medicines, power bill supplements, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, a tripling of the bulk-billing supplement and much more. But, while Australians tightened their belts and this government worked to control inflation, it turns out that not everyone was on the same side. The two major supermarket chains in Australia, Coles and Woolworths, reported record profits. Coles' profit was up $1.098 billion, or 5.3 per cent, on the previous year and Woolworths' was up $1.62 billion, or 4.6 per cent, on its previous.</para>
<para>To be clear, this is profit. This doesn't reflect an increase in the cost of goods sold. It's not flowing through to the farm gate. The money isn't going to farmers or food producers. The money isn't going to freight or packaging. This is their profit after all the cost of goods sold is already taken into account. So where did the profit come from? Most Australian shoppers will be unsurprised to hear that this profit increase reflects grocery price increases. When the government is working to contain inflation and when Australians are tightening their belts to get inflation under control, these supermarket giants are fuelling inflation by putting up prices.</para>
<para>The recent Inquiry into Price Gouging and Unfair Pricing Practices, commissioned by the ACTU and undertaken by Professor Allan Fels, received 325 submissions on the subject of supermarket pricing, more than twice the number of submissions received for any other sector. Australians know about this issue and they care. Australia has a highly concentrated supermarket sector, with Woolworths and Coles accounting for around 65 per cent of the market, and this duopoly has meant limited competition and given them significant power not to reduce prices. The ACTU inquiry found that supermarkets were very quick to pass on any increase in their costs but very slow to pass on savings. An example given was that it took six months for the falling cost of lamb to be passed on to the consumer, and then it was positioned as a Christmas gift from Woolworths to shoppers, whereas in reality it reflected the lower cost of goods sold. If it was a gift from anyone, it was a gift from the farmers who were being paid less for their lamb. The supermarket had been enjoying the higher profit margin for the last six months.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has commissioned an ACCC review on supermarket pricing, an independent review of the food and grocery code. The ACCC inquiry will examine the competitiveness of retail prices for everyday groceries. The 12-month inquiry will consider the current structure of the supermarket industry at the supply, wholesale and retail levels; competition in the industry and how it's changed since 2008, including online shopping; the competitiveness of small and independent retailers, including in regional and remote areas; the pricing practices of supermarkets; factors influencing prices along the supply chain, and any impediments to competitive pricing along the supply chain; and other factors impacting competition, including loyalty programs and third-party discounts. The ACCC will provide their findings and recommendations to the government in early 2025, and we will work with them to ensure that shoppers are getting a fair deal.</para>
<para>The food and grocery code regulates business dealings between farmers, suppliers, wholesalers and supermarkets and addresses harmful practices in the grocery sector stemming from an imbalance of bargaining power between these groups. Through protecting suppliers against business behaviour that affects the growth and sustainability of the grocery industry, the code is intended to prevent harms being passed on through the supply chain to Australian consumers. Importantly for consumers, we are also providing choice, with $1.1 million to provide price transparency and comparison reports on a quarterly basis for three years so consumers can have clear information on the best place for them to buy their groceries. This will start from the second quarter of 2024 and provide shoppers with increased transparency on comparative costs of a basket of goods at different retailers. It will give Australians better information to make informed choices about where they shop. Groceries are a vital part of expenditure for every Australian household. I commend the government for commissioning the ACCC inquiry, and I'm sure all Australian shoppers will be very interested in the findings.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a bit like the arsonist calling the fire brigade: start the fire and then expect help when the fire is out of control.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're out of your seat, so you can't actually say anything, Member for Lyons. Before the members for Hasluck and Spence start, I'll give them the same little reminder—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is true!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I shouldn't overrule the Deputy Speaker. The fact remains: Labor has been dragged kicking and screaming to ask for a review into pricing in supermarkets and an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry. It is too little, too late. This problem has been going on under your watch and you did nothing about it. When everybody was going absolutely berserk about the cost of living, Labor finally listened to the National Party, who had been calling for this, along with the rest of the coalition, for 12 long months, if not longer. We were calling for an ACCC inquiry. What did Labor say? Nothing. They just let people pay more and more every time they went to the supermarket, and, quite frankly, every time they went to the petrol browser—every time they went anywhere. What did Labor do? They just towed the line of their union mates, because that's what Labor always does. Now, when the cost of living is a fire raging out of control, Labor says, 'We need an ACCC inquiry.'</para>
<para>You should have listened to the Nationals. You should have listened to the coalition a long time ago and done something about it then. But, when it's all too little and all too late, Labor come to the table and say, 'Look at us!' They puff their chests out and say: 'Aren't we good? We're going to have an inquiry. We're going to have Dr Emerson.' I like Dr Emerson. He's a good man. He was a good minister.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Riverina will resume his seat. The debate is interrupted and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>107</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="r7134" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>107</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The following message from the Senate has been received:</para>
<quote><para class="block">On 7 December 2023, the House concurred with the Senate's action in dividing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and agreed to an amendment incorporating the following provisions of that bill in a separate bill:</para></quote>
<list>Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 5A, Division 2 of Part 7, and Parts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of Schedule 1, incorporated as an amending Schedule, "Schedule 1—Main amendments"</list>
<list>Schedule 5, incorporated as an amending Schedule, "Schedule 5—Amendment of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992".</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate returns those provisions to the House in the form of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. The Senate inserted a title and enacting words and amended the bill as indicated in Part A of the annexed Schedule and, after ordering the bill be printed, agreed to it with the further amendments in Part B of the annexed Schedule. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in the amendments in both Part A and Part B of the Schedule.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</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 the amendments be considered immediately.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senate's amendments—</inline></para>
<para>PART A</para>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate to the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 that were incorporated in a separate bill</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Govt (2) [sheet PU108]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the following be inserted at the beginning of the separate bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to workplace relations, certain independent contractors, unfair contracts, the road transport industry and registered organisations, and for related purposes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Parliament of Australia enacts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Short title</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Act is the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Schedules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legislation that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Govt (3) [sheet PU108]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That Part 18 of Schedule 1 to the separate bill be omitted and substituted with the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 18 — Application and transitional provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">308 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 16 — Main amendments made by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">100 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amended Act</inline> means this Act as amended by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amending Act</inline> means the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">101 Resolving uncertainties and difficulties about interaction between fair work instruments and the definition of casual employee and employee choice</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make a determination varying a fair work instrument that is a modern award, enterprise agreement or workplace determination that was made before the commencement of this clause:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an enterprise agreement or workplace determination—on application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by the enterprise agreement or workplace determination; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a modern award:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) by the FWC on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on application by an employer organisation or employee organisation entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employer or employee covered by the award.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make a determination varying the instrument:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to resolve an uncertainty or difficulty relating to the interaction between the instrument and any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the definition of casual employee in section 15A of the amended Act (including to deal with uncertainty or difficulty arising from the circumstances in which employees are to be employed as casual employees under the agreement);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the provisions of Division 4A of Part 2-2 of the amended Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to make the instrument operate effectively with that section or those provisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A variation of a fair work instrument under this clause operates from the day specified in the determination, which may be a day before the determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the determination relates to a modern award, the FWC must publish the award as varied as soon as practicable on the FWC's website or by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">102 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of definition of casual employee</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Section 15A of the amended Act applies on and after commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before, on or after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite subclause (1), for the purposes of applying section 15A of the amended Act on and after commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before commencement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) conduct of an employer and employee that occurred before commencement is to be disregarded for the purposes of applying subsections 15A(2) and (3) in relation to that employee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if an employee's contract of employment immediately before commencement included a term of a kind referred to in subsection 15A(4)—that subsection is taken not to apply in relation to the employee for the remainder of the term of that contract.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Continuing casual employees</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of subclause (1), an employee who was, immediately before commencement, a casual employee of an employer within the meaning of section 15A as in force at that time, is taken to be a casual employee of the employer within the meaning of section 15A of the amended Act on and after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) An employer of an employee referred to in subclause (3) must, despite subsection 125B(2), give the employee a Casual Employment Information Statement within 3 months after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of employee choice and casual conversion provisions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The amendments of Division 4A of Part 2-2 made by the amending Act apply on and after commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before, on or after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of applying subclause (5) in relation to employment relationships entered into before commencement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any period of employment as a casual employee that occurred before commencement is to be disregarded for the purposes of paragraphs 66AAB(c) and (d) of the amended Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) paragraph 66AAB(d) of the amended Act is taken to include a requirement that in the period referred to in that paragraph the employee has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) been given a response before commencement by the employer under section 66G refusing a request made by the employee under section 66F; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) been given a response after commencement by the employer under section 66G refusing a request made by the employee under section 66F (as those sections continue to apply because of subclauses (6A) and (6B)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6A) Despite subclause (5), section 66F as in force immediately before commencement continues to apply after commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before commencement for a period of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an employer that is a small business employer—12 months from commencement; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for an employer that is not a small business employer—6 months from commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6B) Despite subclause (5), sections 66G to 66J as in force immediately before commencement continue to apply after commencement in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made before commencement by an employee under section 66F for which, immediately before commencement, a response under section 66G or a notice under section 66J had not been given; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a request made after commencement by an employee under section 66F (as that section continues to apply because of subclause (6A)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Despite subclause (5), sections 66M and 739 as in force immediately before commencement continue to apply after commencement to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) disputes that arose before commencement relating to the operation of Division 4A of Part 2-2; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) disputes that arise after commencement relating to the operation of sections 66F to 66J (as those sections continue to apply because of subclauses (6A) and (6B)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Definitions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) In this clause:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commencement </inline>means the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">103 Transitional provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of applying section 66L of this Act during the period beginning when this clause commences and ending when Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act commences, the reference to "this Division" in that provision is taken to include a reference to that Division as amended by that Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Amendments made by Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">104 Replacement agreements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subsections 58(4) and (5), as inserted by the amending Act, apply in relation to single-enterprise agreements made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act, whether the single interest employer agreement or supported bargaining agreement was made before or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Section 180B and subsection 240A(4), as inserted by the amending Act, apply in relation to single interest employer agreements and supported bargaining agreements whether made before or after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections 236(1B) and 238(2), as inserted by the amending Act, apply in relation to applications made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act, whether the single interest employer agreement or supported bargaining agreement was made before or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">105 Variation of supported bargaining authorisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subsection 245(2), as inserted by the amending Act, applies in relation to enterprise agreements and workplace determinations that come into operation before or after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">106 Application of better off overall test to replacement agreements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sections 193 and 193A, as amended by the amending Act, apply in relation to single-enterprise agreements made on or after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act, whether the supported bargaining agreement or single interest employer agreement was made before or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 4 — Amendments made by Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">107 Model terms and enterprise agreements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite the amendments made by Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act, sections 202, 205 and 737, as in force immediately before the commencement of that Part, continue to apply in relation to an enterprise agreement if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before that commencement, the employer concerned asks the employees to approve the agreement by voting for it; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by that vote, the employees approve the agreement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the FWC approves the agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In deciding, after the commencement of that Part, whether to approve the agreement mentioned in subclause (1) (in that form), the FWC must disregard the amendments made by that Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">108 Model terms and copied State instruments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the amendments made by Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act, section 768BK, as in force immediately before the commencement of that Part, continues to apply in relation to a model term that is taken, before that commencement, to be a term of a copied State instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109 Disallowance — model terms made before commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 42 (disallowance) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline> does not apply to a determination made in the exercise of a power under subsection 202(5), 205(3), 737(1) or 768BK(1A) of the amended Act, before the commencement of Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act, relying on subsection 4(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection 4(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline> provides for the exercise of powers between the passing and commencement of an Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5 — Amendments made by Part 5A of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110 Application of amendments — intractable bargaining workplace determinations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies to the following provisions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) section 270A of the amended Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) subsection 274(3) of the amended Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The provisions apply in relation to determinations made on or after the commencement of Part 5A of Schedule 1 to the amending Act (including determinations in relation to which the declaration concerned, or the application for the declaration concerned, was made before that commencement).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The provisions also apply in relation to determinations made before that commencement, in the circumstances specified in clause 111.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111 Application of amendments to intractable bargaining workplace determinations made before commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies in relation to an intractable bargaining workplace determination made before the commencement of Part 5A of Schedule 1 to the amending Act (the <inline font-style="italic">original determination</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) On application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by the original determination, the FWC must make a determination (a <inline font-style="italic">variation</inline>) varying the original determination where required so as to give effect to the provisions to which clause 110 applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application under subclause (2) must be made before the end of the period of 12 months commencing on the day Part 5A of Schedule 1 to the amending Act commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC may make a variation despite paragraph 603(3)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Any variation must be made by a Full Bench.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A variation operates from the day specified by the FWC in the variation, which must not be a day before the variation is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 — Amendments made by Part 9 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">112 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 357, as amended by Part 9 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act, applies in relation to representations made on or after the commencement of that Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 7 — Amendments made by Part 10 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113 Application of amendments — right of entry</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of subsection 510(1) made by Part 10 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act apply in relation to each entry permit held by a permit holder whether issued before, on or after the commencement of that Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 8 — Amendments made by Part 11 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">114 Penalties for contravention of civil remedy provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Changes to amounts of pecuniary penalties and serious contraventions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments of Part 4-1 made by Division 1 of Part 11 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act apply in relation to conduct engaged in after the commencement of that Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of section 557, conduct engaged in before that commencement cannot constitute the same course of conduct as conduct engaged in after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Changes relating to underpayments</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The amendments of Part 4-1 made by Division 3 of Part 11 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act apply in relation to conduct engaged in after the commencement of that Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of section 557, conduct engaged in before that commencement cannot constitute the same course of conduct as conduct engaged in after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 17 — Amendments made by Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">115 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amended Act</inline> means this Act as amended by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amending Act</inline> means the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commencement</inline> means the commencement of item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">old Act </inline>means this Act as in force immediately before commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Transitional provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">116 Relationships in existence as at commencement or entered into on or after commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subject to this Schedule, section 15AA of the amended Act applies on and after commencement to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a relationship between an individual and a person entered into before commencement that is in existence as at commencement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a relationship between an individual and a person entered into on or after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite section 40A, section 7 of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>, as in force from time to time, applies in relation to the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 7 of the<inline font-style="italic"> Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline> provides for the effect of amendment and repeal of provisions of Acts, including in relation to rights, liabilities, penalties and forfeitures etc. accrued or incurred before the repeal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">117 References to employees etc. in fair work instruments made before commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies to a fair work instrument that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) was made before commencement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation on or after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A reference in the fair work instrument to an employee or an employer is taken, on and after commencement, to include a reference to an employee or an employer, as the case requires, within the meaning of section 15AA of the amended Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">118 Entitlements determined by reference to length of a period of employment etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately before commencement, an individual was not an employee of a person within the ordinary meaning of that expression; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) because of the operation of section 15AA of the amended Act, on commencement, the individual becomes an employee of the person, within the ordinary meaning of that expression, in respect of that relationship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of determining whether the individual has a right or entitlement under the amended Act or under a fair work instrument in respect of the employment of the individual, being a right or entitlement calculated by reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the individual's length of service (however described) as an employee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a minimum period of employment (however described) of the individual;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the nature of the relationship between the individual and the person in respect of a period or periods before commencement is to be ascertained in accordance with the old Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">119 Old Act applies to proceedings on foot as at commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act, the old Act continues to apply, on and after commencement, as if that amendment had not been made, in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application made, or proceedings on foot, as at commencement, other than an application or proceedings prescribed by the regulations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an application for review of, or an appeal relating to, an application or proceedings referred to in paragraph (a) (whether the application for review was made, or the appeal proceedings were brought, before, on or after commencement).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), an application or proceedings are on foot until all rights of review and appeal in relation to the application or proceedings have expired or have been exhausted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">120 FWC power to deal with uncertainties or difficulties arising from the operation of section 15AA of the amended Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make a determination varying a fair work instrument in order to resolve an uncertainty or difficulty relating to the operation or effect of the fair work instrument, being an uncertainty or difficulty arising as a result of, or in connection with, the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make a determination under subclause (1) varying a modern award:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application by an employer, employee, organisation or outworker entity covered by the modern award; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on application by an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more employers or employees covered by the modern award; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the modern award includes outworker terms—on application by an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more outworkers to whom the outworker terms relate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may make a determination under subclause (1) varying an enterprise agreement or a workplace determination:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application by any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) one or more of the employers covered by the enterprise agreement or workplace determination;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an employee covered by the enterprise agreement or workplace determination;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) an employee organisation covered by the enterprise agreement or workplace determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC may make a determination under subclause (1) varying an FWC order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) by a person affected by the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the FWC order is of a kind prescribed by the regulations—by a person prescribed by the regulations in relation to that kind of order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A variation of a fair work instrument under this clause operates from the day specified in the determination, which may be a day before the determination was made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The regulations may provide as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that this clause applies, or does not apply, to a specified fair work instrument or a specified class of fair work instrument;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that this clause applies, or does not apply, to a specified uncertainty or difficulty, or a specified class of uncertainty or difficulty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Regulations about transitional matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">121 General power for regulations to deal with transitional etc. matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The regulations may make provisions of a transitional, application or saving nature in relation to the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The regulations may make provisions of a transitional, application or saving nature in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person becoming an employer because of the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an individual becoming an employee because of the amendment made by item 237 of Part 15 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">122 Other general provisions about regulations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies to regulations made for the purposes of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003 </inline>does not apply to the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) regulations are expressed to commence from a date (the <inline font-style="italic">registration date</inline>) before the regulations are registered under the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person engaged in conduct before the registration date; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) but for the retrospective effect of the regulations, the conduct would not have contravened a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then a court must not convict the person of an offence, or order the person to pay a pecuniary penalty, in relation to the conduct on the grounds that it contravened a provision of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 18 — Amendments made by Part 16 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">123 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amended Act</inline> means this Act as amended by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">amending Act</inline> means the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commencement</inline> means the commencement of item 238 of Part 16 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">old Act </inline>means this Act as in force immediately before commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Transitional provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">124 Unfair deactivation and unfair termination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Part 3A-3 (unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) applies to a deactivation or termination that occurs after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of determining under paragraph 536LD(c) whether an employee-like worker has been performing work for a period of at least 6 months, a period or periods before commencement are not to be counted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of determining under paragraph 536LE(c) whether a regulated road transport contractor has been performing work for a period of at least 12 months, a period or periods before commencement are not to be counted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">125 New applications relating to unfair contracts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An application in relation to a services contract may be made under section 536ND only if the contract was entered into on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">126 Services contracts entered into before commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to a services contract entered into before commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Independent Contractors Act 2006</inline> made by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2023</inline>, the <inline font-style="italic">Independent Contractors Act 2006 </inline>continues to apply to the services contract after commencement of this item as if those amendments had not been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PART B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">as divided and printed by the Senate</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2367]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "3", substitute "4".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Govt (1) [sheet ZB287]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) AG (1) [sheet 2361]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 3 (table item 14), omit "the same time as", substitute "immediately after the commencement of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Govt (2) [sheet ZB287]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 3 (table item 21), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 21), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Govt (3) [sheet ZB287]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 3 (table item 22), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Govt (1) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 22), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2367]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Page 4 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review of operation of amendments made by this Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act, including but not limited to the new jurisdictions relating to regulated workers and the right to disconnect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by this Act is appropriate and effective; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consider whether amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>, or any other legislation, are necessary to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) improve the operation of the amendments made by this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The review must commence no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 27), omit "irrespective of", substitute "in addition to".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 2), after "which", insert "may".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (4) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 5), after "offer", insert ", or not offer,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (5) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (lines 1 to 17), omit subsection 15A(4), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exceptions to general rule</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsection (1), an employee is not a <inline font-style="italic">casual employee</inline> of an employer if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the contract of employment includes a term that provides the contract will terminate at the end of an identifiable period (whether or not the contract also includes other terms that provide for circumstances in which it may be terminated before the end of that period); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the employee is a member of the academic staff or teaching staff of a higher education institution; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the employee is covered by one of the following modern awards:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Higher Education Industry-Academic Staff-Award 2020 as in force from time to time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Higher Education Industry-General Staff-Award 2020 as in force from time to time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the employee is not a State public sector employee of a State within the meaning of subsection 30A(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: A modern award covers an employee if the award is expressed to cover the employee, even if the modern award does not apply to the employee because an enterprise agreement applies to the employee in relation to that particular employment (see subsection 57(1) which deals with interaction between modern awards and enterprise agreements).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: This means an employee on a fixed term contract who is not covered by paragraphs (4)(b) and (c) may be a casual employee or may be other than a casual employee, depending on whether the employee satisfies the requirements of subsections (1) to (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (6) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 23), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (7) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 26), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (8) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 28), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (9) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (lines 3 and 4), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (10) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (line 12), omit ", or conversion of,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (11) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 17 to 23), omit subparagraphs 66AAB(d)(ii) and (iii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (12) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (line 15), omit "detailed".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (13) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (line 16), omit "decision;", substitute "decision.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (14) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 10 (lines 17 to 24), omit paragraph 66AAC(2)(d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (15) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (lines 3 to 8), omit paragraph 66AAC(4)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there are fair and reasonable operational grounds for not accepting the notification;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Govt (1) [sheet TD103]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (line 13), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (16) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (lines 13 and 14), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Govt (2) [sheet TD103]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (after line 14), at the end of subsection 66AAC(4), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: In relation to paragraph (4)(c), see (for example) the APS Employment Principle at paragraph 10A(1)(c) of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline> (which deals with decisions based on merit) and any directions made under subsection 11A(2) of that Act in relation to that principle.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (17) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 6, page 11 (after line 14), at the end of section 66AAC, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), fair and reasonable operational grounds for not accepting the notification include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) substantial changes would be required to the way in which work in the employer's enterprise is organised;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there would be significant impacts on the operation of the employer's enterprise;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) substantial changes to the employee's terms and conditions would be reasonably necessary to ensure the employer does not contravene a term of a fair work instrument that would apply to the employee as a full-time employee or part-time employee (as the case may be).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of paragraphs (5)(a) and (c), substantial changes include changes that significantly affect the way an employee would need to work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(31) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (18) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 7, page 11 (lines 25 to 27), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subdivision B of Division 4A of Part 2-2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the Subdivision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(32) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (19) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 9, page 11 (lines 28 and 29), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (20) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (line 5), omit "or conversion".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (21) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (line 8), omit "or paragraph 66E(1)(c)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (22) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (line 25), omit "or convert".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (23) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (lines 27 and 28), omit "or convert".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Ind (Thorpe) (1) [sheet 2374]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (after line 32), after subsection 66L(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, each of the following is a workplace right within the meaning of Part 3-1:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) giving an employer a notification under section 66AAB;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) receiving a response from an employer in accordance with section 66AAC;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) being taken to be a full-time employee or part-time employee under section 66AAD;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) receiving an offer or notice in accordance with sections 66B and 66C;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) accepting an offer and receiving a notice under section 66E;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) participating in a dispute about the operation of this Division in accordance with sections 66M and 66MA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The general protections provisions in Part 3-1 prohibit adverse action, coercion, undue influence or pressure, and misrepresentations because of a workplace right of an employee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (24) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 13 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 66M(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(39) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (25) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 13 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 66M(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(40) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (26) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 14 (line 9) to page 15 (line 6), omit subsections 66M(7) to (9).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(41) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (27) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 15 (lines 19 to 28), omit subsection 66M(11) (not including the heading), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Without limiting section 609, the procedural rules may provide, in relation to a dispute between an employer and employee that has been referred to the FWC under subsection (5) of this section, for the joinder of the following as parties to the dispute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any other employee that has a dispute to which this section applies with the same employer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such an employee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(42) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (28) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 15 (line 31) to page 16 (line 6), omit subsection 66MA(1) (not including the heading), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of paragraph 66M(6)(b), the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration, including by making any orders it considers appropriate, including (but not limited to) any order referred to in subsection (4) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(43) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (29) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 15, page 17 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection 66MA(7).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(44) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (30) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 16, page 17 (lines 18 and 19), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(45) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (31) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 17, page 17 (line 22), omit "or converted".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(46) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (32) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 18A, page 18 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18A Paragraphs 125A(2)(b) to (da)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(47) Ind (Thorpe) (1) [sheet 2373]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (lines 3 to 11), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Section 125B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">125B Giving employees the Casual Employment Information Statement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An employer must give a casual employee the Casual Employment Information Statement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before, or as soon as practicable after, the employee starts employment as a casual employee with the employer; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) as soon as practicable after the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of 6 months beginning the day the employment started; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) as soon as practicable after the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of 12 months beginning the day the employment started;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the end of any subsequent period of 12 months for which the employee is employed by the employer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, paragraph (1)(b) and subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) do not apply if at the time the employer has employed the employee for the period referred to in that paragraph or subparagraph, the employer is a small business employer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section does not, apart from the operation of paragraph (1)(b), require the employer to give the employee the Statement more than once in any 12 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This is relevant if the employer employs the employee more than once in the 12 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(48) Ind (Thorpe) (2) [sheet 2373]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 11), after item 19, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19A Paragraph 333E(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the employee is not a casual employee of the employer for whom the period referred to in paragraph (b) is identified by reference to the completion of the shift of work to which the contract relates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(49) Ind (Thorpe) (2) [sheet 2374]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 11), after item 19, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19A After paragraph 341(2)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) giving a notification, or receiving an offer or notice, under Division 4A of Part 2-2 (which deals with casual employment);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(50) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (33) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, items 23A to 23C, page 19 (line 11) to page 20 (line 9), omit the items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23A Subparagraphs 548(1B)(a)(i) to (iv)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subparagraphs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23B Subsection 548(1B) (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(51) AG (2) [sheet 2361]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 14), after Part 7, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 8 — Right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">94 Section 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">right to disconnect term</inline> means a term in a modern award that provides for the exercise of an employee's rights set out in subsections 333M(1) and (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 333M deals with the right to disconnect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">95 At the end of Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2-3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">149F Right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A modern award must include a right to disconnect term.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: <inline font-style="italic">Right to disconnect term</inline> is defined in section 12.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">96 At the end of section 321</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 is about generally allowing an employee to refuse contact or attempted contact from their employer (or from a third party where the contact or attempted contact relates to their work) outside the employee's working hours. The FWC may deal with disputes between an employer and an employee about the right to disconnect, including by making orders to stop an employee from refusing contact or to stop an employer from taking certain actions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">97 At the end of Part 2-9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 — Employee right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Employee right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333M Employee right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from an employer outside of the employee's working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from a third party if the contact or attempted contact relates to their work and is outside of the employee's working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in determining whether a refusal is unreasonable for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the following must be taken into account:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the reason for the contact or attempted contact;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how the contact or attempted contact is made and the level of disruption the contact or attempted contact causes the employee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extent to which the employee is compensated:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to remain available to perform work during the period in which the contact or attempted contact is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for working additional hours outside of the employee's ordinary hours of work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the employee's personal circumstances (including family or caring responsibilities).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of paragraph (c), the extent to which an employee is compensated includes any non-monetary compensation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the avoidance of doubt, each of the rights in subsections (1) and (2) is a workplace right within the meaning of Part 3-1.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The general protections provisions in Part 3-1 also prohibit the taking of adverse action by an employer against an employee because of a workplace right of the employee under this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the avoidance of doubt, an employee's refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from their employer, or from a third party if the contact or attempted contact relates to their work, will be unreasonable if the contact or attempted contact is required under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the avoidance of doubt, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an employee is covered by an enterprise agreement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the enterprise agreement includes a right to disconnect term that is more favourable to the employee than the rights in subsections (1) and (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the right to disconnect term in the agreement continues to apply to the employee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — Disputes about the employee right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333N Disputes about the employee right to disconnect</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there is a dispute between an employer and an employee because the employee has refused to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact under subsection 333M(1) or (2) and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the employer reasonably believes that the refusal is unreasonable; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the employer has asserted that the refusal is unreasonable and the employee reasonably believes the refusal is not unreasonable; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is another dispute between the employer and the employee about the operation of section 333M.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Workplace level discussions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In the first instance, the parties to the dispute mustattempt to resolve the dispute at the workplace level by discussions between the parties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application to FWC to deal with dispute</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If discussions at the workplace level do not resolve the dispute, a party to the dispute may apply for the FWC to do either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make an order under section 333P (orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise deal with the dispute.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Representatives</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The employer or employee to the dispute may appoint a person or industrial association to provide the employer or employee (as the case may be) with support or representation for the purposes of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) resolving the dispute; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) applying to the FWC to make an order under section 333P or otherwise deal with the dispute; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the FWC dealing with the dispute.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A person may be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the FWC only with the permission of the FWC (see section 596).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — Orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333P Orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application made under subsection 333N(3) includes an application to make an order under this section and the FWC is satisfied that either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an employee has unreasonably refused to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact for the purposes of subsection 333M(1) or (2) and there is a risk the employee will continue to do so;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an employee's refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact for the purposes of subsection 333M(1) or (2) is not unreasonable and there is a risk that the employer will:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) take disciplinary or other action against the employee because of the employer's belief that the refusal is unreasonable; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) continue to require the employee to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact despite the employee's refusal to do so;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then the FWC may make an order under subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring the payment of a pecuniary amount):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in paragraph (1)(a) applies—to prevent the employee from continuing to unreasonably refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) applies—to prevent the employer from taking the action; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) applies—to prevent the employer from continuing to require the employee to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) start to deal with an application, to the extent that it consists of an application for an order under this section, within 14 days after the application is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) deal with the application as soon as is reasonably practicable after the FWC starts to deal with it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsection (2), the FWC may dismiss an application made under subsection 333N(3), to the extent that it consists of an application for an order under this section, if the FWC considers that the application:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) might involve matters that relate to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Australia's defence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Australia's national security; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>) of the Australian Federal Police; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>) of the Australian Federal Police.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application, see section 587.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If an employer considers an application made under subsection 333N(3) (the <inline font-style="italic">original application</inline>) to be frivolous or vexatious, the employer may apply to the FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to have the original application dealt with expeditiously and efficiently; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a decision on the original application communicated by the FWC to the parties to the dispute in a timely way.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333Q Contravening an order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A person to whom an order under section 333P applies must not contravene a term of the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333R Actions under work health and safety laws permitted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 115 of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline> and corresponding provisions of corresponding WHS laws (within the meaning of that Act) do not apply in relation to an application made under subsection 333N(3) that includes an application for an order under section 333P.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Ordinarily, if a person makes an application under subsection 333N(3) for an order under section 333P in relation to particular conduct, then section 115 of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline> and corresponding provisions of corresponding WHS laws would prohibit a proceeding from being commenced, or an application from being made or continued, under those laws in relation to the same conduct. This section removes that prohibition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333S This Subdivision is not to prejudice Australia's defence, national security etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nothing in this Subdivision requires or permits a person to take, or to refrain from taking, any action if the taking of the action, or the refraining from taking the action, would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, prejudicial to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's defence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia's national security; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>) of the Australian Federal Police; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>) of the Australian Federal Police.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333T Declarations by the Director-General of Security</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Without limiting section 333S, the Director-General of Security may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this subdivision do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director-General.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333U Declarations by the Director-General of ASIS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Without limiting section 333S, the Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this Subdivision do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director-General.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision D — Dealing with disputes in other ways</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333V Dealing with disputes in other ways</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If an application made under subsection 333N(3) for the FWC to deal with a dispute does not consist solely of an application for an order under section 333P:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the FWC must deal with the dispute; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute—the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of paragraph (a), the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)). See section 333P if the application also includes an application for an order under that section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision E — Guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">333W Guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must make written guidelines in relation to the operation of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Guidelines made under subsection (1) are not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">98 Subsection 539(2) (after table item 10D)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(52) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2368]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 122, page 42 (line 11), at the end of subparagraph 519(1)(b)(ii), add ", and the FWC reasonably believes that advance notice of the entry given by an entry notice would hinder an effective investigation into the suspected contravention or contraventions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(53) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, items 124 to 133, page 43 (line 4) to page 46 (before line 1), omit the items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">124 Section 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">selected civil remedy provision</inline> means a provision referred to in column 1 of item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11A, 29, 29AA, 29A, 32, 33, 33A or 34 in the table in subsection 539(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(54) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 137, page 46 (table item 11A), omit "300", substitute "60".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(55) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (4) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, items 138 to 141, page 46 (line 9) to page 47 (line 6), omit the items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(56) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (5) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 142, page 47 (line 8), omit "300", substitute "60".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(57) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (6) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, items 143 and 144, page 47 (lines 9 to 12), omit the items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">143 Subsection 546(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "The", substitute "Subject to this section, the".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">144 After subsection 546(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AA) Despite paragraph (2)(b), if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the civil remedy provision is a selected civil remedy provision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a body corporate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) when the application for the order is made, the person is not a small business employer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the pecuniary penalty must not be more than 5 times the amount worked out in accordance with paragraph (2)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(58) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (7) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 149, page 48 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">149 Section 12 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">selected civil remedy provision</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 34", substitute ", 34 or 34AAA".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(59) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (8) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 152, page 49 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(60) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (9) [sheet 2365]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 153, page 49 (lines 5 to 27), omit subsection 546(2A), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) Despite paragraph (2)(b) and subsection (2AA), if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the civil remedy provision is a selected civil remedy provision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a body corporate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) when the application for the order is made, the person is not a small business employer; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the contravention is associated with an underpayment amount; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the application specifies that the applicant wants the maximum penalty to be calculated based on a multiple of the underpayment amount; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the person is not taken to have contravened the civil remedy provision under section 550 (person involved in a contravention);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the pecuniary penalty must not be more than the greater of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the amount worked out in accordance with subsection (2AA);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) 3 times the underpayment amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For when contravention of a civil remedy provision is associated with an underpayment amount, see section 546A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(61) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 61 (after line 31), after Part 15, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 15A — Provisions relating to the application of section 15AA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">237A Before section 15A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15AB Individual may elect that section 15AA does not apply</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to a relationship between a person and an individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Person may notify individual before the section 15AA commencement that they may give an opt out notice</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The person may give the individual a written notice before the section 15AA commencement stating that the individual may give the person an opt out notice, if the person considers that the relationship may, on the section 15AA commencement, become a relationship in which the person is the employer of the individual because of the operation of section 15AA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Person may notify individual on or after the section 15AA commencement that they may give an opt out notice</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The person may give the individual a written notice on or after the section 15AA commencement stating that the individual may give the person an opt out notice, if the person considers that the relationship may be a relationship in which the person is the employer of the individual because of the operation of section 15AA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Earnings requirement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The person must not give the individual a notice under subsection (2) or (3) unless the person considers that, when the notice is given, the individual's earnings for work performed under the relationship exceed the contractor high income threshold.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Individual may give an opt out notice</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The individual may give an opt out notice to the person, stating that the individual elects that section 15AA is not to apply to the relationship between the person and the individual:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the person has given a notice to the individual under subsection (2) or (3) of this section—within 21 days of the giving of the notice; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the person has not given a notice to the individual under subsection (2) or (3) of this section—at any time after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The individual may give only one opt out notice in respect of the relationship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Opt out notice to include a statement about earnings</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The opt out notice must state that the individual considers that the individual's earnings for work performed under the relationship exceed the contractor high income threshold when the opt out notice is given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Definitions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) In this section, and in sections 15AC and 15AD:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">opt out notice</inline> means a notice under subsection (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">section 15AA commencement</inline> means the commencement of section 15AA of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 15AA of this Act is inserted by item 237 of Schedule 1 to the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024</inline>, which commences in accordance with item 21 of the table in subsection 2(1) of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15AC Effect of an opt out notice</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if an individual gives an opt out notice to a person in respect of the relationship between the person and the individual in accordance with section 15AB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Opt out notice given before the section 15AA commencement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the opt out notice is given before the section 15AA commencement, and is not revoked before that commencement under section 15AD, then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by force of this section, section 15AA does not start to apply to the relationship on that commencement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) section 15AA does not apply to the relationship after that commencement, unless the opt out notice is revoked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Opt out notice given on or after the section 15AA commencement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the opt out notice is given on or after the section 15AA commencement, then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by force of this section, section 15AA ceases to apply to the relationship on the day on which the opt out notice is given; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) section 15AA does not apply to the relationship on or after that day, unless the opt out notice is revoked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If an individual does not give an opt out notice to a person in accordance with section 15AB, section 15AA starts to apply, or continues to apply, (as applicable) to the relationship between the person and the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15AD Opt out notice may be revoked by an individual</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An individual who has given an opt out notice to a person may (subject to subsection (4)), at any time after giving the opt out notice, revoke the opt out notice by giving written notice (a <inline font-style="italic">revocation notice</inline>) to the person that the individual elects that section 15AA is to apply to the relationship between the person and the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Revocation before the section 15AA commencement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an individual gives a revocation notice to a person before the section 15AA commencement, section 15AA applies, by force of this subsection, to the relationship between the person and the individual on and after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Revocation on or after the section 15AA commencement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If an individual gives a revocation notice to a person on or after the section 15AA commencement, section 15AA applies, by force of this subsection, to the relationship between the person and the individual on and after the day on which the revocation notice is given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) An individual may give only one revocation notice in respect of a particular relationship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(62) Govt (2) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 62 (lines 23 and 24), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 4" in section 40C.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(63) Govt (3) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 63 (line 17), after paragraph 40D(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (c) the need to avoid adverse impacts on the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of supply chains and the national economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the need for minimum standards in road transport contractual chains.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(64) Govt (4) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 63 (lines 20 to 22), omit "modern awards and road transport minimum standards orders relating to the road transport industry", substitute "modern awards relating to the road transport industry, road transport minimum standards orders and road transport contractual chain orders".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(65) Govt (5) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 63 (after line 34), after paragraph 40E(2)(b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) the making and varying of road transport contractual chain orders and road transport contractual chain guidelines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(66) JLN (1) [sheet 2372]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 65 (after line 10), at the end of section 40G, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Road Transport Advisory Group must establish a subcommittee under subsection (1) of which a majority of the members are owner drivers or representatives of owner drivers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if a proposed road transport minimum standards order or a proposed road transport contractual chain order will cover owner drivers; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC proposes to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to a road transport minimum standards order or a road transport contractual chain order that has, or may have, an effect upon owner drivers that is more than minor or technical.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(67) Govt (6) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 238, page 65 (line 11) to page 66 (line 33), omit Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(68) Govt (1) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 241, page 68 (line 12), omit "paragraph 536JY(1)(a)", substitute "paragraph 536JY(1)(b)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(69) Govt (1) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 241, page 68 (after line 14), after paragraph 617(10B)(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) a deferral determination made under subsection 536KQJ(1) in relation to a road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cb) a suspension determination made under subsection 536KQP(1) in relation to a road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cc) a determination made under subsection 536KQ(1) varying or revoking a road transport minimum standards order to give effect to a decision to vary or revoke the minimum standards order under paragraph 536KQS(2)(a) or (b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cd) a decision made under paragraph 536KQS(2)(a), (b) or (c) as to whether or not to vary or revoke a road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(70) Govt (7) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 241, page 68 (after line 17), after paragraph 617(10B)(d), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(da) a road transport contractual chain order made under section 536PD or a determination made under 536PT varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(db) road transport contractual chain guidelines made under section 536QP or a determination made under section 536QW varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(dc) a deferral determination made under subsection 536QB(1) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(dd) a suspension determination made under subsection 536QG(1) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(de) a determination made under subsection 536PT(1) varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order to give effect to a decision to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order under paragraph 536QK(2)(a) or (b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(df) a decision made under paragraph 536QK(2)(a), (b) or (c) as to whether or not to vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(71) Govt (2) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 241, page 68 (line 28), after "or modern award", insert "or prescribed instrument".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(72) Govt (2) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 245, page 69 (after line 32), after subsection 620(1E), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Additional requirement relating to the constitution of an Expert Panel for deferral or suspension of road transport minimum standards orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1F) If an Expert Panel is constituted under subsection (1E) for a purpose referred to in paragraph 617(10B)(ca), (cb), (cc) or (cd) in relation to a road transport minimum standards order (which deal with deferral and suspension), a majority of the members of the Expert Panel must not be members of the Expert Panel that made the road transport minimum standards order concerned.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(73) Govt (8) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 70 (before line 1), before item 246, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">245A Before subsection 620(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Additional requirement relating to the constitution of an Expert Panel for deferral or suspension of road transport contractual chain orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1G) If an Expert Panel is constituted under subsection (1E) for a purpose referred to in paragraph 617(10B)(dc), (dd), (de) or (df) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order (which deal with deferral and suspension), a majority of the members of the Expert Panel must not be members of the Expert Panel that made the road transport chain order concerned.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(74) Govt (9) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, heading to Division 3, page 70 (line 6), at the end of the heading, add "and persons in a road transport contractual chain".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(75) Govt (10) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 70 (line 10), at the end of the heading to Division 3A, add "and persons in a road transport contractual chain".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(76) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2375]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 74 (line 2), heading to section 15KA, omit "relating to digital platform work".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(77) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2375]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 74 (after line 11), after subsection 15KA(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) For the purposes of ascertaining the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship between an individual and a person, any steps taken by a road transport business to comply with its obligations under any of the following in relation to the individual are to be disregarded:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Part 3A-3;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Road Transport Industry Termination Code;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an order made under, or for the purposes of, Chapter 3A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(78) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2375]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 74 (after line 15), at the end of section 15KA, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A regulated road transport contractor to whom a road transport minimum standards order applies in relation to particular work in the road transport industry is not an employee of any person in relation to that work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(79) Govt (3) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 74 (lines 29 to 31), omit paragraph 15L(1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any of the following processes payments referable to the work performed by the independent contractors:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the operator of the application, website or system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an associated entity of the operator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a person contracted, whether directly or through one or more interposed entities, by the operator or an associated entity of the operator to process the payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(80) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [ sheet 2376]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 76 (line 27), omit "one", substitute "2".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(81) Govt (11) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 248, page 78 (after line 23), after section 15R, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15RA Meanings of <inline font-style="italic"> road transport contractual chain </inline> and <inline font-style="italic">in a road transport contractual chain</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A <inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain </inline>means a chain or series of contracts or arrangements:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under which work is performed for a party to the first contract or arrangement in the chain or series by a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker under a services contract, or by an employee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in which at least one party to the first contract or arrangement in the chain or series is a constitutional corporation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person is <inline font-style="italic">in a road transport contractual chain </inline>if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is a party (a <inline font-style="italic">primary party</inline>) to the first contract or arrangement in the road transport contractual chain; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a party (a <inline font-style="italic">secondary party</inline>) to a subsequent contract or arrangement in the road transport contractual chain, being a contract or arrangement under which work is performed for the secondary party by a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker under a services contract, or by an employee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person is a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker who performs work under a services contract in the road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite subsection (2), an individual is not <inline font-style="italic">in a road transport contractual chain </inline>in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the delivery of a thing to the individual by a regulated road transport contractor, a road transport employee-like worker or an employee, if the delivery of the thing is solely for the individual's private or domestic purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the consignment of a thing by the individual for delivery by a regulated road transport contractor, a road transport employee-like worker or an employee if the consignment of the thing is solely for the individual's private or domestic purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) work performed by the individual in the capacity of an employee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) work performed by the individual in an industryprescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(d):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an industry may be specified by name or by inclusion in a specified class or specified classes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an industry may be specified in respect of work in the road transport industry, or in respect of specified forms of such work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), work performed by a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker under a services contract, or by an employee, in a chain or series of contracts or arrangements:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is taken to be performed for the person who engaged the regulated road transport contractor, road transport employee-like worker or employee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is also taken to be performed for each party to a contract or arrangement in the chain or series of contracts or arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) This section also has the effect that it would have if it only applied to a secondary party to the extent that rights conferred on, and obligations imposed on, the secondary party by Chapter 3B have, or are likely to have, an impact on the business of the constitutional corporation that is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) This section also has the effect that it would have if it only applied to a secondary party to a contract or arrangement in a road transport contractual chain that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is a constitutional corporation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a party to a contract with a constitutional corporation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) is a national system employer to the extent that it engages national system employees to perform work in the road transport industry; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) is a regulated business; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) is engaged in constitutional trade or commerce; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) is incorporated in a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) is prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 15RB Meaning of <inline font-style="italic">a road transport employee-like worker</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">road transport employee-like worker</inline> means an employee-like worker who performs work in the road transport industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(82) Govt (3) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 80 (after line 5), after the paragraph beginning "Division 3" in section 536J, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3A deals with deferral and suspension of minimum standards orders by the Minister and deferral and suspension of road transport minimum standards orders by the FWC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3B deals with consultation before varying or revoking road transport minimum standards orders after deferral.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3C deals with consultation before varying or revoking employee-like worker minimum standards orders after deferral.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(83) Govt (1) [sheet ZC272]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 80 (line 6), omit "Division 4 specifies rules about certain retrospective variations.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(84) Govt (4) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 83 (line 26), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(85) Govt (5) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 83 (after line 27), after subsection 536JF(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Despite subsection (3), the specified day may be a day not earlier than 6 months after the relevant notice of intent for the order was published, if the FWC is satisfied that there are circumstances that urgently require specifying such a day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(86) Govt (2) [sheet ZC272]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 84 (lines 2 to 5), omit all the words from and including "made, unless" to and including "earlier day", substitute "made".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(87) Govt (6) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 89 (after line 6), at the end of section 536JN, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">References to State and Territory laws</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, a reference in this section to a law of a State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes a reference to a regulation, rule or other instrument (however described) made pursuant to, or for the purposes of, a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a reference to a law of a State or Territory as in force from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(88) Govt (7) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 89 (lines 14 to 20), omit "or regulated worker" (wherever occurring), substitute ", regulated worker or party".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(89) Govt (8) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 89 (line 23), omit "regulated business or regulated worker", substitute "the regulated business, regulated worker or party".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(90) Govt (9) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 89 (line 28), omit "or regulated worker", substitute ", regulated worker or party".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(91) Govt (10) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 90 (after line 23), at the end of subsection 536JP(3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For interaction of these laws with minimum standards orders, see section 536JS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(92) Govt (11) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 90 (after line 28), at the end of section 536JP, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, a reference in this section to a law of a State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes a reference to a regulation, rule or other instrument (however described) made pursuant to, or for the purposes of, a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a reference to a law of a State or Territory as in force from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(93) Govt (12) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 92 (after line 33), after subsection 536JS(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) It is the intent of the Parliament that, for an employee-like worker or digital labour platform operator to whom an employee-like worker minimum standards order applies in relation to a services contract, this Chapter applies to the exclusion of the laws described in subsection 536JP(3) to the extent that those laws would otherwise affect the rights, entitlements, obligations and liabilities of the employee-like worker or digital labour platform operator in relation to the services contract.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(94) Govt (13) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (line 1), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(95) Govt (14) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (line 3), omit "prescribed by the regulations", substitute "specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to the extent that the law is so specified".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(96) Govt (15) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (lines 5 and 6), omit "prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a);", substitute "described in paragraph (a).".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(97) Govt (16) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph 536JS(2)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(98) Govt (17) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (after line 9), at the end of section 536JS, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, a reference in this section to a law of a State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes a reference to a regulation, rule or other instrument (however described) made pursuant to, or for the purposes of, a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a reference to a law of a State or Territory as in force from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(99) Govt (18) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 93 (line 17), after "order", insert ", guidelines".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(100) Govt (19) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 94 (line 13), at the end of subsection 536JT(4), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) done in accordance with a term of a collective agreement, to the extent that the term has no effect because of subsection 536MX(1) or (2) of this Act (about matters in respect of which a collective agreement may not be made, or that are primarily of a commercial nature).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(101) Govt (3) [sheet ZC272]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 94 (lines 14 to 34), omit Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(102) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 98 (line 7), after "business", insert "that is included in a class of regulated businesses".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(103) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 98 (after line 17), after subsection 536JZ(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) An application for the making of a minimum standards order must specify the class of regulated businesses to be covered by the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(104) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 98 (line 19), after "subsection (3)", insert "or (3A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(105) Govt (20) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 98 (line 27) to page 99 (line 4), omit subsections 536K(1) and (2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to a decision to make or vary, or not to make or vary, an employee-like worker minimum standards order, other than a decision of the FWC to refuse to consider an application to make or vary such an order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Before making a decision to which this section applies, the FWC must consider whether, on the whole, the persons included (or purportedly included) in the class of employee-like workers to be covered by the order, or the order as proposed to be varied, are employee-like workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(106) Govt (21) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 99 (line 5), after "included", insert "(or purportedly included)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(107) Govt (22) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 102 (line 13), after "make", insert "or vary".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(108) Govt (23) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 102 (line 16), after "make", insert "or vary".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(109) Govt (24) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 102 (line 19), after "make", insert "or vary".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(110) Govt (25) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 102 (line 24), after "making", insert "or varying".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(111) Govt (26) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 103 (line 12), omit "persons", substitute "entities".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(112) Govt (27) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 103 (line 17), omit "a person or body", substitute "an entity".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(113) Govt (28) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 103 (line 18), omit "person or body", substitute "entity".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(114) Govt (29) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 104 (lines 4 to 8), omit subsection 536KC(6), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), an <inline font-style="italic">affected entity</inline>, in relation to a draft road transport minimum standards order published under paragraph 536KB(1)(b) is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or body likely to be affected by the making of a road transport minimum standards order based on the draft; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person or body prescribed by the regulations, or belonging to a class of persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(115) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (4) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 105 (line 24), omit "operator or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(116) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (5) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 105 (line 30), omit "one or more".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(117) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (6) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 105 (line 33) to page 106 (line 1), omit "the digital labour platform operator or operators", substitute "a digital platform operator".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(118) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (7) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 106 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the digital labour platform operator or operators", substitute "a digital platform operator".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(119) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (8) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 106 (line 9), omit "digital labour platform operator or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(120) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (9) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 106 (lines 13 and 14), omit "may be specified by name or by", substitute "must be specified by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(121) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (10) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 107 (line 3), paragraph 536KJ(3)(a), omit "may be specified by name or by", substitute "must be specified by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(122) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2363 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 110 (after line 5), after section 536KN, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KO Achieving the minimum standards objective</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A minimum standards order may include terms that it is permitted to include, and must include terms that it is required to include, only to the extent necessary to achieve the minimum standards objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(123) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2364 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 110 (line 9), after "represent", insert ", or another body that represents,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(124) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (2) [sheet 2364 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 110 (line 13), after "represent", insert ", or another body that represents,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(125) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2364 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 110 (after line 19), after paragraph 536KP(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) a national or State council or federation that is effectively representative of a significant number of organisations or bodies mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(126) Govt (4) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 111 (after line 4), after subsection 536KQ(4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The FWC may also make a determination under subsection (1) varying or revoking a minimum standards order to give effect to a decision under paragraph 536KQS(2)(a) or (b) to vary or revoke the minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection 536KQS(1) requires the FWC to consider whether to vary or revoke a minimum standards order after a deferral declaration, a deferral determination, a suspension declaration or a suspension determination is made in relation to the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(127) Govt (5) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 111 (before line 5), before Division 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3A — Deferral and suspension of minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Ministerial declarations to defer or suspend minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQA Minister may make a declaration deferring the operation or application of a minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by notifiable instrument, make a declaration (a <inline font-style="italic">deferral declaration</inline>) that defers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the coming into operation of a minimum standards order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a minimum standards order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A deferral declaration made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full deferral declaration</inline>, and a deferral declaration made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part deferral declaration</inline>,in relation to the minimum standards order to which the deferral declaration relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A deferral declaration in relation to a minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ceases to be in operation on the day on which the FWC decides under subsection 536KQS(2) whether or not to vary or revoke the minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Secretary of the Department must publish a deferral declaration on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the deferral declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQB Limitations on making a deferral declaration</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">No deferral of minimum standards order that is in operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must not make a deferral declaration in relation to a minimum standards order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Only one full deferral declaration is permitted etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)The Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may only make one full deferral declaration in relation to a particular minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not make a full deferral declaration in relation to a particular road transport minimum standards order if a deferral determination (whether a full deferral determination or a part deferral determination) has previously been made by the FWC in relation to the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The FWC may make deferral determinations in relation to road transport minimum standards orders under Subdivision B of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">More than one part deferral declaration is permitted</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister may make more than one part deferral declaration in relation to a particular minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If more than one part deferral declaration or part deferral determination is made in relation to the same minimum standards order as permitted by subsection (3) of this section or subsection 536KQK(3), a later part deferral declaration must not have the effect of deferring, or purporting to defer, the application of a term or terms to any person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to whom the terms already apply when the later part deferral declaration is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to whom the application of the terms has previously been deferred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQC Operation of a minimum standards order during deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full deferral declaration in relation to the minimum standards order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part deferral declaration in relation to the minimum standards order is in operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a minimum standards order is in operation when a part deferral declaration is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQD Minister may make a declaration suspending a minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by notifiable instrument, make a declaration (a <inline font-style="italic">suspension declaration</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) suspending the operation of a minimum standards order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) suspending the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a minimum standards order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A suspension declaration made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full suspension declaration</inline>, and a suspension declaration made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part suspension declaration</inline>,in relation to the minimum standards order to which the suspension declaration relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Suspension declaration must specify period of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A suspension declaration must specify the period of the suspension, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not be longer than 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not start before the day on which the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When period of suspension ends</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to subsection (5), a period of suspension specified in a suspension declaration ends immediately after the end of the period specified in the suspension declaration under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a period of suspension has not already ended under subsection (3) when the FWC makes a decision under subsection 536KQS(2) as to whether to vary or revoke the minimum standards order, the period of suspension ends on whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the FWC decides to vary or revoke the minimum standards order—on the day that the determination made under subsection 536KQ(1) varying or revoking the minimum standards order comes into operation, which must not be later than 12 months after the day on which the suspension declaration was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC decides not to vary or revoke the minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 7 days after the day on which the decision is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a 7-day period would result in the suspension lasting longer than 12 months—such shorter period as is specified in the decision, which must be a period that would result in the suspension lasting 12 months or less.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Classes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the Minister makes a suspension declaration, the FWC may make any orders it considers appropriate to ensure that no person is unfairly affected by the suspension.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Secretary of the Department must publish a suspension declaration on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Accrued rights etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The making of a suspension declaration does not affect any right or liability that a person acquired, accrued or incurred before the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQE Suspension declaration must be made within 12 months of certain dates</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Full suspension declaration timing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A full suspension declaration in relation to a minimum standards order must be made within 12 months of the day on which the minimum standards order came into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Part suspension declaration timing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A part suspension declaration in relation to a minimum standards order must be made within 12 months of whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of all of the terms of the minimum standards order to a specified class of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the minimum standards order first applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of all of the terms of the minimum standards order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the minimum standards order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if all of the terms of the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the minimum standards order to a specified class of persons—the day on which the specified terms first applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the minimum standards order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which the specified terms of the minimum standards order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the minimum standards order to all persons—the day on which the specified terms first applied to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQF Operation of a minimum standards order during suspension</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full suspension declaration in relation to the minimum standards order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part suspension declaration in relation to the minimum standards order is in operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a minimum standards order is in operation during a period when a part suspension declaration is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQG Consultation requirements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Minister is not required to consult any person or body before making a deferral declaration or a suspension declaration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — FWC may defer or suspend road transport minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQH Applications for a deferral determination for a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application may be made to the FWC for a determination under subsection 536KQJ(1) (a <inline font-style="italic">deferral determination</inline>) in relation to a road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application may be made under subsection (1) by any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more regulated road transport contractors covered by the road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the road transport businesses covered by the road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a road transport business covered by the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An Expert Panel can hear applications under this Act for the road transport industry together: see subsection 582(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application for a deferral determination must not be made in relation to a road transport minimum standards order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the road transport minimum standards order concerned comes into operation before the FWC considers the application, the FWC may treat it as a suspension application, see subsection 536KQL(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQJ FWC may make a determination deferring the operation or application of a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may, on application under subsection 536KQH(1), make a deferral determination:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that defers the coming into operation of a road transport minimum standards order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that defers the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a road transport minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a road transport minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a road transport minimum standards order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A deferral determination made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full deferral determination</inline>, and a deferral determination made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part deferral determination</inline>,in relation to the road transport minimum standards order to which the deferral determination relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A deferral determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ceases to be in operation on the day on which the FWC decides under subsection 536KQS(2) whether or not to vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQK Limitations on making a deferral determination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">No deferral of road transport minimum standards order that is in operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must not make a deferral determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Only one full deferral determination is permitted etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)The FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may only make one full deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not make a full deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport minimum standards order if a deferral declaration (whether a full deferral declaration or a part deferral declaration) has previously been made by the Minister in relation to the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Minister may make deferral declarations in relation to minimum standards orders under Subdivision A of this Division</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">More than one part deferral determination is permitted</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subject to subsection (4), the FWC may make more than one part deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If more than one part deferral determination or part deferral declaration is made in relation to the same road transport minimum standards order as permitted by subsection (3) of this section or subsection 536KQB(3), a later part deferral determination must not have the effect of deferring, or purporting to defer, the application of a term to any person or class of persons:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to whom the term already applies when the later part deferral determination is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to whom the application of the terms has previously been deferred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQL Decision on an application for a deferral determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a deferral determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order is made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the application as soon as practicable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consult the Road Transport Advisory Group before making a decision on the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the road transport minimum standards order concerned comes into operation before the FWC makes a decision on the application, the FWC may treat the application as if it were an application for a suspension determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make the deferral determination under subsection 536KQJ(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) decide not to make the deferral determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC must make the deferral determination if, and must not make the deferral determination unless, the FWC is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the applicant has provided significant new facts or evidence that was not available at the time the FWC decided to make the road transport minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the significant new facts or evidence demonstrate that the road transport minimum standards order will not provide, or has not provided, an appropriate safety net of minimum standards for parties in the road transport industry, having regard to the minimum standards objective and the road transport objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In considering whether the FWC is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4), the FWC may have regard to whether one or more previous applications for variation or revocation of the road transport minimum standards order concerned have previously been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC must publish a deferral determination on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQM Operation of a road transport minimum standards order during deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full deferral determination in relation to the road transport minimum standards order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport minimum standards order is in operation during a period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQN Applications for a suspension determination for a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application may be made to the FWC for a determination (a <inline font-style="italic">suspension determination</inline>) under subsection 536KQP(1) in relation to a road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application may be made under subsection (1) by any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more regulated road transport contractors covered by the road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the road transport businesses covered by the road transport minimum standards order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a road transport business covered by the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An Expert Panel can hear applications under this Act for the road transport industry together: see subsection 582(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of application for full suspension determination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application for a full suspension determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order must be made within 12 months of the day on which the order came into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of application for part suspension determination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) An application for a part suspension determination must be made within 12 months of whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of all of the terms of the road transport minimum standards order to a specified class—the first day on which all of the terms of the road transport minimum standards order applied to the class of person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of all of the terms of the road transport minimum standards order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the road transport minimum standards order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if all of the terms of the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport minimum standards order to a specified class of persons—the first day on which the specified terms applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport minimum standards order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which the specified terms of the road transport minimum standards order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport minimum standards order to all persons—the first day on which the specified terms applied to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQP FWC may make a determination suspending a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may, on application under subsection 536KQN(1), make a suspension determination:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) suspending the operation of a road transport minimum standards order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) suspending:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the application of a road transport minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the application of specified terms of a road transport minimum standards order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the application of specified terms of road transport minimum standards order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: A person may also apply for a variation or revocation of a road transport minimum standards order under section 536KP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: Judicial review of decisions of the FWC is available—see paragraph 39B(1A)(c) of the <inline font-style="italic">Judiciary Act 1903</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A suspension determination made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full suspension determination</inline>, and a suspension determination made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part suspension determination</inline>,in relation to the road transport minimum standards order to which the suspension determination relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Suspension determination must specify period of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the FWC makes a suspension determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order, the suspension determination must specify the period for which the order is suspended, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not be a period of more than 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not start before the day on which the determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When period of suspension ends</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to subsection (5), a period of suspension specified in a suspension determination ends immediately after the end of the period specified in the suspension determination under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the period of suspension has not already ended under subsection (4) when the FWC makes a decision under subsection 536KQS(2) as to whether to vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order, the period of suspension ends on whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the FWC decides to vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order—on the day that the determination made under subsection 536KQ(1) varying or revoking the minimum standards order comes into operation, which must not be later than 12 months after the day on which the suspension determination was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC decides not to vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 7 days after the day on which the decision is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a 7-day period would result in the suspension lasting longer than 12 months—such shorter period as is specified in the decision, which must be a period that would result in the suspension lasting 12 months or less.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Classes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQQ Decision on an application for a suspension determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a suspension determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order is made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the application as soon as practicable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consult the Road Transport Advisory Group before making a decision on the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make the suspension determination under subsection 536KQP(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) decide not to make the suspension determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC must make the suspension determination if, and must not make the suspension determination unless, the FWC is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the applicant has provided significant new facts or evidence that was not available at the time the FWC decided to make the road transport minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the significant new facts or evidence demonstrate that the road transport minimum standards order will not provide, or has not provided, an appropriate safety net of minimum standards for parties in the road transport industry, having regard to the minimum standards objective and the road transport objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In considering whether the FWC is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3), the FWC may have regard to whether one or more previous applications for variation or revocation of the minimum standards order have previously been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the FWC makes the suspension determination, the FWC may make any orders it considers appropriate to ensure that no person is unfairly affected by the suspension.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC must publish a suspension determination on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The making of a suspension determination does not affect any right or liability that a person acquired, accrued or incurred before the suspension determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQR Operation of a road transport minimum standards order during suspension</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport minimum standards order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full suspension determination in relation to the road transport minimum standards order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part suspension determination is in operation in relation to the road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport minimum standards order is in operation during a period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — FWC must consider and decide whether or not to vary or revoke a deferred or suspended minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQS FWC must consider whether to vary or revoke a minimum standards order that has been deferred or suspended</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister makes a deferral declaration or a suspension declaration in relation to a minimum standards order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the FWC makes a deferral determination or a suspension determination in relation to a road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must, as soon as practicable, consider whether or not to vary or revoke the minimum standards order. The FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) vary the minimum standards order under subsection 536KQ(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) revoke the minimum standards order under subsection 536KQ(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) decide not to vary or revoke the minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General preconditions for variation or revocation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not vary or revoke the minimum standards order unless there has been genuine engagement with the parties to be covered; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a road transport minimum standards order—must not vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order unless the Road Transport Advisory Group has been consulted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the case of a road transport minimum standards order—must have regard to the commercial realities of the road transport industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the case of a road transport minimum standards order—must be satisfied that the variation or revocation of the minimum standards order will not unduly affect the viability and competitiveness of owner drivers or other similar persons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in the case of an employee-like worker minimum standards order—must have regard to choice and flexibility in working arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Special preconditions for variation or revocation: road transport minimum standards order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (3), the FWC must not vary or revoke a road transport minimum standards order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made unless the FWC has followed the process set out in Division 3B of this Part in relation to the variation or revocation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Special preconditions for variation or revocation: employee-like worker minimum standards order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (3), the FWC must not vary or revoke an employee-like worker minimum standards order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made unless the FWC has followed the process set out in Division 3C of this Part in relation to the variation or revocation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication requirements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC must publish notice of the FWC's decision under subsection (2) on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">End of suspension period does not affect obligations under this section</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The end of a period of suspension of a minimum standards order under subsection 536KQD(4) or (5) or 536KQP(4) or (5) does not affect the FWC's obligation to consider whether or not to vary or revoke the minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3B — Consultation before varying or revoking road transport minimum standards order after deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQT FWC to prepare and publish a notice relating to proposed variation or revocation of a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Before deciding to vary or revoke a road transport minimum standards order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a notice (a<inline font-style="italic"> notice of intent</inline>) stating that the FWC proposes to vary or revoke the road transport minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the proposal is to vary the road transport minimum standards order—publish a draft of the road transport minimum standards order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish the notice of intent and the draft of the road transport minimum standards order as proposed to be varied (if applicable) on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQU Affected entities to have a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and comment on a proposed variation or revocation of a road transport minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must ensure that affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC for its consideration in relation to the proposed variation or revocation of a road transport minimum standards order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536KQT(1)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish submissions made to the FWC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, if a submission made by an entity includes information that is claimed by the entity to be confidential or commercially sensitive, and the FWC is satisfied that the information is confidential or commercially sensitive, the FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may decide not to publish the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may instead publish:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a summary of the information which contains sufficient detail to allow a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information (without disclosing anything that is confidential or commercially sensitive); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the FWC considers that it is not practicable to prepare a summary that would comply with subparagraph (i)—a statement that confidential or commercially sensitive information in the submission has not been published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The publishing of material under subsections (2) and (3) must be on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A reference in this Act (other than in this section) to a submission under this section includes a reference to a summary or statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), an <inline font-style="italic">affected entity</inline>, in relation to a proposed variation or revocation of a road transport minimum standards order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536KQT(1)(a), is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or body likely to be affected by the proposed variation or revocation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person or body prescribed by the regulations, or belonging to a class of persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The FWC may, but is not required to, hold a hearing in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a draft road transport minimum standards order as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a proposed revocation of a road transport minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQV Finalising draft order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make any changes it thinks appropriate to a draft road transport minimum standards order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If changes proposed to be made under subsection (1) are significant, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) decide not to vary the road transport minimum standards order based on the draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish a subsequent notice of intent under subsection 536KQT(1)(a) in relation to the revised draft road transport minimum standards order, and publish the revised draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) follow the process set out in section 536KQU in relation to the revised draft road transport minimum standards order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3C — Consultation process before varying or revoking employee-like worker minimum standards orders after deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQW FWC to prepare and publish a notice relating to a proposed variation or revocation of an employee-like worker minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Before deciding to vary or revoke an employee-like worker minimum standards order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a notice (a<inline font-style="italic"> notice of intent</inline>) stating that the FWC proposes to vary or revoke the employee-like worker minimum standards order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the proposal is to vary the employee-like worker minimum standards order—publish a draft of the proposed employee-like worker minimum standards order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish the notice of intent and the draft of the employee-like worker minimum standards order as proposed to be varied (if applicable) on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQX Affected entities to have a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and comment on a proposed variation or revocation of an employee-like worker minimum standards order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must ensure that affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC for its consideration in relation to the proposed variation or revocation of an employee-like worker minimum standards order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536KQW(1)(a), having regard to the unique nature of digital platform work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish submissions made to the FWC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, if a submission made by an entity includes information that is claimed by the entity to be confidential or commercially sensitive, and the FWC is satisfied that the information is confidential or commercially sensitive, the FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may decide not to publish the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may instead publish:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a summary of the information which contains sufficient detail to allow a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information (without disclosing anything that is confidential or commercially sensitive); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the FWC considers that it is not practicable to prepare a summary that would comply with subparagraph (i)—a statement that confidential or commercially sensitive information in the submission has not been published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The publishing of material under subsections (2) and (3) must be on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A reference in this Act (other than in this section) to a submission under this section includes a reference to a summary or statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), an <inline font-style="italic">affected entity</inline>, in relation to a proposed variation or revocation of an employee-like worker minimum standards order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536KQW(1)(a), is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or body likely to be affected by the proposed variation or revocation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person or body prescribed by the regulations, or belonging to a class of persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The FWC may, but is not required to, hold a hearing in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a draft employee-like worker minimum standards order as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a proposed revocation of an employee-like worker minimum standards order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536KQY Finalising draft order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make any changes it thinks appropriate to a draft employee-like worker minimum standards order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If changes proposed to be made under subsection (1) are significant, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) decide not to vary the employee-like worker minimum standards order based on the draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish a subsequent notice of intent under paragraph 536KQW(1)(a) in relation to the revised draft employee-like worker minimum standards order, and publish the revised draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) follow the process set out in section 536KQX in relation to the revised draft employee-like worker minimum standards order (with the period of consultation under that section to be a period that the FWC is satisfied is reasonable having regard to the unique nature of digital platform work).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(128) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (11) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 111 (line 28), after "business", insert "that is included in a class of regulated businesses".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(129) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (12) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 112 (after line 4), after subsection 536KS(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) An application for the making of minimum standards guidelines must specify the class of regulated businesses to be covered by the guidelines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(130) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (13) [sheet 2370]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 112 (line 6), after "subsection (2)", insert "or (2A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(131) Govt (30) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 112 (lines 11 to 16), omit subsection 536KT(1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to a decision to make or vary, or not to make or vary, employee-like worker guidelines, other than a decision of the FWC to refuse to consider an application to make or vary such guidelines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(132) Govt (6) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 116 (line 1) to page 117 (line 11), omit Division 5.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(133) Govt (31) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 119 (line 17), after "services contract", insert ", or a series of services contracts,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(134) Govt (32) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 119 (line 18), omit "12", substitute "6".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(135) Govt (33) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 122 (after line 8), after subsection 536LJ(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) Before the Minister makes a code under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that there has been such public consultation in relation to the development of the code as the Minister considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, vary or revoke the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2C) Before the Minister varies or revokes the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code under subsection (2B), the Minister must be satisfied that there has been such public consultation in relation to the variation or revocation as the Minister considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2D) Subsection (2C) does not apply in relation to a variation if the Minister considers the variation is minor or technical.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(136) Govt (34) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 124 (line 19), omit "digital platform", substitute "digital labour platform".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(137) Govt (35) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 139 (line 4), omit ", with the consent of the other entity,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(138) Govt (36) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 139 (lines 6 and 7), omit subsection 536MP(2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an application is made under subsection (1), the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of this section, the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may dismiss an application under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of the negotiating entities for the proposed collective agreement making a collective agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application, see section 587.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(139) Govt (37) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 141 (line 4), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2), (3) and (3A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(140) Govt (38) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 141 (after line 19), after subsection 536MS(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The FWC must be satisfied that the operation of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest, taking into account the object of this Part set out in section 536MJ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(141) Govt (39) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 142 (line 32), omit "section 536MT", substitute "section 536MT and subsection (1A) of this section".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(142) Govt (40) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 142 (after line 33), after subsection 536MU(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) The FWC must be satisfied that variation of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest, taking into account the object of this Part set out in section 536MJ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(143) Govt (12) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 249, page 149 (after line 16), after Chapter 3A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chapter 3B — Minimum standards for persons in a road transport contractual chain</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3B-1 — Core provisions for this Chapter</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NL Guide to this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part is about the coverage and operation of the provisions of this Chapter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 sets out when road transport contractual chain orders and road transport contractual chain guidelines cover persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 specifies the rules relating to the interaction of the provisions of this Chapter with State and Territory laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NM Meaning of <inline font-style="italic">employee </inline> and <inline font-style="italic">employer</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part, <inline font-style="italic">employee</inline> and<inline font-style="italic"> employer </inline>have their ordinary meanings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NN FWC to have regard to minimum standards objective</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FWC must have regard to the minimum standards objective in performing a function or exercising a power under this Chapter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The FWC must also have regard to the road transport objective as required by section 40D.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Provisions relating to coverage and operation of road transport contractual chain orders and road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Coverage and operation of road transport contractual chain orders and guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NP Contravening a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A personmust not contravene a term of a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: A person does not contravene a term of a road transport contractual chain order unless the order applies to the person: see subsection 536NQ(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NQ The significance of a road transport contractual chain order applying to a person</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order does not impose obligations on a person, and a person does not contravene a term of a road transport contractual chain order, unless the order applies to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order does not give a person an entitlement unless the order applies to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NR When a road transport contractual chain order <inline font-style="italic">applies </inline> to a person</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a road transport contractual chain order </inline> <inline font-style="italic">applies</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> to a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order <inline font-style="italic">applies</inline> to a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker in a road transport contractual chain if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the road transport contractual chain order covers the regulated road transport contractor or road transport employee-like worker; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the road transport contractual chain order does not apply to the regulated road transport contractor or road transport employee-like worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a road transport contractual chain order </inline> <inline font-style="italic">applies</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> to other persons in a road transport contractual chain</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order <inline font-style="italic">applies</inline> to a person in a road transport contractual chain, other than a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the road transport contractual chain order covers the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker to whom the road transport contractual chain order applies, or an employee, performs work for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the road transport contractual chain order does not apply to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NS When a road transport contractual chain order <inline font-style="italic">covers</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order <inline font-style="italic">covers</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain if the order is expressed to cover the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of other provisions of this Act, FWC orders or court orders on coverage</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order also <inline font-style="italic">covers</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain if any of the following provides, or has the effect, that the order covers the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an FWC order made under a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an order of a court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a road transport contractual chain order does not <inline font-style="italic">cover</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain if any of the following provides, or has the effect, that the order does not cover the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an FWC order made under a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an order of a court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Road transport contractual chain orders that have ceased to operate</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a road transport contractual chain order that has ceased to operate does not <inline font-style="italic">cover</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NT When a road transport contractual chain order is in operation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a road transport contractual chain order comes into operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order comes into operation on the day specified in the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The specified day must not be earlier than the day on which the road transport contractual chain order is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The specified day must not be earlier than 12 months after the relevant notice of intent for the order was published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsection (3), the specified day may be a day not earlier than 6 months after the relevant notice of intent for the order was published, if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order comes into operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order comes into operation on the day specified in the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The specified day must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Road transport contractual chain orders operate until revoked</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A road transport contractual chain order continues in operation until it is revoked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notice of intent</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The<inline font-style="italic"> relevant notice of intent</inline> for a road transport contractual chain order is the notice of intent published under subsection 536PG(1) at the same time as the draft of the road transport contractual chain order was published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NU When road transport contractual chain guidelines <inline font-style="italic">cover</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Road transport contractual chain guidelines<inline font-style="italic"> cover </inline>a person in a road transport contractual chain if the guidelines are expressed to cover the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of other provisions of this Act, FWC orders or court orders on coverage</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Road transport contractual chain guidelines also<inline font-style="italic"> cover</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain if any of the following provides, or has the effect, that the guidelines cover the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an FWC order made under a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an order of a court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), road transport contractual chain guidelines do not <inline font-style="italic">cover</inline> a person in a road transport contractual chain, if any of the following provides, or has the effect, that the guidelines do not cover the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an FWC order made under a provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an order of a court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Road transport contractual chain guidelines that have ceased to operate</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), road transport contractual chain guidelines that have ceased to operate do not <inline font-style="italic">cover </inline>a person in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NV When road transport contractual chain guidelines are in operation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When road transport contractual chain guidelines come into operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Road transport contractual chain guidelines come into operation on the day specified in the guidelines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The specified day must not be earlier than the day on which the road transport contractual chain guidelines are made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a determination varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines comes into operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A determination varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines comes into operation on the day specified in the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The specified day must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Road transport contractual chain guidelines operate until revoked</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Road transport contractual chain guidelines continue in operation until they are revoked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Exclusion of certain State and Territory laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NW Exclusion of certain State and Territory laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, the rights, entitlements, obligations and liabilities of a person in a road transport contractual chain are not affected by a law of a State or Territory to the extent that the law would otherwise do one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) take or deem the person to be an employer or employee, or otherwise treat the person as if the person were an employer or employee, for the purposes of a law that relates to one or more workplace relations matters (or provide a means for the person to be so taken, deemed or treated);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) confer or impose rights, entitlements, obligations or liabilities on the person in relation to matters that, in an employment relationship, would be workplace relations matters (or provide a means for rights, entitlements, obligations or liabilities in relation to such matters to be conferred or imposed on the person);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b)—expressly provide for a court, commission or tribunal to do any of the following in relation to a services contract on an unfairness ground:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) make an order or determination (however described) setting aside, or declaring to be void or otherwise unenforceable, all or part of the services contract;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) make an order or determination (however described) amending or varying all or part of the services contract.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For the meaning of <inline font-style="italic">workplace relations matter</inline>, see section 536NX.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For the meaning of <inline font-style="italic">unfairness ground</inline>, see section 536NY.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The rights, entitlements, obligations and liabilities of a person in a road transport contractual chain are not affected by a law of a State or Territory that is specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection, to the extent that the law is so specified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a law of a State or Territory, to the extent that the law deals with matters relating to outworkers (including entry of a representative of a trade union to premises for a purpose connected with outworkers), other than matters mentioned in paragraph (1)(c); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any of the following laws:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Chapter 6 of the <inline font-style="italic">Industrial Relations Act 1996</inline> (NSW) (and any other provision of that Act to the extent that it relates to, or has effect for the purposes of, a provision of Chapter 6);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the <inline font-style="italic">Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005</inline> (Vic.); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a law of a State or Territory that is specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to the extent that the law is so specified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (2) has effect even if a law specified in regulations made for the purposes of that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is a law referred to in paragraph (3)(a) or (b); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) deals with matters that, because of section 536NX, are not workplace relations matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">References to State and Territory law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, a reference in this section to a law of a State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes a reference to a regulation, rule or other instrument (however described) made pursuant to, or for the purposes of, a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a reference to a law of a State or Territory as in force from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 536NX What are <inline font-style="italic">workplace relations matters</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of this Chapter, <inline font-style="italic">workplace relations matter</inline> has the same meaning as in section 536JQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NY What is an <inline font-style="italic">unfairness ground</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of this Chapter, an <inline font-style="italic">unfairness ground</inline> in relation to a services contract has the same meaning as in section 536JR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536NZ Interaction of road transport contractual chain orders with State and Territory laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order prevails over a law of a State or Territory, to the extent of any inconsistency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite subsection (1), a term of a road transport contractual chain order applies subject to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a law of a State or Territory specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to the extent that the law is so specified;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a law of a State or Territory that provides for rights or remedies by reference to a law described in paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">References to State and Territory law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, a reference in this section to a law of a State or Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes a reference to a regulation, rule or other instrument (however described) made pursuant to, or for the purposes of, a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is a reference to a law of a State or Territory as in force from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536P Authorisation of conduct for the purposes of the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conduct in accordance with order or guidelines</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>, and the Competition Code within the meaning of that Act, anything done in accordance with a road transport contractual chain order or road transport contractual chain guidelines by a person or entity covered by the order or guidelines is specified in and specifically authorised by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Certain conduct not protected</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite subsection (1), conduct referred to in that subsection is not specified in or specifically authorised by this Act if the conduct is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) making a contract or arrangement, or arriving at an understanding, that is or contains a cartel provision that satisfies the purpose condition in either paragraph 45AD(3)(a) or (b) of the<inline font-style="italic"> Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline> or the Competition Code within the meaning of that Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) boycott conduct within the meaning of subsection 87AA(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010 </inline>or the Competition Code within the meaning of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3B-2 — Minimum standards for persons in a road transport contractual chain</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1¬¬ — Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PB Guide to this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part is about setting minimum standards for persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 empowers the FWC to make road transport contractual chain orders, which set minimum standards to which certain regulated road transport contractors, road transport employee-like workers and other persons in a road transport contractual chain are entitled in relation to certain matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Divisions 3 and 4 deal with deferral and suspension of road transport contractual chain orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5 empowers the FWC to make road transport contractual chain guidelines for persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PC Meaning of employee and employer</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part, <inline font-style="italic">employee</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">employer</inline> have their ordinary meanings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — General matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PD Road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make an order (a <inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain order</inline>) that sets standards for regulated road transport contractors, road transport employee-like workers and other persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The FWC must be constituted by an Expert Panel for the purposes of making a road transport contractual chain order (see subsection 617(10B)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order cannot confer rights or impose obligations on a person in the capacity of an employee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may make a road transport contractual chain order under this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application under subsection 536PE(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC must not make a road transport contractual chain order that covers road transport employee-like workers unless the FWC considers it appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PE Applications for road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Any of the following may apply to the FWC for the making of a road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more persons in a road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business in a road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in a road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An Expert Panel can hear applications under this Act for the road transport industry together: see subsection 582(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Matters to be specified in an application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application for the making of a road transport contractual chain order must specify the classes of persons in a road transport contractual chain to be covered by the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (2), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — Matters relating to road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PF Particular matters FWC must take into account in making a decision on a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application is made for a road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PE(1) or for a variation of a road transport contractual chain order under section 536PS; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the FWC is considering making or varying a road transport contractual chain order on its own initiative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not make or vary the road transport contractual chain order unless there has been genuine engagement with the parties to be covered; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not make or vary the road transport contractual chain order unless the Road Transport Advisory Group has been consulted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) must not make or vary the road transport contractual chain order unless the consultation process set out in Subdivision C of this Division has been followed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in deciding whether to make or vary the road transport contractual chain order, must have regard to the commercial realities of the road transport industry, including commercial practices in relation to part load, mixed load, no load, multi-leg and return trips; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) must not make or vary the road transport contractual chain order unless the FWC is satisfied that making or varying the road transport contractual chain order will not unduly affect the viability and competitiveness of road transport businesses, owner drivers or other similar persons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) in deciding whether to make or vary the road transport contractual chain order, must take into account any current or proposed road transport contractual chain orders and any current or proposed minimum standards orders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) must take reasonable steps to ensure that the coverage of the road transport contractual chain order is clear.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — Consultation process for road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PG FWC to prepare and publish a draft of a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Before making a road transport contractual chain order, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a notice (a<inline font-style="italic"> notice of intent</inline>) stating that the FWC proposes to make a road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish a draft of the proposed road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish the notice of intent and the draft of the road transport contractual chain order on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PH Affected entities to have a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on a draft road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must ensure that affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC for its consideration in relation to the draft of a road transport contractual chain order published under paragraph 536PG(1)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish submissions made to the FWC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, if a submission made by an entity includes information that is claimed by the entity to be confidential or commercially sensitive, and the FWC is satisfied that the information is confidential or commercially sensitive, the FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may decide not to publish the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may instead publish:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a summary of the information which contains sufficient detail to allow a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information (without disclosing anything that is confidential or commercially sensitive); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the FWC considers that it is not practicable to prepare a summary that would comply with subparagraph (i)—a statement that confidential or commercially sensitive information in the submission has not been published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The publishing of material under subsections (2) and (3) must be on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A reference in this Act (other than in this section) to a submission under this section includes a reference to a summary or statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), an <inline font-style="italic">affected entity</inline>, in relation to a draft road transport contractual chain order published under paragraph 536PG(1)(b), is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or body likely to be affected by the making of a road transport contractual chain order based on the draft; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person or body prescribed by the regulations, or included in a class prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The FWC may, but is not required to, hold a hearing in relation to a draft road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PJ Finalising draft order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make any changes it thinks appropriate to a draft road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If changes made under subsection (1) are significant, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) decide not to make the road transport contractual chain order based on the draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish a subsequent notice of intent under paragraph 536PG(1)(a) in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order, and publish the revised draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) follow the process set out in section 536PH in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite paragraph (2)(c), the FWC may reduce the consultation period mentioned in that paragraph to a period not shorter than 6 months if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PK Decision not to make order based on the draft</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FWC may decide that no road transport contractual chain order is to be made based on the draft. If the FWC does so, the FWC must publish notice of the decision on its website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision D — Decisions on road transport contractual chain orders and related matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PL Decisions on applications for road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a road transport contractual chain order is made to the FWC under subsection 536PE(1), the FWC may decide to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) refuse to consider the application; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) make a road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PD(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) not make a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the FWC considers it appropriate to do so, instead make road transport contractual chain guidelines under section 536QP, as if the application had been an application under subsection 536QQ(1) for road transport contractual chain guidelines in relation to the persons in a road transport contractual chain covered by the application under subsection 536PE(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the FWC may refuse to consider the application if it is not consistent with a direction of the President under subsection 582(4D) (prioritisation).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PM Terms that must be included in a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Terms relating to coverage</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order must include terms setting out in accordance with this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work in the road transport industry covered by the road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the persons in a road transport contractual chain covered by the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order must be expressed to cover persons in a road transport contractual chain, including specified regulated road transport contractors or road transport employee-like workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of subsection (2):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) persons in a road transport contractual chain other than regulated road transport contractors or road transport employee-like workers may be specified by name or by inclusion in a specified class or specified classes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) regulated road transport contractors and road transport employee-like workers must be specified by inclusion in a specified class or specified classes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (3), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PN Road transport contractual chain order must include term about interaction with minimum standards orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order must include a provision that specifies the extent to which it prevails over, or is subject to, a minimum standards order to the extent of any inconsistency, and the road transport contractual chain order and the minimum standards order have effect according to the provision included in the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PP Term about settling disputes must be included in a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order must include a term that provides a procedure for settling disputes about any matters arising under the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PQ Terms that may be included in a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order may also include terms about any of the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) payment times;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) fuel levies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) rate reviews;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) termination, including one way termination for convenience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) cost recovery.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the terms that may be included in a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PR Terms that must not be included in a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A road transport contractual chain order must not include terms about any of the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) overtime rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rostering arrangements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a term that would change the form of the engagement or the status of a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker covered by the road transport contractual chain order including, but not limited to, a term that deems a regulated road transport contractor or a road transport employee-like worker to be an employee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a matter relating to work health and safety that is otherwise comprehensively dealt with by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a matter prescribed by the regulations, or included in a class of matter prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A road transport contractual chain order must not include terms about any of the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a matter relating to road transport that is otherwise comprehensively dealt with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) by the Heavy Vehicle National Law as set out in the Schedule to the <inline font-style="italic">Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012</inline> (Qld); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) by another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a matter prescribed by the regulations, or included in a class of matter prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the regulations may specify that a particular matter, or a matter included in a class of matters, is, or is not, dealt with comprehensively by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the regulations may prescribe one or more laws of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory to which that paragraph does, or does not, not apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the regulations may specify that a particular matter, or a matter included in a class of matters, is, or is not, dealt with comprehensively by the Heavy Vehicle National Law as set out in the Schedule to the <inline font-style="italic">Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012</inline> (Qld) or another law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the regulations may prescribe one or more laws of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory to which subparagraph (2)(a)(ii) does, or does not, not apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PS Applications to vary or revoke road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any of the following may apply to the FWC for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the persons in the road transport contractual chain to which the order relates or to whom the order as proposed to be varied would relate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business in the road transport contractual chain to which the order relates or to which the order as proposed to be varied would relate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in the road transport contractual chain to which the order relates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PT FWC may vary or revoke road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order if the FWC is satisfied that making the determination is consistent with the minimum standards objective and the road transport objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make a determination varying a road transport contractual chain order in such a way that not all of the elements of the variation sought in an application under section 536PS are implemented, including by refusing to make a variation to the extent that it would result in the order covering persons who are not regulated road transport contractors or road transport employee-like workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may make a determination varying a road transport contractual chain order to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC may make a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application under section 536PS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The FWC must not vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order that covers road transport employee-like workers, or in such a way that it would begin to cover or cease to cover road transport employee-like workers, unless the FWC considers it appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC may also make a determination under subsection (1) varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order to give effect to a decision under paragraph 536QK(2)(a) or (b) to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection 536QK(2) requires the FWC to consider whether to vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order after a deferral declaration, a deferral determination, a suspension declaration or a suspension determination is made in relation to the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A road transport contractual chain order that is not in operation can only be revoked or varied under the process set out in Divisions 3 and 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Deferral and suspension of road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Ministerial declarations to defer or suspend road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PU Minister may make a declaration deferring the operation or application of a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by notifiable instrument, make a declaration (a <inline font-style="italic">deferral declaration</inline>) that defers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the coming into operation of a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A deferral declaration made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full deferral declaration</inline>, and a deferral declaration made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part deferral declaration</inline>,in relation to the road transport contractual chain order to which the deferral declaration relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A deferral declaration in relation to a road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ceases to be in operation on the day on which the FWC decides under subsection 536QK(2) whether or not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Secretary of the Department must publish a deferral declaration on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the deferral declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PV Limitations on making a deferral declaration</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">No deferral of road transport contractual chain order that is in operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must not make a deferral declaration in relation to a road transport contractual chain order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Only one full deferral declaration is permitted etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)The Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may only make one full deferral declaration in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not make a full deferral declaration in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order if a deferral determination (whether a full deferral determination or a part deferral determination) has previously been made by the FWC in relation to the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The FWC may make deferral determinations in relation to road transport contractual chain orders under Subdivision B of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">More than one part deferral declaration is permitted</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister may make more than one part deferral declaration in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If more than one part deferral declaration or part deferral determination is made in relation to the same road transport contractual chain order as permitted by subsection (3) of this section or subsection 536QC(3), a later part deferral declaration must not have the effect of deferring, or purporting to defer, the application of a term or terms to any person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to whom the terms already apply when the later part deferral declaration is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to whom the application of the terms has previously been deferred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PW Operation of a road transport contractual chain order during deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full deferral declaration in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part deferral declaration in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport contractual chain order is in operation when a part deferral declaration is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PX Minister may make a declaration suspending a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by notifiable instrument, make a declaration (a <inline font-style="italic">suspension declaration</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) suspending the operation of a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) suspending the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A suspension declaration made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full suspension declaration</inline>, and a suspension declaration made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part suspension declaration</inline>,in relation to the road transport contractual chain order to which the suspension declaration relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Suspension declaration must specify period of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A suspension declaration must specify the period of the suspension, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not be longer than 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not start before the day on which the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When period of suspension ends</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to subsection (5), a period of suspension specified in a suspension declaration ends immediately after the end of the period specified in the suspension declaration under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a period of suspension has not already ended under subsection (3) when the FWC makes a decision under subsection 536QK(2) as to whether to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order, the period of suspension ends on whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the FWC decides to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order—on the day that the determination made under subsection 536PT(1) varying or revoking the road transport contractual chain order comes into operation, which must not be later than 12 months after the day on which the suspension declaration was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC decides not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 7 days after the day on which the decision is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a 7-day period would result in the suspension lasting longer than 12 months—such shorter period as is specified in the decision, which must be a period that would result in the suspension lasting 12 months or less.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Classes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the Minister makes a suspension declaration, the FWC may make any orders it considers appropriate to ensure that no person is unfairly affected by the suspension.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Secretary of the Department must publish a suspension declaration on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Accrued rights, etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The making of a suspension declaration does not affect any right or liability that a person acquired, accrued or incurred before the suspension declaration is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PY Suspension declaration must be made within 12 months of certain dates</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Full suspension declaration timing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A full suspension declaration in relation to a road transport contractual chain order must be made within 12 months of the day on which the road transport contractual chain order came into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Part suspension declaration timing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A part suspension declaration in relation to a road transport contractual chain order must be made within 12 months of whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order to a specified class of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order first applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if all of the terms of the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to a specified class of persons—the day on which the specified terms first applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which the specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the part suspension declaration suspends the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to all persons—the day on which the specified terms first applied to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536PZ Operation of a road transport contractual chain order during suspension</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full suspension declaration in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part suspension declaration in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport contractual chain order is in operation during a period when a part suspension declaration is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536Q Consultation requirements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Minister is not required to consult any person or body before making a deferral declaration or a suspension declaration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — FWC may defer or suspend road transport contractual chain orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QA Applications for a deferral determination for a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application may be made to the FWC for a determination under subsection 536QB(1) (a <inline font-style="italic">deferral determination</inline>) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application may be made under subsection (1) by any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more persons in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An Expert Panel can hear applications under this Act for the road transport industry together: see subsection 582(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application for a deferral determination must not be made in relation to a road transport contractual chain order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the road transport contractual chain order concerned comes into operation before the FWC considers the application, the FWC may treat it as a suspension application: see subsection 536QD(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QB FWC may make a determination deferring the operation or application of a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may, on application under subsection 536QA(1), make a deferral determination:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that defers the coming into operation of a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that defers the application of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) all of the terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A deferral determination made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full deferral determination</inline>, and a deferral determination made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part deferral determination</inline>,in relation to the road transport contractual chain order to which the deferral determination relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A deferral determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) comes into operation on the day on which it is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ceases to be in operation on the day on which the FWC decides under subsection 536QK(2) whether or not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QC Limitations on making a deferral determination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">No deferral of road transport contractual chain order that is in operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must not make a deferral determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order that has already come into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Only one full deferral determination is permitted, etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)The FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may only make one full deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not make a full deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order if a deferral declaration (whether a full deferral declaration or a part deferral declaration) has previously been made by the Minister in relation to the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Minister may make deferral declarations in relation to road transport contractual chain orders under Subdivision A of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">More than one part deferral determination is permitted</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subject to subsection (4), the FWC may make more than one part deferral determination in relation to a particular road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If more than one part deferral determination or part deferral declaration is made in relation to the same road transport contractual chain order as permitted by subsection (3) of this section or subsection 536PV(3), a later part deferral determination must not have the effect of deferring, or purporting to defer, the application of a term to any person or class of persons:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to whom the term already applies when the later part deferral determination is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to whom the application of the terms has previously been deferred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QD Decision on an application for a deferral determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a deferral determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order is made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the application as soon as practicable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consult the Road Transport Advisory Group before making a decision on the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the road transport contractual chain order concerned comes into operation before the FWC makes a decision on the application, the FWC may treat the application as if it were an application for a suspension determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make the deferral determination under subsection 536QB(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) decide not to make the deferral determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC must make the deferral determination if, and must not make the deferral determination unless, the FWC is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the applicant has provided significant new facts or evidence that was not available at the time the FWC decided to make the road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the significant new facts or evidence demonstrate that the road transport contractual chain order will not provide, or has not provided, an appropriate safety net of road transport contractual chain for parties in the road transport industry, having regard to the road transport contractual chain objective and the road transport objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In considering whether the FWC is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4), the FWC may have regard to whether one or more previous applications for variation or revocation of the road transport contractual chain order concerned have previously been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC must publish a deferral determination on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QE Operation of a road transport contractual chain order during deferral</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full deferral determination in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport contractual chain order is in operation during a period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QF Applications for a suspension determination for a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application may be made to the FWC for a determination (a <inline font-style="italic">suspension determination</inline>) under subsection 536QG(1) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application may be made under subsection (1) by any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more persons in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in the road transport contractual chain;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An Expert Panel can hear applications under this Act for the road transport industry together: see subsection 582(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of application for full suspension determination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application for a full suspension determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order must be made within 12 months of the day on which the order came into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of application for part suspension determination</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) An application for a part suspension determination must be made within 12 months of whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order to a specified class—the first day on which all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order applied to the class of person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which all of the terms of the road transport contractual chain order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if all of the terms of the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to a specified class of persons—the first day on which the specified terms applied to the specified class of persons;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to 2 or more specified classes of persons—the day on which the specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order first applied to at least one of the specified classes of persons (even if the order did not apply to all of the specified classes on that day);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the part suspension determination will suspend the application of specified terms of the road transport contractual chain order to all persons—the first day on which the specified terms applied to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QG FWC may make a determination suspending a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may, on application under subsection 536QF(1), make a suspension determination:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) suspending the operation of a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) suspending:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the application of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the application of specified terms of a road transport contractual chain order to a specified class or specified classes of persons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the application of specified terms of road transport contractual chain order to all persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: A person may also apply under section 536PS for a variation or revocation of a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: Judicial review of decisions of the FWC is available: see paragraph 39B(1A)(c) of the <inline font-style="italic">Judiciary Act 1903</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A suspension determination made under paragraph (1)(a) is a<inline font-style="italic"> full suspension determination</inline>, and a suspension determination made under paragraph (1)(b) is a <inline font-style="italic">part suspension determination</inline>,in relation to the road transport contractual chain order to which the suspension determination relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Suspension determination must specify period of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the FWC makes a suspension determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order, the suspension determination must specify the period for which the order is suspended, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not be a period of more than 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not start before the day on which the determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When period of suspension ends</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to subsection (5), a period of suspension specified in a suspension determination ends immediately after the end of the period specified in the suspension determination under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the period of suspension has not already ended under subsection (4) when the FWC makes a decision under subsection 536QK(2) as to whether to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order, the period of suspension ends on whichever of the following days is applicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the FWC decides to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order—on the day that the determination made under subsection 536PT(1) varying or revoking the road transport contractual chain order comes into operation, which must not be later than 12 months after the day on which the suspension determination was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the FWC decides not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 7 days after the day on which the decision is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a 7-day period would result in the suspension lasting longer than 12 months—such shorter period as is specified in the decision, which must be a period that would result in the suspension lasting 12 months or less.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Classes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (1), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QH Decision on an application for a suspension determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a suspension determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order is made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the application as soon as practicable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consult the Road Transport Advisory Group before making a decision on the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make the suspension determination under subsection 536QG(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) decide not to make the suspension determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC must make the suspension determination if, and must not make the suspension determination unless, the FWC is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the applicant has provided significant new facts or evidence that was not available at the time the FWC decided to make the road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the significant new facts or evidence demonstrate that the road transport contractual chain order will not provide, or has not provided, an appropriate safety net of road transport contractual chain for parties in the road transport industry, having regard to the road transport contractual chain objective and the road transport objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In considering whether the FWC is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3), the FWC may have regard to whether one or more previous applications for variation or revocation of the road transport contractual chain order have previously been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the FWC makes the suspension determination, the FWC may make any orders it considers appropriate to ensure that no person is unfairly affected by the suspension.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The FWC must publish a suspension determination on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The making of a suspension determination does not affect any right or liability that a person acquired, accrued or incurred before the suspension determination is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QJ Operation of a road transport contractual chain order during suspension</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A road transport contractual chain order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not in operation during any period when a full suspension determination in relation to the road transport contractual chain order is in operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is in operation during any period when a part suspension determination is in operation in relation to the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although a road transport contractual chain order is in operation during a period when a part deferral determination is in operation in relation to the order, the order as a whole will not apply to specified classes of persons, or specified terms of the order will not apply to all persons or specified classes of persons, during that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — FWC must consider and decide whether to vary or revoke a deferred or suspended road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QK FWC must consider whether to vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order that has been deferred or suspended</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister makes a deferral declaration or a suspension declaration in relation to a road transport contractual chain order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the FWC makes a deferral determination or a suspension determination in relation to a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must, as soon as practicable, consider whether or not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order. The FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) vary the road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PT(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) revoke the road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PT(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) decide not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General preconditions for variation or revocation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must not vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order unless there has been genuine engagement with the parties to be covered; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a road transport contractual chain order—must not vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order unless the Road Transport Advisory Group has been consulted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the case of a road transport contractual chain order—must have regard to the commercial realities of the road transport industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the case of a road transport contractual chain order—must be satisfied that the variation or revocation of the road transport contractual chain order will not unduly affect the viability and competitiveness of owner drivers or other similar persons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in the case of a road transport contractual chain order that covers road transport employee-like workers—must have regard to choice and flexibility in working arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Special preconditions for variation or revocation: road transport contractual chain order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (3), the FWC must not vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made unless the FWC has followed the process set out in Division 4 of this Part in relation to the variation or revocation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication requirements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The FWC must publish notice of the FWC's decision under subsection (2) on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">End of suspension period does not affect obligations under this section</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The end of a period of suspension of a road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PX(4) or 536QG(4) does not affect the FWC's obligation to consider whether or not to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 4 — Consultation before varying or revoking road transport contractual chain order after a deferral declaration or deferral determination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QL FWC to prepare and publish a notice relating to proposed variation or revocation of a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Before deciding to vary or revoke a road transport contractual chain order in relation to which a deferral declaration or a deferral determination has been made, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish a notice (a<inline font-style="italic"> notice of intent</inline>) stating that the FWC proposes to vary or revoke the road transport contractual chain order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the proposal is to vary the road transport contractual chain order—publish a draft of the road transport contractual chain order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish the notice of intent and the draft of the road transport contractual chain order as proposed to be varied (if applicable) on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate as soon as practicable after making the determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QM Affected entities to have a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and comment on a proposed variation or revocation of a road transport contractual chain order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC must ensure that affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC for its consideration in relation to the proposed variation or revocation of a road transport contractual chain order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536QL(1)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must publish submissions made to the FWC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, if a submission made by an entity includes information that is claimed by the entity to be confidential or commercially sensitive, and the FWC is satisfied that the information is confidential or commercially sensitive, the FWC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may decide not to publish the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may instead publish:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a summary of the information which contains sufficient detail to allow a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information (without disclosing anything that is confidential or commercially sensitive); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the FWC considers that it is not practicable to prepare a summary that would comply with subparagraph (i)—a statement that confidential or commercially sensitive information in the submission has not been published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The publishing of material under subsections (2) and (3) must be on the FWC's website and by any other means the FWC considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A reference in this Act (other than in this section) to a submission under this section includes a reference to a summary or statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), an <inline font-style="italic">affected entity</inline>, in relation to a proposed variation or revocation of a road transport contractual chain order in relation to which a notice of intent has been published under paragraph 536QL(1)(a), is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or body likely to be affected by the proposed variation or revocation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person or body prescribed by the regulations, or belonging to a class of persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The FWC may, but is not required to, hold a hearing in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a draft road transport contractual chain order as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a proposed revocation of a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QN Finalising draft order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make any changes it thinks appropriate to a draft road transport contractual chain order as proposed to be varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If changes proposed to be made under subsection (1) are significant, the FWC must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) decide not to vary the road transport contractual chain order based on the draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish a subsequent notice of intent under paragraph 536QL(1)(a) in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order, and publish the revised draft; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) follow the process set out in section 536QM in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5 — Road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QP Road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make guidelines under this section (<inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain guidelines</inline>) that set standards for regulated road transport contractors, road transport employee-like workers and other persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make road transport contractual chain guidelines under this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application under section 536QQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QQ Applications for road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Any of the following may apply to the FWC for the making of road transport contractual chain guidelines:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the persons that would be covered by the proposed road transport contractual chain guidelines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business that would be covered by the proposed road transport contractual chain guidelines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in a road transport contractual chain that would be covered by the proposed road transport contractual chain guidelines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Matters to be specified in an application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application for the making of road transport contractual chain guidelines must specify the class of persons in a road transport contractual chain to be covered by the guidelines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting the way in which a class may be described for the purposes of subsection (2), the class may be described by reference to a particular industry or sector, or part of an industry or sector, or particular kinds of work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QR Decisions on applications for road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for road transport contractual chain guidelines is made to the FWC under subsection 536QQ(1), the FWC may decide to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) refuse to consider the application; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) make road transport contractual chain guidelines under subsection 536QP(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) not make road transport contractual chain guidelines; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the FWC considers it appropriate to do so, instead make a road transport contractual chain order under subsection 536PD(1), as if the application had been an application under subsection 536PE(1) for a road transport contractual chain order in relation to the persons covered by the application under subsection 536QQ(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the FWC may refuse to consider the application if it is not consistent with a direction of the President under subsection 582(4D) (prioritisation).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QS Road transport contractual chain guidelines not to be made if a road transport contractual chain order is in operation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FWC must not make road transport contractual chain guidelines that cover the same persons in a road transport contractual chain in relation to the same matters as a road transport contractual chain order that is in operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QT Terms that must be included in road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Road transport contractual chain guidelines must include terms setting out the same matters in relation to road transport contractual chain orders as set out in section 536PM.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QU Terms that may be included in road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Road transport contractual chain guidelines may include terms about any of the matters that may be included in road transport contractual chain orders under section 536PQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QV Terms that must not be included in road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Road transport contractual chain guidelines must not include terms about any of the matters that must not be included in road transport contractual chain orders as set out in section 536PR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QW FWC may vary or revoke road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The FWC may make a determination varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines if the FWC is satisfied that making the determination is consistent with the road transport objective and the minimum standards objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC may make a determination varying road transport contractual chain guidelines in such a way that not all of the elements of the variation sought in an application under section 536QX are implemented, including by refusing to make a variation to the extent that it would result in the guidelines covering persons who are not in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The FWC may make a determination varying road transport contractual chain guidelines to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty or to correct an error.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC may make a determination varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on its own initiative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on application under section 536QX.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the FWC makes a road transport contractual chain order that covers the same persons in a road transport contractual chain in relation to the same matters as road transport contractual chain guidelines, the FWC must revoke the road transport contractual chain guidelines with effect on and from the day on which the road transport contractual chain order comes into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If the FWC makes a road transport contractual chain order that covers some or all of the same persons in a road transport contractual chain in relation to some or all of the same matters as road transport contractual chain guidelines, the FWC must vary the road transport contractual chain guidelines so that the guidelines do not cover the persons or matters covered by the order, with effect on and from the day on which the order comes into operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">536QX Applications to vary or revoke road transport contractual chain guidelines</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any of the following may apply to the FWC for a determination varying or revoking road transport contractual chain guidelines:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of one or more of the persons covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines, or that would be covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a regulated business covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines, or that would be covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person who is a primary party to the first contract or arrangement in a road transport contractual chain covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines, or that would be covered by the road transport contractual chain guidelines as proposed to be varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a person or body prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(144) Govt (13) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 250, page 149 (after line 23), after paragraph 3(ca), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(caa) ensuring a safety net of fair and relevant minimum terms and conditions for persons in a road transport contractual chain through enforceable road transport contractual chain orders and through road transport contractual chain guidelines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(145) Govt (14) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 251, page 150 (after line 2), after paragraph 4(1)(bb), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bc) provides for minimum terms and conditions for persons in a road transport contractual chain (Chapter 3B); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(146) Govt (15) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 253, page 150 (after line 30), after section 6A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6B Rights and responsibilities of persons in a road transport contractual chain</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Chapter 3B sets out rights and responsibilities of persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Part 3B-1 has the core provisions for the Chapter. It deals with compliance with road transport contractual chain orders made under the Chapter and interaction issues.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Part 3B-2 is about road transport contractual chain orders and road transport contractual chain guidelines, which can be made for certain persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(147) Govt (16) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 254, page 151 (after line 6), after paragraph (bb) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">applies</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bc) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see section 536NR; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(148) Govt (17) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 256, page 151 (after line 23), after paragraph (cc) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">covers</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cd) in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see section 536NS; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ce) in relation to road transport contractual chain guidelines: see section 536NU; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(149) Govt (7) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 256A, page 151 (after line 26), after the definition of<inline font-style="italic"> deactivated</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQA(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQH(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(150) Govt (41) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 256A, page 151 (line 29), omit "subsection 536LJ(1)", substitute "section 536LJ".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(151) Govt (18) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 257, page 152 (lines 11 and 12), omit "but not including minimum standards guidelines" substitute "or a road transport contractual chain order, but not including minimum standards guidelines or road transport contractual chain guidelines".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(152) Govt (8) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 258, page 152 (before line 16), before the definition of<inline font-style="italic"> minimum standards guidelines</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQA(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQJ(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQD(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQP(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(153) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (3) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 258, page 152 (after line 18), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">minimum standards order</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">opt out notice</inline>: see subsection 15AB(8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(154) Govt (9) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 258, page 152 (after line 18), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">minimum standards order</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQA(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">part deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order:see subsection 536KQJ(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQD(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQP(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(155) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (4) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 258, page 153 (after line 8), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">road transport minimum standards order</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">section 15AA commencement</inline>: see subsection 15AB(8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(156) Govt (10) [sheet ZB259]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 258, page 153 (after line 9), after the definition of<inline font-style="italic"> services contract</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQD(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport minimum standards order: see subsection 536KQN(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(157) Govt (19) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 259, page 153 (line 22), omit "contractors.", substitute "contractors; or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(158) Govt (20) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 259, page 153 (after line 22), after subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">workplace instrument</inline> in section 12, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) persons in a road transport contractual chain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(159) Govt (21) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 272, page 159 (after table item 29AE), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(160) Govt (22) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 273, page 160 (after line 14), after subsection 540(7B), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Persons in a road transport contractual chain</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7C) A person in a road transport contractual chain may apply for an order under this Division, in relation to a contravention or proposed contravention of a civil remedy provision, only if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is affected by the contravention, or will be affected by the proposed contravention; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a party to a contract with another person covered by the relevant road transport contractual chain order, being a person who is alleged to have committed the contravention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(161) Govt (23) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 274, page 160 (after line 22), after paragraph 557(2)(od), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(oe) section 536NP (which deals with contraventions of road transport contractual chain orders);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(162) Govt (24) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 275, page 160 (after line 29), after paragraph 576(1)(md), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(me) minimum standards for persons in a road transport contractual chain (Part 3B-2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(163) Govt (25) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 276, page 160 (line 33), omit "Chapter 3A.", substitute "Chapter 3A; and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(164) Govt (26) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 276, page 160 (after line 33), after paragraph 581(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) adequately serves the needs of persons covered by Chapter 3B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(165) Govt (42) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 277, page 161 (after line 5), after paragraph 582(4)(ac), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ad) a direction about the exercise of powers under Part 3B-2 (which deals with road transport contractual chains);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(166) Govt (43) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 279, page 161 (lines 13 and 14), omit "Part 3A-2 including, but not limited to, prioritising", substitute "Parts 3A-2 and 3B-2 including, but not limited to, prioritising types of orders under those Parts and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(167) Govt (27) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 281, page 161 (lines 23 and 24), omit "or minimum standards guidelines", substitute ", minimum standards guidelines, road transport contractual chain orders or road transport contractual chain guidelines".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(168) Govt (28) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 282, page 161 (line 28), after "536KZ(3)", insert "respectively, and corrects road transport contractual chain orders and road transport contractual chain guidelines under subsections 536PT(3) and 536QW(3) respectively".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(169) Govt (29) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 283, page 162 (after line 4), after paragraph 603(3)(gb), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(gc) a decision under Part 3B-2 (which deals with road transport contractual chain orders);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(170) Govt (44) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 288, page 162 (line 14), omit "After subsection 616(4)", substitute "Before subsection 616(5)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(171) Govt (45) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 288, page 162 (line 17), omit "(4A)" (first occurring), substitute "(4B)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(172) Govt (30) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 294, page 163 (lines 17 and 18), omit paragraph 675(2)(m), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) a road transport contractual chain order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(173) Govt (31) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 295, page 163 (line 20), after "businesses,", insert "persons in a road transport contractual chain,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(174) Govt (32) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 297, page 163 (lines 25 to 28), omit subsection 682(3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Fair Work Ombudsman has the functions of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) providing education, assistance and advice to regulated workers, regulated businesses and organisations, and persons in a road transport contractual chain, in relation to minimum standards guidelines and road transport contractual chain guidelines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) producing best practice guides in relation to minimum standards guidelines and road transport contractual chain guidelines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(175) Govt (33) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 298, page 164 (line 4), after "order", insert "or a road transport contractual chain order".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(176) Govt (34) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 299, page 164 (after line 10), after paragraph 716(1)(fb), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(fc) a term of a road transport contractual chain order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(177) Govt (46) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 299A, page 164 (before line 13), before Subdivision E, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision DA — Actions relating to unfair deactivation or unfair termination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">734BA Limitation on applications for remedy for unfair deactivation — other proceedings in progress</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application under Division 5 of Part 3A-3 (unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) in relation to deactivation of a person from a digital labour platform must not be made if other deactivation proceedings have been commenced in relation to the person and the digital labour platform, unless the other deactivation proceedings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have been discontinued by the person who commenced them; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have failed for want of jurisdiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an application under Division 5 of Part 3A-3 has been made in relation to deactivation of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant worker</inline>) from a digital labour platform, a person must not commence other deactivation proceedings in relation to the relevant worker and the digital labour platform unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the application has been discontinued by the person who made it; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the proceedings in relation to the application have failed for want of jurisdiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">other deactivation proceedings</inline> means proceedings (if any) specified in regulations made for the purposes of this definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">734BB Limitation on applications for remedy for unfair termination — other proceedings in progress</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application under Division 5 of Part 3A-3 (unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers) in relation to termination of a services contract must not be made if other termination proceedings have been commenced in relation to the services contract, unless the other termination proceedings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have been discontinued by the person who commenced them; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have failed for want of jurisdiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person must not commence other termination proceedings in relation to a services contract if an application under Division 5 of Part 3A-3 has been made in relation to termination of the services contract unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the application has been discontinued by the person who made it; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the proceedings in relation to the application have failed for want of jurisdiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">other termination proceedings</inline> means proceedings (if any) specified in regulations made for the purposes of this definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(178) Govt (35) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 300, page 165 (lines 9 and 10), omit "and regulated workers and regulated businesses", substitute ", regulated workers and regulated businesses, and persons in a road transport contractual chain".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(179) Govt (36) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 301, page 165 (line 12), after "3A", insert "or 3B".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(180) Govt (37) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 302, page 165 (after line 18), after paragraph 738(bb), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bc) a road transport contractual chain order includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with disputes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(181) Govt (38) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 303, page 165 (lines 19 to 24), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(182) Govt (39) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 304, page 165 (lines 25 and 26), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(183) Govt (40) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 305, page 165 (lines 27 to 31), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(184) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (1) [sheet 2369]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, Part 16, page 166 (after line 14), at the end of the Part, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 — Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">National Workplace Relations Consultative Council Act 2002</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306A Before section 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306B Section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Committee </inline>means the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">digital labour platform </inline>has the meaning given by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee</inline> means the committee established under Part 3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">digital labour platform operator </inline>has the meaning given by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">digital platform work </inline>has the meaning given by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306C Before section 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Establishment of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306D Subsections 10A(1) to (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may, after consulting the members of the Council or the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee (as the case requires), invite a person, body or organisation to nominate a representative for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A representative so invited may participate in one or more meetings of one or more of the following, in accordance with the invitation, but does not become a member of the Council, or of a committee or subcommittee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Council;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) committees of the Council, including the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a subcommittee of the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If at any time the Minister terminates an invitation, the representative concerned ceases to be entitled to participate in meetings of the Council, its committees or any subcommittee of the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306E Before section 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3 — Establishment of the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12A Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) There is established by this Part a committee by the name of the Digital Labour Platform Consultative Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A member of the Committee is not entitled to any remuneration or allowances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subject to subsection (2), the Committee is taken to be a committee constituted for the purposes of section 12.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12B Purpose of Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The purpose of the Committee is to provide, in the public interest, a regular and organised means by which representatives of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government of the Commonwealth; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) digital labour platform operators; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) workers performing digital platform work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) when the Minister considers it appropriate, other persons, bodies and organisations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">may consult together on workplace relations matters relating to digital platform work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) It is the intention of this Act that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) meetings of the Committee will be conducted on a non-political basis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Committee will not interfere with the proper performance of the functions of industrial tribunals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) subject to the rights of persons participating in meetings of the Committee to report to the persons, bodies and organisations that they represent and to the right of the Committee to make announcements that those persons agree are in the public interest, the views expressed at those meetings will be kept confidential.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsection (1) does not limit the purposes of the Council under section 5.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12C Membership of Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Committee is to consist of the following members:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister, who is to be the Chair of the Committee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at least 6 members appointed by the Minister under subsection (3) who the Minister is satisfied represent digital labour platform operators;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at least 6 members appointed by the Minister under subsection (3) who the Minister is satisfied represent workers performing digital platform work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting the sectors that may be represented for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the Minister must be satisfied that the persons appointed under each of those paragraphs represent the following sectors:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the care economy sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the on demand delivery sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the rideshare sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister may appoint a person for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) or (c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to this Act, a member (except the Minister) holds office for such period, not exceeding 2 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12D Resignation of members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An appointed member may resign by writing signed by the member and delivered to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12E Termination of appointment of members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If, in relation to a member appointed for the purposes of paragraph 12C(1)(b) or (c), the Minister ceases to be satisfied as required by the relevant paragraph, the Minister must terminate the appointment of that member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12F Substitute members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may nominate a person to attend a meeting of the Committee in the Minister's place, or in the place of an appointed member who is unable to be present at a meeting of the Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person nominated under subsection (1) to attend a meeting of the Committee in the place of a member of the Committee has, and may exercise, at that meeting all the rights of that member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12G Meetings of Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) During the first 24 months after this section commences, the Committee must meet:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) at least once each year during the period that begins on 1 January and ends on 30 June; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at least once each year during the period that begins on 1 July and ends on 31 December.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A representative of a person, body or organisation may, under section 10A, be invited by the Minister to a meeting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) After that 24-month period, the Committee must meet at least once during each further 12-month period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister may, at any time, convene a meeting of the Committee and must do so whenever the holding of a meeting is necessary to comply with subsection (1) or (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must convene a meeting of the Committee whenever requested to do so by a majority of the members of the Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must preside at all meetings of the Committee at which the Minister is present, and, in the Minister's absence from a meeting, the person nominated under subsection 12F(1) to attend that meeting in the place of the Minister must preside.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subject to this section, the procedure to be followed at a meeting of the Committee must be determined by the Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12H Subcommittees</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Committee may, at any time, cause to be constituted a subcommittee to consider, and report to the Committee on, any matter relevant to the purpose of the Committee referred to it by the Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A member of a subcommittee is not entitled to any remuneration or allowances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 — Other matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306F Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">National Workplace Relations Consultative Council Act 2002</inline> made by this Division apply to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the period beginning on 1 January and ending on 30 June, or beginning on 1 July and ending on 31 December, during which this Division commences; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any later such period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(185) Govt (41) [sheet ZC235]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, page 166 (after line 14), after Part 16, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 16A — Consequential signpost definitions relating to road transport contractual chains</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">306A Section 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PU(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536QA(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PU(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536QB(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PX(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">full suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536QG(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">in a road transport contractual chain</inline>: see section 15RA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part deferral declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PU(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">part deferral determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order:see subsection 536QB(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PX(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">part suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536QG(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">primary party</inline>: see subsection 15RA(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain</inline>: see section 15RA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain guidelines</inline>: see section 536QP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">road transport contractual chain order</inline>: see section 536PD.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">road transport employee-like worker</inline>: see section 15RB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">secondary party</inline>: see subsection 15RA(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">suspension declaration</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536PX(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">suspension determination</inline>, in relation to a road transport contractual chain order: see subsection 536QF(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(186) Ind (Thorpe) (3) [sheet 2373]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 170 (lines 17 to 20), omit subclause 102(4) of Schedule 1.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(187) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (34) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 170 (before line 33), before subparagraph 102(6)(b)(i) of Schedule 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) been given a notice before commencement under subsection 66C(3) that the employer is not required to make an offer to the employee under section 66B; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ib) been given a notice after commencement under subsection 66C(3) that the employer is not required to make an offer to the employee under section 66B (as those sections continue to apply because of subclauses (6AA) and (6AB)); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ic) declined before commencement, under section 66D, an offer made by the employer under section 66B; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(id) declined after commencement, under section 66D, an offer made by the employer under section 66B (as those sections continue to apply because of subclauses (6AA) and (6AB)); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(188) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (35) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 171 (after line 4), after subclause 102(6) of Schedule 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6AA) Despite subclause (5), sections 66B and 66C as in force immediately before commencement continue to apply after commencement for a period of 6 months from commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before commencement where the employer is not a small business employer at commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6AB) Despite subclause (5), sections 66D and 66E as in force immediately before commencement continue to apply after commencement in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an offer made before commencement by an employer under section 66B for which, immediately before commencement, a response under section 66D or a notice under section 66E had not been given; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an offer made after commencement by an employer under section 66B, or a notice given after commencement under subsection 66C(3) that the employer has decided not to make an offer to the employee under section 66B (as those sections continue to apply because of subclause (6AA)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(189) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (36) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 171 (line 9), after "small business employer", insert "at commencement".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(190) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (37) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 171 (line 11), after "small business employer", insert "at commencement".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(191) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (38) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 171 (line 23), omit "sections 66M and 739", substitute "sections 66M, 548 and 739".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(192) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (39) [sheet 2366]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 171 (after line 27), after paragraph 102(7)(a) of Schedule 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) disputes that arise after commencement relating to the operation of sections 66B to 66E (as those sections continue to apply because of subclauses (6AA) and (6AB)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(193) AG (3) [sheet 2361]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 175 (after line 2), after Division 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5A — Amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111A Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Division:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commencement</inline> means the commencement of Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111B Application of section 149F of the amended Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Section 149F (right to disconnect term) of the amended Act applies in relation to a modern award that is in operation on or after commencement, whether or not the award was made before commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, a modern award is not invalid on or after commencement only because it does not include a right to disconnect term.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111C FWC to vary certain modern awards</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies in relation to a modern award if the award:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is made before commencement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is to be in operation on commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The FWC must, by the day before commencement, make a determination varying the modern award to include a right to disconnect term.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A determination made under subclause (2) comes into operation on (and takes effect from) commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Section 168 applies to a determination made under subclause (2) as if it were a determination made under Part 2-3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111D Application of amendments to small business employers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply in relation to an employer that is a small business employer on the day of commencement, or an employee of the employer, for a period of 12 months beginning on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(194) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (5) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 176 (line 26), after "Schedule", insert "and sections 15AB to 15AD of the amended Act".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(195) JLN/Ind (Pocock) (6) [sheet 2371 revised]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 177 (line 21), after "Act", insert ", and, to avoid doubt, does not include a reference to an individual in respect of whom an opt out notice has been given and not revoked".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(196) Govt (47) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 181 (line 27), omit "12 months", substitute "6 months".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(197) Govt (48) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 182 (lines 3 and 4), omit "the commencement of this item", substitute "commencement".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(198) Govt (49) [sheet ZC237]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1, item 308, page 182 (lines 11 and 12), omit "of this item".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move as an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "considered" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"at the next sitting".</para></quote>
<para>I'll take the opportunity to explain to members of the House why I am moving this motion. The process that the government and the minister have followed in relation to the so-called closing loopholes bill has been utterly appalling. It has been a complete travesty of democratic process. This has been going on for some months. When the minister introduced the original bill in September last year—a bill that was hundreds of pages long—the minister wanted debate on that bill to start the very next day. That was before the shadow minister had even been fully briefed on the contents of the bill. So the minister at that time was wanting less than 24 hours for all members of parliament—opposition and crossbench—to consider a bill that was hundreds of pages long and that, of course, contained an extensive range of provisions that would completely transform and disrupt the way that workplaces across Australia—small, medium and large businesses—operate, impose extraordinary costs and remarkable inefficiencies, and generally do precisely the opposite of what Australia needs at a time when we know that we have a very serious productivity problem in our economy. The one thing we can be certain of is that these bills are a huge backward step for productivity in the Australian economy.</para>
<para>At the time, in my remarks I argued that the government's desperate attempts to ram through these dramatic industrial relations changes would have deeply adverse consequences across the economy. It is clear that a very wide range of Australians support that view and are alarmed and deeply concerned at what the minister is doing. We saw more of this when the House had the opportunity to consider in detail the closing loopholes bill. The government crunched down the time available for debate. Only 20 minutes of debate were allowed for each set of amendments.</para>
<para>You might think that that is all very bad—and it is very bad, and it is entirely at odds with what the minister at the table spent nine years fulminating about. I don't encourage people to read what he said, because that would be time you'd never recover. But let me assure you that he repeatedly told this House that it was an outrage—and he was right—that there was not a proper opportunity for this House to do its work, the work that members in this House are elected to do, the work that members in this House are sent here by the communities across Australia to do, which is to scrutinise legislation and form a considered view as to whether they ought to support, oppose or propose amendments to legislation.</para>
<para>What is it that has happened this morning, since this legislation was rammed through the Senate with extensive use of guillotine provisions? The amendments that have been received by the House—92 pages—have been available for less than two hours. I was advised over the weekend by the House of Representatives Table Office that as at the close of business on Friday they had not received the message from the Senate. So, members of this House are being asked to consider a wide range of amendments made in the Senate, many of which are highly detrimental to the objective of a more productive economy—an economy in which more people can be employed, an economy in which we are fighting and eliminating the scourge of inflation. Yet many of these amendments, which are responding to the agenda of the unions, who are the paymasters of Labor politicians, are going in precisely the opposite direction. And there has been very little time to study their impact, but I am sure that even in the limited time there are a number of provisions that coalition members and indeed crossbench members have identified that cause them concern and alarm.</para>
<para>For example, we know that, in the rush to get this bill through, the minister agreed to a set of changes proposed by the Greens party to establish a so-called right to disconnect. This is a very profound change to existing workplace arrangements. Already we have seen, quite rightly, businesses in Western Australia—which for much of the year is on a time zone that is three hours different to that of the rest of the country—asking how they are going to maintain normal communications with employees on the east coast when their west coast office is three hours behind the time zone on the east coast. That is one of many very good questions of detail that it's absolutely evident have not been considered for a second because of the rush to get this bill through and to jump to the tune of the union paymasters.</para>
<para>When you look at the criteria set out in clause 333M(3), as it presently stands, the factors to be taken into account as to whether the right to disconnect has been breached, there is no mention of the criticality to the business of the issue which is triggering an employer to attempt to speak to an employee. There was no mention of the importance to customers. This might well be an issue that is existential for a customer of a particular business. Yet this change would mean that employees who chose not to engage, leading to profound damage being done to the interests of a customer, would be under the provisions that have been rammed through the Senate, and employers could then find themselves unable to take any action to deal with the urgent issues that are facing them.</para>
<para>Let's just think about what we've seen in Australia in the last couple of years in terms of cyberattacks: Latitude Financial, Medibank Private, Optus and many others. How will this provision work if a cyberattack occurs during a time that is outside employees' normal working hours? Guess what: the Russian criminal gangs who do cyberattacks don't really care very much about working hours—and the minister giggles at this. Let me predict that, the next time there is such a cyberattack and customers are disadvantaged and inconvenienced and have their personal details attacked, there'll be no shortage of Labor MPs and Greens MPs saying, 'What was this company doing?'</para>
<para>Here they have recklessly introduced a change to the legislation without any consideration, without any committee process and without any exercise in consulting to understand what the implications of it would be. That is repeated across issue after issue after issue in this legislation. What we get from the other side is that they dismiss it. They laugh at it. Why do they do that? For a very simple reason: because they're not here to serve the interests of all Australians. They're not here to serve the interests of a productive, efficient Australian economy and in turn generate the prosperity on which our roads, our schools and our hospitals depend. What they are here to do is to jump to the tune of the union paymasters. That is exactly what this bill represents. One of the reasons the minister is rushing this through, in a piece of poor process which is absolutely scandalous in its implications for the work of the parliament in holding up legislation to scrutiny, is that he wants to minimise answering these awkward questions. But these are not only awkward questions but enormously important questions.</para>
<para>To propose that it be made an order of business for the next day—this is not a dramatic amount of time that we're seeking, but what we are seeking to do is to give the parliament and parliamentarians the opportunity to scrutinise, as they ought, changes which have been made which have been rushed through with a very poor process. It is, frankly, shocking that the government would not contemplate agreeing with it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Before I go to the motion and what we are debating here today, I want to raise the issue that this government, when elected, talked a lot on the issue of transparency and integrity—two important things—but what we've seen from this new government from the day it came into power is this guillotining. This is a gag. Make no doubt about what this is: this is guillotining and gagging debate on this very serious issue. This is what we're talking about.</para>
<para>For a government that said they ran on integrity and transparency, there is a great irony about that. This isn't the first bill.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Government members who are out of their seats, please refrain from interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  On a lot of very important bills that have gone through this chamber, debate has effectively been gagged and guillotined by this government. I note that it has happened to some of the standing orders too. It is quite ironic that one of the first things this government did when coming in was to change the standing orders to basically take away some of the democratic practices in this chamber.</para>
<para>I do note that we have some crossbenchers here today. I can only assume that the crossbenchers in here today will be standing to support the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, because the crossbenchers especially ran on transparency and integrity. I'm sure they're going to be supporting the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, because what we're trying to do with these amendments is to bring more integrity and more transparency into the process on what we're talking about today. I don't think the Greens member will be supporting the integrity and transparency on the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business this morning, because he's been involved in the secret negotiations and he will want to wave this through as well.</para>
<para>Let's go to the specifics of what we're talking about here today. As the Manager of Opposition Business said, this is quite involved and serious legislation. When this came through the House of Representatives the first time around, as the Manager of Opposition Business said, we were gagged and it was guillotined. It came in with 270 pages of legislation and was introduced to parliament the very next day. That is unusual for such serious legislation; there's often more time to look at it. Then, as the Manager of Opposition Business says, there were only 20 minutes of debate for each set of amendments as it went through this House. Again, this was all about gagging and a guillotine, because the government just wanted to rush this through. What have we seen because of this? We always said this would cause issues and problems. They have done the same process in the Senate. They guillotined debate, gagged debate there. So what happened? We always go, 'When you do that, problems happen,' and guess what happened? Something went through they didn't want to go through. What went through was jail penalties for bosses if they breach some of the Fair Work Commission orders. I am glad the government—and I agree with them—are looking to reverse that because that was an outrageous proposal put forward by the Greens, so I do commend the government that they are looking to reverse something that they passed through that should never have happened. But it happened because of the guillotining and the gagging and by not letting parliamentary process roll out over the time that it should. That is exactly why we are moving these amendments today.</para>
<para>Again, given we are talking about industrial relations and legislation, as the Manager of Opposition Business said earlier there is a reason that everyone on that side will sit very quietly on this, because this is about every single person over there's paymaster. They all have their own union paymaster. This whole legislation here is about supporting legislation supporting union power. This is all about those opposite paying back who they need to pay.</para>
<para>To go back, we warned those opposite. When this legislation was first introduced in the House of Representatives, we said to the Leader of the House then, 'What will happen when you gag, when you guillotine, when you rush things through the chamber and due process doesn't happen is mistakes will be made. Doing this again today means that will happen.' In the Senate, with the gagging and with the guillotine that happened, a mistake was made. We say to the government, 'You were elected on the issue of integrity. You were elected on the issue of transparency.' I have no doubt, as I said, that the crossbenchers will be supporting us on this because this has nothing to do with integrity of process. This has nothing to do with transparency. This is about rushing a bill through the House. A mistake was made in the Senate because of this. I commend the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hearing some of those arguments, I wonder whether someone has had a Russian cyberattack to the head. There were some extraordinary, extraordinary arguments. Let's not forget, all we are doing right now is saying we got a message from the Senate and we will consider it straightaway. Now, in the last 20 years that I have been here, that is basically what this House does when we get a message from the Senate. To describe that as a gag basically says every message from the Senate in at least the last 20 years, possibly since Federation, has been gagged. These are really out-there arguments.</para>
<para>The Manager of Opposition Business claimed as well that he has only had two hours to consider these amendments. They were all on the floor of the Senate last Thursday. Over the whole weekend, did he and Senator Cash decide to disconnect? Did they decide that what was said in the Senate would be kept a secret, that he wasn't to be told that it was secret Senate business and that no-one would tell the Manager of Opposition Business what amendments had been carried there?</para>
<para>The message that has been received by the House is the summation of everything that publicly happened in the Senate—no more, no less. If that was kept secret from the Manager of Opposition Business, I don't know how they communicate with each other. Maybe they will send more messages to each other on the ABC at 8 pm tonight. Maybe that will be the opportunity to communicate. But to claim that they have only just had two hours to scrutinise absolutely defies belief.</para>
<para>When this bill was introduced, I said there were three things that happen when people don't want to engage in the actual argument: they complain about the consultation, they talk about the bill, claiming it's something that it's not, and they ask for a delay. The whole way through, we had all three. In the speeches that we just heard, we also had all three. Asking for a delay, he said that we were wanting to debate it the next day. That was because they had declared their position on it before I introduced it. It's just like the tax cuts. They announced they were opposed to them before they had seen them. It's the exact same scenario. We made sure it had had time to go to their party room. What did they decide in their party room? Surprise, surprise, they were opposed to any legislation that would help with job security or getting wages moving—completely as we knew.</para>
<para>It was listed for debate. What did they do then? First of all, they voted for a six-week delay. The next day they came back in and decided a six-week delay wasn't enough and they wanted to delay it from September to February. Then, in the Senate, they shifted the Senate inquiry from November to February. A few weeks later they voted in the Senate. Instead of it being that it had to be by 1 February, they were then voting for no sooner than 1 February. We actually had the longest Senate inquiry we have ever had into an industrial relations bill on this legislation, and yet they want to complain about consultation. They want to claim that this is somehow a bill that has an impact on Russian cyberattacks. We all have to avoid conflicts of interest. I'm not sure why the Manager of Opposition Business keeps wanting to talk about the impact on Optus. I would weigh that one up carefully as an example that you constantly reach for.</para>
<para>You are asking for a further delay. I know there will be a debate when we deal with the amendments themselves. From the crossbench, there will be different issues that have come up in the Senate that crossbenchers will have strong views on, and there'll be a debate about the policy. But to have a debate now about whether we can deal with this issue at all—people have been waiting too long. Casuals have been waiting too long already to get the right to be able to get permanent employment if that's what they want. Gig workers have been waiting a decade to be able to get a minimum standard. Road transport industry workers have been advocating for more than 20 years to be able to get minimum standards. Workers, as they've gradually gone to having their own mobile phones over the last decades, have now waited too long just to know they don't have to constantly be on call. People have been waiting years and years for this moment. It's time for people to get those rights and to get those rights today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the honourable member for Nicholls.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Didn't I just speak in reply?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a debate not otherwise provided for. We're dealing with an important procedural question. There are other colleagues who wish to speak, and they should be given that right.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're just seeking clarification. The Clerk has told me that the member for Nicholls can have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll allow the member for Melbourne to have the call prior to me, if he's very keen to do that, in the spirit of the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At some point today we are, I hope, going to have a substantive debate about whether the amendments get accepted or not. I just want to raise one point about something the Manager of Opposition Business said. The Manager of Opposition Business, a senior Liberal politician, said, 'We can't debate this now because we've only had the amendments for two hours.' Well, the amendments were made public and were out in the Senate last Thursday.</para>
<para>Perhaps the member for Bradfield exercised his own right to disconnect over the weekend and decided not to read the amendments that were circulating. I know many of those opposite went and spoke about them publicly and gave media interviews about them, but these amendments have been available for hours. It is classic Liberals that they don't want to work over the weekend but they want everyone else to be available, to be on call 24/7! If he paid any attention, had perhaps not waited until this morning to read the amendment for the first time but had looked at it when it was in the Senate over the weekend, he'd have seen that there is the word 'reasonable' in there.</para>
<para>It's to be expected that politicians who turn up to work on a Monday might have done some homework over the weekend about the motion they're going to come in here and argue about—including perhaps reading the amendments that they now stand up and say can't be opposed. Classic Liberals. Not wanting to work over the weekend themselves, despite six-figure salaries, and saying we need extra time to do it, but demanding that everyone else in this country be on call 24/7.</para>
<para>The Greens have won workers the right to disconnect; the Liberals want to delay it and then take it away. Too many people have been putting up with an interruption to their family lives and their home lives for far too long. This is a practical, commonsense right that will give people the right to switch off when they clock off. And all of the matters that are being raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, if he'd bothered to actually read the amendment over the weekend rather than waiting until this morning, he would have found out those kinds of things were all addressed. They have all been addressed and are all part of the amendment.</para>
<para>I hope that we're able to have this debate, and I'd urge the Manager of Opposition Business to seriously reflect on whether it's a good idea to come in here on a massive politician's salary and say: 'Sorry, I didn't have a chance to read the amendments over the weekend. I want a bit of extra time.' Well, if you can't be prepared to do it yourself—if you're exercising your own right to disconnect, Member for Bradfield, then good on you, but don't deny it to the millions of Australian workers who are stressed, who want to be able to put their kids to bed instead of having to answer emails, who want to be able to watch their kids' footy games instead of responding to texts, who want to be able to enjoy time with their mates over the weekend instead of being asked by their employer to go and convert a Word document to PDF—all of those things are rights that everyone in this country enjoys, just as the member for Bradfield enjoyed his right to disconnect over the weekend, and this parliament should get on with legislating it and approving these amendments here.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I didn't have the standing order in front of me before. When I queried that the debate could continue, I was referring to standing order 71, which reads as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Reply closes debate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When the Member who moved the original motion replies—</para></quote>
<para>in this case it was me, and I had checked that no-one else was standing—</para>
<quote><para class="block">the debate shall close except during consideration in detail of a bill—</para></quote>
<para>which this is not—</para>
<quote><para class="block">or consideration of amendments to a bill—</para></quote>
<para>which would be the next motion, not this one. I simply ask that standing order 71 be enforced.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:33]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>59</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</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>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</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>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>79</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>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>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>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</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>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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</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.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendments be considered immediately.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [12:37]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>81</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>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>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>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</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>59</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</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>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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</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>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. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</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 the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
<para>This legislation is a critical part of the government's agenda to fight to get wages moving. While those opposite want people to work longer for less, we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. People have been waiting too long for these provisions, for rights for casuals, for minimum standards in the gig economy, for minimum standards in road transport and to be able to have some rights to your weekends and your time off.</para>
<para>These are basic rights that are contained in this bill, which is why it's no surprise that those opposite are fighting tooth and nail to prevent them. They fought tooth and nail against us when we said we would argue for an improvement in the minimum wage. They fought tooth and nail against the secure jobs and better pay bill. They did it with closing loopholes No. 1 and they are doing it again now with closing loopholes No.2. We are simply talking about basic rights—the concept that a casual, who is already working completely consistent hours, should have a right to say, 'I would like some job security.' Why on earth is that controversial? Try getting a mortgage or try getting a rental property if you've only got a casual job. It's about giving people some security in their lives. Our entire workplace relations system in Australia is based on the concept of having minimum standards. Yet, if you are a gig worker when you first get asked, 'Are you are an employee?' and the answer is, 'No,' all of those rights fall off a cliff. What we're doing today is turning that cliff into a ramp. The parliament is deciding today that Australia should not be a nation where you need to rely on tips to make ends meet.</para>
<para>The road transport industry has been fighting for 20 years for a workable system of minimum standards, like payment times to make sure that people aren't waiting endlessly for the money they are owed to be paid while all the bills for the money they owe are coming in one after another after another. This is thanks to the work of both industry and the Transport Workers Union, working together. They have come up with a project, a program, a plan to be able to do this through the Fair Work Commission that will deliver whether you are an employer, an employee, an owner-driver or just a motorist who wants to make sure that those driving heavy vehicles aren't under unreasonable pressure.</para>
<para>So today we should act. A further bill will be introduced on Thursday by me, because of what happened in the Senate last week, one of the most extraordinary things that I've ever seen. The right to disconnect is an important right. Where flexibility already exists in the workplace, where workers and employers already have cooperative arrangements, this legislation will make no difference to those arrangements at all. But there are some bad actors, some employers, who do take advantage and constantly reach into people's personal time and stop them from ever being able to get a weekend or reasonable time off. Those workers will finally have a right to ignore incessant unreasonable contact when it's being made.</para>
<para>It's not a ban on the employer reaching out, but it does mean that if you're on your weekend you don't have to constantly have your phone with you. If you want to have your phone off at night, that's not an unreasonable thing to do. If you've got a work email account, you can wait until your work hours before you check back in. Of course there'll be some people for whom regular checking in or keeping in contact is part of their award or agreement, where they're paid an allowance or paid a salary and that's part of the deal, and nothing changes in those circumstances. Effectively to argue against this is to argue that it should be okay for people to be working without being paid, because that's the alternative. And the position of those opposite, the one thing in this bill that they thought they would immediately declare they would repeal, was the thing that deals with people having to work for free. That was the bit they thought was outrageous. It just says how one-sided their view is to what the laws at the workplace should be.</para>
<para>Part of the way that the right to disconnect has been introduced is the same way that we deal with a series of other rights, including some anti-bullying provisions that are in the Fair Work Act. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That means that there is a pathway open to potential criminal penalties many months down the track, but I haven't found anyone who actually supports the possibility of that. And those opposite—you hear the Manager of Opposition Business, 'Come in spinner', you sort of know he's going to do it. There's one reason that that issue hasn't already been fixed. It is because the government went into the Senate and said, 'This issue can be corrected and we should correct it immediately so there's no doubt for business.' Guess why it wasn't corrected? Did the Greens party block its being introduced? No. Did Senator Lambie block its being introduced? No. Did any of the crossbench, even One Nation, say, 'No, no, no, you shouldn't be allowed to fix that'? No. It was Senator Cash. Senator Cash, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, said, 'How dare you try to make sure that employers are not exposed to criminal penalties?' Now, I know they're addicted to saying no to everything, but when they get to the point where they are so determined to say no that, when no other member of parliament thinks there should be criminal penalties for employers in this area, they will block that just for the hell of it—just to say no, just to feel good about themselves—that is one of the most pathetic examples of self-indulgence you will ever see in this place.</para>
<para>The employers of Australia deserve better than for that to have ever been a fear campaign, and it was only the Liberal and National parties that stood in the way of it. It will be fixed in legislation that I'll introduced later this week. The provisions themselves don't start for six months, so it'll all be fixed in time. But the obsession of those opposite is in saying no to fixing a simple issue for employers, in the same way that they say no to job security for casuals, to minimum standards for gig workers, to minimum standards for the road transport industry and, simply, to a standard where workers can say, 'If it gets completely out of hand, I've got the right to not monitor my phone 24/7.' If you ask most Australians about the concept of whether there should be minimum standards, whether some casuals should be able to convert if they want to or whether you should not have to be on call 24/7, they will say they are all reasonable things. But reasonable doesn't cut it for the Liberal and National parties. They are determined to undermine job security. They are determined to undermine minimum rates of pay.</para>
<para>I say to the House: before we get to 1.30 today, let's get this done. Let's close the loopholes.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Amazingly, the Albanese Labor government has managed to take a terrible bill and make it worse, with the amendments that passed the Senate last week and that the House is now determining whether it should support. This is terrible legislation that businesses and employers across Australians are saying will create extreme uncertainty for businesses, particularly small businesses, that employ casual workers. We have a cost-of-living crisis, we have high inflation, we have businesses struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs, and Labor is making a bad situation worse.</para>
<para>None of the measures in this bill are designed to improve productivity, generate more jobs, drive growth or drive investment, all of which are the ingredients of a successful economy. On the contrary, these changes are part of the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. We're only starting now to see some of the consequences of the multi-employer bargaining changes that were rammed through by this government in late 2022. Those consequences will increase as the months and years roll on. It's clear from Labor's industrial relations agenda that they want to hand over every workplace, including small and family businesses, to the unions.</para>
<para>The small and family business enterprise business community is already under significant pressure from rapidly rising costs and will be hit hard by these new laws. The legislation will also impact the prospects for the very employees that it purports to protect. Small and medium businesses employ millions of Australians, and the government is burdening them with extra costs—costs that will result in more costs going to customers or the loss of jobs or both.</para>
<para>I want to speak in particular about the intractable bargaining provisions. They were the subject of a dirty deal with the Greens which actually undermines the concepts that underpin bargaining. This is one of the worst elements of this antibusiness, antigrowth legislation. The arbitration of bargaining deadlocks by the Fair Work Commission cannot reduce workers' existing conditions on a clause-by-clause basis. This reverses decades of good-faith bargaining where a package of better terms and conditions could be put on the table and traded off against operational and productivity improvements. It will simply incentivise unions to drag out a bargaining dispute for as long as possible and force matters to be arbitrated. This is very bad news for the nation and very bad news for our prospects for inflation.</para>
<para>When it comes to casual employment, the definition of 'casual employee' is three pages long, with 15 different factors in the new legal test. To employ a casual, a business has to go through a complicated series of tests just to work out if they're doing the right thing by law. Until the Fair Work Commission makes the determination, employers will face substantial risk when employing casuals. The irony is that this may well make hiring casual employees less attractive, impacting job creation and also adversely impacting the many Australians who embrace and prefer the flexibility of a casual job. It will be an enormously complex process with somewhere between 15 and 25 steps depending upon how you read this legislation and which lawyer you listen to. At the very least, what this will mean is many employers needing to get much more expensive legal advice.</para>
<para>We've also got the provisions dealing with employee-like forms of work. We know that Labor does not like self-employed people, and these provisions are simply an attack on Australians who want to be their own bosses. It's clear to everybody who wants to make that choice that Labor is refusing to support their choice.</para>
<para>We know, when it comes to the issue of the provisions that were rushed through in relation to the so-called right to disconnect, that employees already have legal protections against working unreasonable additional hours outside work. The extraordinary mishandling of this—the extraordinarily rushed nature of this—means that Labor rushed through legislation and voted for legislation which would impose jail penalties on employers who breach Fair Work Commission orders not to contact their employees outside of work hours—just one example of what a chaotic, disordered process this has been. In Labor's desperation to get this through, dancing to the tune of their union paymasters, they did a dodgy deal with the Greens over the right-to-disconnect laws.</para>
<para>Of course, this bill also dramatically increases the powers of union officials, including the right to enter a workplace without notice, despite only eight per cent of private-sector employees being union members. Australians have made their choice. This bill is a terrible bill. The amendments are terrible. The coalition opposes them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support these amendments. Can I say we've just got a pretty good new election advertisement from the Liberals out of the last speech: the Liberals want to change the law so that you can lose wages and conditions and have them go backwards and you have to be available 24/7 to answer your boss's calls even if you're not getting paid for it. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has now left the chamber. Perhaps he's had a bit of a rethink and decided that it might not be such a terrific idea to say to every worker in this country, 'Every time the boss texts you, you have to respond to it even if it's outside your working hours and you're not available.'</para>
<para>What we now know very clearly is that the Greens won the workers the right to disconnect, which means that, when you clock off, you can switch off. This is critical because so many people in this country have had their personal and family time interrupted by after-hours contact that could have waited until the next day at work. It means people can't watch their kids play footy or that they can't put the kids to bed because they're answering texts or emails instead. We now know that the Liberals don't want you to be able to put your kids to bed in peace; you should be answering emails instead. The Liberals don't want you to be able to enjoy time with mates over the weekend; you have to answer every text message that comes through from your employer. The Liberals want you bound electronically to your boss 24/7 even if you're not getting paid for it.</para>
<para>There has been a big change in technology over the years, and we now all have in our pockets minicomputers that allow us to be contacted pretty much wherever we are and whatever's happening, but the law just hasn't kept up. In part because of that, workers in this country work, on average, about seven weeks of unpaid overtime a year. That's how much average people are giving. The Greens have a simple proposition: if you're not getting paid for it and it's not reasonable then you shouldn't have to be available outside of work hours. It's a pretty reasonable proposition that I think most people in the country would agree with, because time outside of work is critical for recharging and spending time with your family and friends, and work can wait until the next day when you're back at work. Of course there might be instances where there's an emergency or immediate contact is needed, and this legislation that we've put through the parliament envisages that and allows for that. This is always the way: every time workers get a new right, the Liberals come in here and threaten people and then threaten to take it away.</para>
<para>I want to place and record my thanks to Senator Barbara Pocock, who has pushed for some time for the right to disconnect. Senator Barbara Pocock chaired and led the country's first ever national Senate inquiry into work and care, which looked at how we could update our laws to recognise that people outside of work hours often have caring responsibilities and family responsibilities and update our laws protect that time, because protecting that time is important. Work has bled far too much into people's time outside of work, and we need to update our laws to give people protection. Senator Barbara Pocock pushed for greater protection for workers and carers, and she moved this amendment on the right to disconnect, on behalf of the Greens, in the Senate.</para>
<para>I want to thank the government for their support, and I want to thank the minister, and the minister's staff as well, for working constructively on this. The provisions that ultimately got through strike a pretty good balance. We introduced legislation back in March. We perhaps might have done it a bit differently then, but I think the legislation has been improved through discussions, including discussions with other crossbenchers. I want to place on record my thanks for the constructive way in which the minister, the minister's staff and the crossbench approached these negotiations.</para>
<para>We now have a situation where people know that, if they find themselves in front of the commission, they can't have their conditions cut. They know that they can ignore a call that comes after hours if it can wait until the next day. These are rights that people need, and that's why these amendments should be supported. I hope the opposition reconsiders between now and the next election, because, I tell you what, people want the right to switch off when they clock off. It is incredibly popular because it is necessary, and the Greens are proud to have secured it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) and (8) to Senate amendments (1), (2) and (52), circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Senate amendment (1) (proposed new table items 2, 6A, 17 and 21 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill), omit the table items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Divisions 2 and 5 of Part 16 of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>), omit the Divisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new Part 17 of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>), omit the Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Senate amendment (52), omit the amendment.</para></quote>
<para>I will explain to the House what these amendments do. Their combined impact, if the amendments are passed, will be to remove a series of objectionable provisions in the bill, particularly the bill as amended by the Senate. The first effect would be to remove the lengthy, multipage, 15-plus factor provisions dealing with casual employment, which have done a remarkable job of casting darkness and confusion where before there was light and clarity after several High Court decisions that made the law very clear. The opposition's amendments, if passed, would allow the certainty which the High Court has established to continue to prevail.</para>
<para>They would remove the intractable bargaining provisions, which are another set of provisions which essentially wholly undermine the operation of enterprise bargaining, and for that reason the opposition believes those provisions should be removed.</para>
<para>They would remove the union demerger provisions. This is very interesting. The CFMEU comprises a roll-up of several individual unions that came together, and it turns out that at least one of those formerly independent unions that have joined up with the CFMEU have found that they have some rather unsavoury bedfellows. They find themselves somewhat uncomfortable at being aligned with an organisation that regard having been convicted of criminal charges to be a badge of honour for their officials. They are also great believers in the use of the baseball bat as a tool to encourage negotiation. The simple fact is that the coalition, when in government, introduced provisions which stood in the law and which were supported.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to clarify, amendments (9) to (12) haven't been moved.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice I've received is that those need to be moved after the House has voted on the overall package of amendments. If the Clerk has given me different advice, then I'll move them now, but that's the advice I've received.</para>
<para>Let me return to the topic of the CFMMEU and the importance of allowing demerges. We think it's a perfectly sensible provision. It's for people who have voluntarily come together in an association—in this case in a union—and decided, on reflection, that they have shacked up with a rather unsavoury mob who have a list of criminal convictions longer than your arm and who are great believers in the use of the baseball bat as a tool to encourage negotiations, among the many other features of the CFMMEU. We think that, if a particular division of the CFMMEU want to be released from that straightjacket, they should be. That's a perfectly sensible proposition, and that, indeed, is what this amendment would do if it were to be passed. That is a short summary for the benefit of the House of amendments (1), (3) and (8), circulated in my name.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendments (1), (3) and (8), moved by the honourable member for Bradfield, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:11]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>58</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</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>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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</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>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>78</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>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>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>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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</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. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</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 the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be now put.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:20] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>78</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>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>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>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</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>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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>61</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</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>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</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>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.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:22] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>80</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>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>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>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>59</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</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>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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</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>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.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask leave to move amendments (4) and (5) and (9) to (12), circulated in my name, together.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it's just been carried. I don't understand what he's asking leave for. If he moves those now, they have no impact.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've been down this path before. The manager has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These amendments are being moved under standing order 160, which authorises amendments to be moved in the House after amendments have been made where the further amendments are relevant to or consequent on the Senate amendments or requests for amendments. Members would remember that the Leader of the House gave entirely incorrect advice to the House on this issue when another iteration of this bill—the bit that was separated off from this bill—was under debate in the House at around 10 pm, if memory serves, on the Thursday of the last sitting week.</para>
<para>The simple fact is that under standing order 160 the House is indeed entitled and empowered to move amendments to bills where those amendments are relevant to or consequent on the Senate amendments. It's uncontentious that the Senate amendments have now been agreed to by the House, but what standing order 160 authorises is for amendments to be moved that are relevant to or consequent on the Senate amendments. It is on that basis that I ask leave to move amendments (4) and (5) and (9) to (12), circulated in my name, together.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just so we're clear, this is standing order 160. As a result of the bill that has just come through the House, you are now moving changes, not to the original bill but as a result of the bill coming through.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To respond: first of all, leave is not granted. Second, with respect to standing order 160, that refers to the moment that we had after we carried the first resolution, which was that we deal with it immediately. We dealt with that. We then had the resolution. The resolution was an amendment to how the House would deal with it. Once you decide to consider the amendments immediately, what's then in front of the House is standing order 160. The House has decided how it wants to deal with that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House has resolved that the amendments from the Senate have been dealt with. These are consequential amendments as a result of that decision. Leave is not granted.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving amendments (4) to (5) and (9) to (12), circulated in his name, together.</para></quote>
<para>The reason I do that is that, extraordinarily, at odds with normal procedure in this place and the normal courtesies and dignities extended by parliamentarians on both sides of this House, the Leader of the House has quite remarkably chosen to deny leave for what is an entirely routine process. That is the process under which, pursuant to standing order 160, a member of this House moves amendments which are relevant to or consequent on Senate amendments.</para>
<para>The matters that my amendments deal with are absolutely relevant to or consequent on the Senate amendments. They deal with matters such as casual employment and the appalling three-page, 15-factor definition which will create extraordinary difficulty, complexity, cost and uncertainty for employers of all sizes, from the smallest to the biggest. This is nothing less than a dreadful productivity deadweight on this nation that is in the interest of absolutely no Australian, and that is why it is important that standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow this amendment to be moved.</para>
<para>Similarly, there is the amendment in relation to intractable bargaining: a remarkable provision that has been objected to by no less than the Labor Treasurer of Victoria. Tim Pallas is very sound on this issue—and I make that caveat: 'on this issue'. He makes the point that this will create unbelievable difficulties for state governments as they are in the course of dealing with employment matters with their very large numbers of employees: police, teachers, nurses and many others.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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>177</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>177</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no secret that outback Queensland punches well above its weight when it comes to the state's tourism sector. In fact outback Queensland tourism contributes more than $400 million to the state's economy annually and supports more than 4½ thousand jobs. From dinosaur trails to breathtaking landscapes and leading museums, outback Queensland has something for everyone.</para>
<para>Last month, outback Queensland's newest tourist attraction was opened at Cunnamulla in my electorate. Nestled on the banks of the Warrego River, the new artesian Cunnamulla Hot Springs and Warrego River Walk experience is the brainchild of the Paroo Shire Council. This $12 million project was made possible via $4.992 million worth of funding from the former coalition government's Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program under the Murray-Darling Basin Economic Development Program. Featuring seven natural pools, a steam room and sauna among other terrific amenities, this facility truly is an oasis in the outback.</para>
<para>I was given the great honour of attending last month's opening to see the state-of-the-art facility firsthand. I'm confident it will be a game changer for the region in years to come. Not only will this facility boost tourism for Cunnamulla but it will have flow-on effects for nearby communities such as Charleville, St George and Thargomindah which all boast attractions of their own.</para>
<para>I congratulate the entire Paroo Shire Council team for bringing this world-class project to life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wendt, Mrs Sylvia</title>
          <page.no>177</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been quite an innings for Sylvia Wendt who celebrated her 100th birthday last month. A true westie, Silvia has spent 96 of her 100 years in Melbourne's west, spending her childhood in Footscray and her adult life in Sunshine. Her father moved the family from Tasmania for work on the railways in Yarraville. Sylvia is amazingly digitally connected, having recently upgraded to her second iPad with the support of her daughter Gayle. She is an avid user of Facebook and FaceTime and uses both to keep in touch with family and relatives overseas.</para>
<para>While celebrating her 100th birthday with 70 friends and family members at the Sunshine RSL, Sylvia was asked how she keeps her youthful attitude and looks. Her answer was lattes, cakes, a social life and no exercise or vegetables. This is something I imagine many in this chamber across the aisles would be happy to get on board with. But it is a salient reminder of the importance of social connections, which have so many health benefits. Places like the Sunshine RSL, where Sylvia is a local patron, are an important lifeline for so many in our community. Hats off to the Sunshine RSL because I know how hard all the staff and volunteers work in organising social events and special celebrations. There are always too many people to thank but I want to make particular mention of Garry Collins, the president of the Sunshine RSL, and his very hardworking committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wright, Connor</title>
          <page.no>177</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to wish local cross-country mountain biker, Connor Wright, all the best in 2024. A born talent, Connor has pretty much been racing mountain bikes since graduating from training wheels. He's won the national cross-country mountain championships for the past four years and was locally named the Myles Junior Sports Star of the Year. This year, Connor will be chasing every under-17 national cross-country mountain bike title across Australia, making six trips interstate. He also aims to represent Australia in the Olympics and compete in the world cup events.</para>
<para>I also want to take the time to recognise Connor's parents and loved ones. It's really difficult to put into words the effort and commitment made by parents and loved ones of our local athletes. All of the travel, the costs and the time invested are significant, particularly for those who come from regional areas. So a special thank you goes to Connor's loved ones for supporting him in what he loves and does so well. They've supported him all of his life in this pursuit.</para>
<para>Lastly, a lot of these sporting codes rely on tireless volunteers to get their competitions up and running and keep them running. To all the community members who volunteer their time and effort, thank you as well. I wish you all the best for 2024, Connor. I know you have a very bright future ahead. Continue to make all of us proud in the south-west.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Safety</title>
          <page.no>177</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been a horror summer for drowning. Twenty people have drowned in Victoria alone since 1 December, and, with more warm weather predicted, the risk increases. Surf lifesavers do an amazing job, but they cannot be everywhere, and not everyone swims between the flags. In my electorate of Corangamite, locals dread hearing news of swimming fatalities, which often involve visitors on remote beaches. They understand that with awesome surf come strong rip currents and dangerous undertow at places like Bells Beach and Thirteenth Beach and along the Great Ocean Road.</para>
<para>While surfers are often viewed as thrillseekers, there is so much more to the story. Local surfers have saved at least four lives in my region this summer, and those are just the rescues we've heard about. Their intimate knowledge of the ocean makes surfers invaluable in the water, rescuing people in distress when lifeguards are absent. Surfers epitomise the selfless spirit of community. Demonstrating that heroes can emerge from unexpected places, they're unsung heroes and deserve better recognition for the awesome work they do in keeping Australians safe. Surfers often walk away from a rescue without anyone even knowing their names, so today I thank them. When it comes to ocean safety on unpatrolled beaches, surfers are our frontline defenders. My thoughts are with the families who have lost loved ones this summer.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Coalmining Industry</title>
          <page.no>178</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the past few weeks, the new Queensland Premier, Steven Miles, approved two new coalmines: Winchester South and Vulcan South. We have a new Queensland premier but the same old coalmine approvals. Steven Miles has approved two new coalmines in just the past couple of weeks. These two coalmines will generate a massive 594 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions—that's more than Australia's total annual emissions—and bulldoze 2,700 hectares of koala habitat. These two coalmines will generate enormous profits for giant multinational mining corporations. They'll pay next to no tax. Australians won't see the benefit of these mines, but they will see the consequences.</para>
<para>It's insanity, and Steven Miles and Queensland Labor know that it's insanity. We've just gone through multiple flooding events, heatwaves and sweltering humidity all in one summer, which we know will only get worse as the planet warms. Steven Miles and Queensland Labor know the consequences of their actions. They know the science. They know they're endangering lives, but they've made the cold calculation that the profits of coalmining corporations are more important. Both approvals are now sitting on the federal environment minister's desk for final sign-off. Will she make the same calculation?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Palliative Care</title>
          <page.no>178</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I received correspondence from a constituent named Debbie, who explained her experience with palliative care services on the Central Coast following her husband's diagnosis of lung cancer. I would like to read some of her email in the chamber today. She wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's not until the situation arises when you have a loved one affected by terminal illness that you even think about the existence of such a service and just how important the need for their assistance becomes when that situation arises.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My lovely partner Gary had been a little unwell for some months with a persistent cough. He was proud of his good health for his 79 years of age, and almost never needed medical assistance. He dismissed the cough as postnasal drip and allergies and perhaps a result of a bout of covid earlier in the year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He eventually visited the GP, who arranged for the appropriate tests and scans to be completed and the results ready to take to the specialist.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The specialist arranged a bronchoscopy and sadly Gary was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The situation was serious, and the oncologist confirmed that Gary's illness had progressed to the point where he wasn't a candidate for intervention. He had already decided he didn't want treatment anyway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our GP provided a referral to the Palliative Care Team.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I'm so very grateful for the service, but more specifically the skill and dedication of the staff, nurses and doctors, social workers, and counsellors. They guided us through a horrendous time in our lives with kindness, understanding and love.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wentworth Electorate: Environment</title>
          <page.no>178</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Wentworth is blessed with some of Australia's most iconic beaches. But, sadly, due to the failures of New South Wales state governments and their contractors, one of the community's most treasured swimming spots has now been closed since March 2022. We recently received news that the seawall construction at Nielsen Park had been delayed yet again and that the beach will remain closed until the middle of the year. This is more than 18 months longer than originally promised. My community are extremely disappointed by this failure of procurement and oversight, and I share their frustration at the loss of this important community hub, which will now be closed for two summers. I call on the state government to urgently expedite the works.</para>
<para>In more positive news, I want to congratulate those in my community and beyond for their advocacy in stopping gas exploration at PEP11. PEP11 would have opened up around 5,000 square kilometres of precious ocean environment for fossil fuel extraction an endangered the majestic humpback and southern right whales, which we are privileged to see migrate along our coast each year and must do everything we can to protect. Last week's decision by state government to kill off the project is a victory for my community and many others. I want to pay particular tribute to the independent members of the federal and state parliaments as well as Surfers for Climate and Surfrider Foundation Australia for their advocacy on this issue for many years.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Electorate: Transport</title>
          <page.no>179</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is a great day for the community who use Macquarie Fields railway station. The New South Wales Labor government have announced a long-overdue upgrade of the station to provide disability access and other improvements. Ignored for decades by the previous New South Wales governments while stations on the North Shore were upgraded, commuters, mums and dads with prams and those with wheelchairs and mobility restrictions will soon be catered for. The station has been operated since 1888, and, for 136 years, it has only been accessible via stairs, meaning vulnerable members of our community and parents with prams faced an unsafe climb up several flights of stairs or travelling longer distances to other stations.</para>
<para>Today, the member for Macquarie Fields, the Hon. Anoulack Chanthivong, and the New South Wales Minister for Transport, the Hon. Jo Haylen, announced that early stakeholder engagement with vulnerable members of our community has been completed, and residents will soon be invited to comment on the draft proposals. Subject to planning approvals, construction will commence later this year, with the upgrades finally delivered after an 18-month construction phase. The upgrades will include footbridges, lifts, CCTV, improved lighting and other accessibility improvements. I commend the New South Wales Labor government for finally delivering the long-overdue upgrades to my community. It's what they deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tumbatrek</title>
          <page.no>179</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday with the member for Eden-Monaro, I went on the Tumbatrek. Glen McGrath—not the cricketing 'ooh ahh' Glenn McGrath—is one of the organisers of this trek. There were plenty of people going, 'Ooh, ahh,' at the end of the trek, myself and no doubt the member for Eden-Monaro included. The Tumbatrek commemorates the legacy of Tim Fischer AC. He started this in the mid-1980s to promote tourism, the Tumbarumba shire and no doubt himself, knowing Tim! It is a great trek. We had more than a hundred walkers. Many of them were very young. In fact, they were the teenagers from the local high school, and they loved it. It was a good exercise regime for their Kokoda trek, which will take place from 12 April.</para>
<para>They've been inspired by Bruce Wright and Grant Harris. The Mayor of Snowy Valleys Council, Ian Chaffey, is an absolute workhorse for that shire. Not only did he drive the bus up to Paddys River Dam drop-off point; he also participated in the walk. Thank you all from Snowy Valleys Council. Thank you to Sophie Gairn and the many volunteers who made this possible. We again remember the legacy of Tim Fischer. May Tumbatrek long live on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Evening Under the Stars</title>
          <page.no>179</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had a great opportunity on Saturday night to attend a wonderful event in my electorate called Evening Under the Stars, which was at the Soldiers' Memorial Gardens in Unley. It's run by the Unley Road Association. That's all the traders that make up the wonderful Unley Road and give it its vibrancy—the restaurants, retail outlets, supermarkets and cafes. I say a big thank you to all those businesses who are part of the Unley Road Association. Special thanks go to Community Bank Goodwood for sponsoring the night. All funds raised on the night went towards the Jodi Lee Foundation, a very worthwhile cause. It was great to see Nick Lee, the chair of the Jodi Lee Foundation, there on the night.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to speak to the audience and to wish them all the very best. In attendance, we had Michael Hewitson from the Unley council and all the councillors. Michael Hewitson is an outstanding mayor who supports lots of charities and fundraisers within the City of Unley. It was also a night to think of those wonderful traders who give the Unley its vibrancy, that give Unley Road its special heartbeat. You can find everything from boutiques, retail outlets, wonderful restaurants, cafes. I would urge all members in this place, if you are visiting Unley or Adelaide, please make sure to visit Unley Road to see the great vibrancy it has.</para>
<para>A special thank you must also go out to Stephen Finos— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney Airport</title>
          <page.no>179</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My community has been campaigning hard. They have been campaigning against unfair flight paths. We are soon to have 220 flights per day at low altitude over thousands of residents in the communities of Lindsay—18 different flight paths over the Nepean River. People enjoying their lives and livelihoods, as they do in Western Sydney, will soon be extremely disturbed by the flights. We deserve to have fair noise mitigation in the homes that are impacted most. The most upsetting thing about all this is that this announcement was made to my community, not directly by the minister for infrastructure but at 12 am via the media. We have been hoodwinked, absolutely hoodwinked. There was no anticipation that the community would be impacted to such a scale.</para>
<para>The 2016 EIS had very different flight paths. We want the airport. It will be a tremendous economic lift for everyone in Western Sydney with the jobs that it will bring; our kids will not have to commute out of the area. We know that there will be flights; we are not silly people. We just want them to be fair and right, and now they are not. I'm calling on the government to revisit the EIS and make these flight paths fair for Western Sydney.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>180</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thirteen times more likely to die on our roads—that is the statistic for our truckies in Australia. It is Australia's most deadly industry, and what we have just witnessed from the member for Page and the member for Bradfield in the last hour is absolutely abhorrent—trying to delay legislation that will bring the safety measures that our truckies deserve on the roads of Australia. It is simply not good enough. These opposition members need to pull their socks up and get on with the job of helping us to deliver the reform that they promised nearly eight years ago when they abolished the RSRT, when Michaelia Cash walked up the street in front of here and stood on a platform and ripped it away on the proviso that they would replace it with something better. It never came.</para>
<para>Thanks to the TWU in partnership with the National Road Freighters Association, with NatRoad, with the whole of industry, we have finally been able to deliver legislation to this place which will bring about better rates of pay, better safety on the roads, not just for our truckies but for everyday mums and dads and for everyday workers who have to commute to and from work—safer roads, safer Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flinders Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>180</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My, how ironic. Today is 12 February 2024, 1,776 days since funding was first announced to fix The Forest Drive and Uralla Road intersections with the Nepean Highway in Mount Martha. In 2015, Bruce Bone was killed in a car crash at the intersection and it started a community wide campaign to get the junction fixed. In 2016, the coalition committed $200,000 for interim safety measures at Forest Drive and, in 2019, the coalition committed $10 million for the upgrade of Forest Drive and Uralla Road. It later doubled the funding to make sure the works would get done.</para>
<para>Since election, I have stood in the chamber five times to plead with Labor, both state and federal, to get these works done. The intersections were given the go-ahead in March 22 by the state Labor government with a commencement date of early 2023, only to be delayed again when this government started its infrastructure review, first for 90 days and then 200. In November I stood here in this chamber and I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From here on in, every injury at that corner sits at the government's feet.</para></quote>
<para>Over summer, there were more accidents at these intersections, and 10 days ago I received an email from Ann. Her friend Kevin had just died from the injuries that he sustained in yet another horrific accident at Uralla Road. It is 1,763 days since the funding was announced, 690 days since the Victorian government approved the upgrades and 274 days since the Albanese Labor government further delayed the upgrades within their infrastructure review. His life ended at an intersection that was fully funded for a fix. It's unforgivable. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Racism</title>
          <page.no>180</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are seeing shades of 1930s Germany emerge in Australia. Jewish Australians have received death threats. Families are in hiding. Jewish businesses and the jobs they support are at risk. Jewish healthcare professionals are being vilified. Hateful vandalism is in our suburbs. Jewish Australians feel like aliens in their own land. Now we see the public release of private details of Jewish Australians. This behaviour is disgusting. Antisemitism is disgusting. It must stop.</para>
<para>Moblike behaviour has no place in Australia, but the mob has been whipped up by people who should know better. The tragedy within a tragedy that is the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been weaponised by performative political players who see this as a mass recruitment tool. The movement behind this is fast losing its integrity. They apply a never-ending string of purity tests to anyone who remotely disagrees with them, mocking, abusing and, now, doxing them.</para>
<para>This deep and complicated conflict does not submit to being a morality tail. Manage your moral outrage, switch on your moral compass and understand that your locus of control is not there but here. Manage your distress in functional, rather than dysfunctional ways, that do not compromise the wellbeing and safety of our fellow Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>180</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Tuesday last week, more than a thousand Australians converged out the front of this building, calling for a Senate inquiry into the economic, environmental and social impacts of industrial-scale, reckless renewable energy projects and their associated transmission lines. A number of speakers addressed the gathering, including Katy McCallum from the Kilkivan Action Group and Jim Willmott from Property Rights Australia. Also present was Save the Mary River coordinating group's Glenda Pickersgill. We heard scientific but heartfelt, passionate speeches about the perils of the Albanese government's renewable energy policy. But conspicuous by their absence were speakers from the Labor and the Greens side. They failed to either explain or defend their policies, which are decimating prime agricultural land, dividing communities and destroying the habitat of koalas and other endangered species, and all for what?</para>
<para>The policies of Labor and the Greens will give us the most unreliable, expensive form of electricity, which will rely upon billions of dollars of Chinese imports. Australia is abundant in its own energy resources, and this government is outsourcing our energy security to other countries. We need a Senate inquiry to fully examine the impacts of Labor's rushed and reckless renewable energy policies.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tang, Dr David Minh, Tang, Mrs Tracey</title>
          <page.no>181</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today because I want to recognise the extraordinary contribution of Dr David Minh Tang and his wife, Tracey. By any measure, they are an extraordinary example of the great migrant success story that so many people share in Australia. Dr Tang is a GP at Homebush West and has been there treating patients for decades. He also bulk-bills all his patients. But what I think is truly special about David and Tracey is that they stretch their compassion beyond the walls of that surgery. They are also involved in the Flemington chamber of commerce and run the lunar new year celebrations every year. Last night, I celebrated a dinner with them where they brought in the Tamil, Indonesian, Chinese and Korean communities to all share in the lunar new year festivities. They also have made some inroads in fundraising efforts for the Australian Vietnamese Aged Care Services because they want to ensure that older Vietnamese Australians have dignity in their final years.</para>
<para>On behalf of their patients, the businesses in Homebush West and Flemington, and the Vietnamese community, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to Dr David Tang and his wife, Tracey, for all that they have done for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel Efficiency Standards</title>
          <page.no>181</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's new family car tax has been announced under the guise of fuel efficiency standards. When Labor first mooted fuel efficiency standards last year, I said the coalition would be constructive if Labor could balance prices, choice and emissions, but Labor has failed on all counts. None of Australia's top three favourite vehicles meet Labor's future standards—not the Ford Ranger, not the Toyota HiLux and not the Isuzu D-MAX—yet the Minister for Climate Change and Energy excitedly claims the prices are coming down. The minister is the dodgiest car salesman this country has ever seen. The industry say prices are only going to go up. They're expecting $38 billion in extra costs, which of course will be passed on to consumers, putting their favourite vehicles beyond the reach of Middle Australia.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the minister declares: 'That's not all. I'm going to make electricity so cheap that if everyone buys EVs they're going to save on fuel.' But he's assuming that the price for electricity goes no higher than 27c a kilowatt hour. It's currently 33c and going up. This is the same dodgy minister who promised a $275 reduction in household power bills.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards</title>
          <page.no>181</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every member in this place stands here as a community leader, and leadership casts a long shadow. What kinds of leaders do our communities expect us to be? Do they want serious, responsible people who respect the importance of the laws before us, or do they want larrikins—living, breathing caricatures like Sir Les Patterson? Improper behaviour before, during or after work, as anyone who has worked in the Public Service or the private sector well knows, can mean disciplinary action, and if it is part of a course of behaviour it may be a sackable offence. What we have witnessed over the last little while is embarrassing not just for the member and not just for his party; it's embarrassing for every member of this parliament, because we are examples to our community, young and old. We represent Australia to the international dignitaries and visitors we meet each week. How should we conduct ourselves so as to maintain their respect?</para>
<para>We are under the spotlight and we should be acting accordingly. If we can't, then we must also be able to understand that there isn't a single member here who is irreplaceable. We come here, we make our contribution and we leave again. Our behaviour here matters; it matters at all levels. We need to help each other. We need to be hard on each other so that respect for this institution is maintained and upheld. Our constituents are watching. Our colleagues are watching. The world is watching.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>181</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite are setting up quite a legacy. It's a path that's littered with broken promises. There are higher electricity costs despite the Prime Minister promising to save Australians $275 on their electricity bills. There are higher mortgages—12 increases—under those opposite, despite them telling us we'd have cheaper mortgages. There are lower real wages, despite, again, those opposite saying they would come to government and drive up real wages. And then, of course, there's the mother of all broken promises: a commitment to walking away from the stage 3 tax cuts, despite the now Prime Minister telling us a hundred times between his time in opposition and his time in government that he would do nothing of the sort.</para>
<para>This desire for higher taxes seems to continue unabated. They're on retirees, they're on transport operators and they're on farmers. Now we've learned those opposite have also got a plan to tax your ute and your SUV. It's a carbon tax on your favourite drive. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, our Prime Minister wants to make it more expensive for the tradies and farmers of this world to get a ute, while making it cheaper for the bankers of Australia to drive their Teslas. Well done, PM! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nemesis</title>
          <page.no>182</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, what is the definition of 'nemesis'? According to Oxford publishing, either it is 'the inescapable agent of someone's or something's downfall', as in, 'Injury, consistently his nemesis, struck him down during the match'—the story of my sporting career, Mr Speaker—or it is 'a longstanding rival, an arch enemy', as in, 'Will Harry Potter finally defeated his nemesis, Voldemort?' Will he? If you want to find out, tune in to the ABC at 8 pm tonight.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>182</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>182</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Evidence in senate estimates has revealed that of the 149 individuals the government has released from immigration detention, the minister has determined that 36 not be required to wear ankle bracelets. Minister, can you confirm that it is your position that none of these individuals poses a threat to the Australian community?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question. As the shadow minister is aware, late last year the High Court overturned decades of precedent in its decision which required the release of a number of people who we sought to remain in immigration detention. In response to that, with the cooperation of members opposite, we put in place a range of laws and also put in place a range of processes to keep the community safe, which has been and will continue to be our No. 1 objective and our No. 1 priority. Of course, a big part of that was setting up Operation AEGIS to bring together the government's law enforcement agencies around the country. We also now have four layers of protection, including stringent visa conditions, electronic monitoring and curfew arrangements as well as preventative detention arrangements.</para>
<para>In order to manage that, we put in place a Community Protection Board so that the decisions around community safety can be made by those best placed to decide on the merits in any issue of how to keep the community safe. I'm very pleased that the Community Protection Board is up and running and has been providing appropriate advice on managing this cohort.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>182</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will Labor's tax cuts help Australians under pressure, and what is standing in the way of delivering cost-of-living relief to Australians?</para>
</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 thank the member for Hasluck for her question. I look forward to being back in Western Australia again next week, when we will have the third cabinet meeting that we have had in Western Australia since we came to office, following on from the last successful meeting that we had in Port Hedland in regional Western Australia.</para>
<para>On 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut under Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. That's all 13.6 million of them, not just some, because we understand that we want to leave nobody behind. We also want to make sure that people can aspire, which is why we have tax cuts right throughout each of the income tax thresholds—all the way through. I must say that it has been well received out there. That is why we made this decision. It was because of cost-of-living pressures, particularly amongst low- and middle-income Australians. These tax cuts are aimed squarely at middle Australia—at those people who go to work, work hard to make a difference for themselves and their family and deserve a reward.</para>
<para>We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people to work longer for less. They want them on call 24 hours a day. They oppose every wage increase, and we know that they didn't want to pass on Labor's tax cuts. They reluctantly now say that they are supporting them while they argue against them consistently all the way through. These things are so bad that they are going to vote for them. We on this side of the chamber do not want Australians to work longer for less. What we want them to do is to earn more, which is why we've put in place measures such as the increase in the minimum wage, support for aged care workers and the industrial relations legislation, and it's why we are putting in place Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. Indeed, it's not just the beneficiaries who say that. Someone in my electorate, Phuac from Croydon Park, wrote to me and said: 'I think most Australians will see that what your government has done is to make the whole tax changes fairer and much more economically realistic. Peter Dutton will rant and rave and be as negative as possible'—you got that right!—but this was the right decision.' This is the right decision. Those opposite oppose higher wages, vote against help with your power bill, vote against cheaper medicines, vote against affordable housing and vote against penalty rates, of course. Now they want you to be available 24 hours a day— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>183</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Evidence in Senate estimates revealed that, of the 149 individuals the government has released from immigration detention, the minister has determined that 36 not be required to wear ankle bracelets. How many of these individuals have committed an offence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister again for his question. As I said a moment ago, one of the things that we have done to ensure that the community have been protected, or will continue to be protected, is to set up the Community Protection Board, a body composed of, amongst others, highly respected law enforcement officers, and I thank them for the important work that they are doing. As the shadow minister would be aware, a document has been tabled in Senate estimates detailing the conduct of those who were required to be released who have breached their conditions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>183</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Why are the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts so important for responsible economic management, and how does that compare to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Lyons for helping to ensure that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. Eighty-eight per cent of workers in his local community will get a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living. And thanks to the member for inviting me to spend time with him and local steelworkers near Launceston. Ninety-two per cent of steelworkers now get a bigger tax cut. Ninety-eight per cent of the wardies I met with in Meadowbrook get a bigger tax cut. Ninety-seven per cent of early educators in Carrum Downs get a bigger tax cut. Ninety-four per cent of plumbers and sprinkler fitters I met with in Beenleigh get a bigger tax cut.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister said, more people working, more people earning more, more people keeping more of what they earn—that is responsible economic management. By getting the budget in better nick, we can invest in housing and skills and energy and roll out more help for more people, not just in Dickson and Dunkley or Farrer or Forde or Lyons or Leichhardt but in every community and right up and down the income scale.</para>
<para>Since we announced our changes, those opposite have been tying themselves in knots over our changes. If they support our changes, why do they keep bagging them? And, if they don't support them, why are they voting for our changes? Every once in a while, we get a real insight into what they think about tax changes, like when the member for Farrer said they'd absolutely roll them back; like when it was put to the member for Hume yesterday on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> that they were supporting our changes, and he said, 'No, we're not'; like when he was asked on the <inline font-style="italic">Sunrise</inline> program if he wanted more support at the lower end and he said no. I thought I'd misheard it, so I checked his transcript, and I discovered a very curious thing: the word 'no' is missing from the transcript. The word that they utter most frequently is missing from his own transcript.</para>
<para>Because of our responsible economic management, we've delivered the first surplus in 15 years. Inflation is moderating, wages are growing and, from 1 July, every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. Because of a decade of coalition disunity, dysfunction and disarray, those opposite are the party of higher quarterly inflation, the party of lower wages and harsher industrial relations, the party of higher taxes on middle Australia, the party of waste and rorts and bigger deficits and more debt. So I say to Australians tuning into the ABC tonight: if they thought that the Abbott and Turnbull and Morrison governments were bad, the leftovers of those governments are even worse.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Curtin.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gambling Advertising</title>
          <page.no>184</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question to the Minister for Communications. Last year a parliamentary inquiry recommended banning online gambling ads. During the year of that inquiry, big gambling companies made political donations of $600,000. You've spent seven months meeting with powerful companies that make money from gambling ads. Today new research was released, again showing the dangers of social media influencers promoting gambling to kids. Will you listen to the community and ban online gambling ads, or will you water down reform to serve your donors?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to hear from the Leader of the House. I have some difficulty with the last part of that question. The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I simply ask that the last part of the question be considered as being out of order. Imputations of that nature have always been ruled out of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am going to agree, unless the Manager of Opposition Business has another point of view, that the last part of the question not stand as part of the question. I remind all members about reflecting on members and imputations on members as well.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her very important question, and I acknowledge her longstanding advocacy in this area, as well as that of many other members of this House. Like many Australians, the government is very concerned about the extent of gambling ads and their impacts, which is one of the reasons why we established the House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and the impacts on those experiencing gambling harms, led by our dear late friend Peta Murphy.</para>
<para>Since receiving the committee's report, we have been consulting with key stakeholders on the committee's recommendations, and there are over 30 of them. My department has met with a broad range of stakeholders including broadcasters, sporting codes and digital platforms, and I have met with a number of harm reduction advocates, public health experts and academics. I am very grateful for their time, their insights, their perspectives and their expertise—particularly, as the member notes, on the impact that online gambling is having on young people, the concerns over the saturation of gambling advertising, the close association that even young children now have between wagering and live sport, and the shame and stigma felt by those experiencing gambling harm.</para>
<para>I can say to the member that there is one underlying principle that is guiding us in our approach here, and that is harm minimisation. We are conducting this in a very thorough way, and I will make three points going to that.</para>
<para>Firstly, we want this response to be comprehensive. It's a broad-ranging report. It goes over a large number of areas that impact not only on the Commonwealth but also on states and territories, where there are already existing laws as well.</para>
<para>Secondly, we want to guard against unintended consequences. We know how important it is to take a comprehensive approach here. Look at the last set of gambling ad restrictions that were put in place by the previous government in 2018. I say to the member that there was actually a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on TV and radio, and there was an 86 per cent increase on regional TV. So we need to ensure that what we are doing is guarding against those perverse outcomes.</para>
<para>Lastly, for the benefit of the member and the House, the Prime Minister is running an orderly cabinet government. It is a collaborative approach that we are taking between a number of ministers, including the Minister for Social Services, me and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and we are conducting this in a way that ensures that we meet our harm minimisation objectives.</para>
<para>I would also just highlight for the member, who may be interested in some of the other initiatives that are being done at the moment, that there's a very important one that I'd like the member to be aware of: we instigated the last piece of the regime for consumer protection, and that is BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register. Since April, there have been just under 16,000 registrations that remain active, and 47 per cent of registrants are 30 years old or younger. I just acknowledge that fact for the member to highlight the broad work we're doing— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>184</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese government delivering better tax cuts to support workers across Australia, particularly those in the transport and construction industries?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Spence very much for that question and, particularly, for his ongoing support for the members of his community and his lifelong commitment to those in the transport sector. In the member's electorate alone, 74,000 taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,207 from 1 July. We are delivering better tax cuts for the people of Spence, just as we are delivering better tax cuts for the transport and construction workers who are the backbone of this country and who are building our future—hauling freight in regional Australia, driving road trains across the Nullarbor, building Western Sydney Airport, filling potholes on local roads and building affordable housing across the country. Those workers kept Australia moving during the pandemic and they underpin our economy today. That is why our tax cuts will deliver better benefits to them and their families.</para>
<para>We know that 87 per cent of taxpayers in Queensland will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan starting on 1 July. We know that 81 per cent of taxpayers in Western Australia will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan and 90 per cent of taxpayers in Tasmania will get a bigger tax cut under our plan. Every taxpayer gets a tax cut, and the 90 per cent in Tasmania get a bigger tax cut. Under our plan, every Australian taxpayer—13.6 million Australian taxpayers—will be receiving a tax cut on 1 July. A construction worker on $110,000 a year will get a tax cut of $2,429. A truckie earning $77,000 will get a tax cut of $1,604. An apprentice—one of our desperately needed apprentices—on $53,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,000. And, of course, a worker earning $40,000 will get a tax cut of $654, compared to absolutely nothing under those opposite. An Australian on the average income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504, which is $804 more than they were going to receive under those opposite.</para>
<para>We know, of course, what the opposition would do in relation to these tax cuts. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying: 'Our position is to roll it back. That is absolutely—'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. I think I know what the member for Riverina is going to say, but I will hear from him.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was not asked about alternatives, and she should stick to the question she was asked.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was not asked about alternative proposals or any obstacles to delivering the tax cuts, so I'm going to ask her to return to the question and not refer to the opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We, of course, want Australians to keep more of their own money. We know what those opposite would do, but we know what we're going to do. We're putting tax cuts in place to ensure that Australian tradies, Australian truckies and Australian construction workers earn more and they get to keep more of what they earn. That is Labor's plan. Those opposite stand on their own.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>185</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Evidence in Senate estimates has revealed that, of the 149 individuals the government has released from immigration detention, the minister has determined that 36 not be required to wear ankle bracelets. How many of these individuals have committed an offence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister, again, for his question, but it's very difficult for anyone to accept the premise of that question. I say again that the government established the Community Protection Board to provide us with expert advice as to the conditions for those in the cohort. In terms of the other matters which I believe his question was going to, these are of course operational matters. They are operational matters which fall within the remit of Operation AEGIS, which, as he would be aware, is a joint AFP-ABF operation. All of these matters, if it's a breach of a federal offence, would be of course reported in the usual way by the AFP. For those matters which are breaches of state and territory offences, similarly they are a matter for those law enforcement authorities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>185</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for health. How will Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts help Australia's healthcare workers? How will tax cuts build on the Albanese government's actions to make health care more affordable for all Australians, after a decade of neglect and cuts to our health system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. She knows that 77,000 taxpayers in her electorate will benefit from legislation we have put before the parliament right now, to be debated again this afternoon and this evening, which will mean every single one of those taxpayers will get a tax cut on 1 July, not some of them, as was the case under the old plan of five years ago, but every single one of them.</para>
<para>Many of those work in health care, including the terrific Austin Hospital in Heidelberg, in the member's electorate. A second-year nurse, working at the Austin on $75,000 will receive, under Labor's plan, a tax cut of $1,554 a year, around double what they would have received under the old plan. A hospital orderly working at the Austin on $47,000 will receive tax cut of $862 a year, compared to just $58 under the old plan—about $1 a week was what they were getting under the old plan from the five years ago. This is all part of this government's commitment to ensure that middle Australia earn more and keeps more of what they earn.</para>
<para>Australia's hospital staff will also know that their work will be better funded and better supported by the historic agreements struck by the Prime Minister and national cabinet in December last year, an extra $1.2 billion to strengthen Medicare even further, including more urgent care clinics and a commitment to lift the Commonwealth's share of public hospital funding to 45 per cent—billions more into our public hospitals from the Commonwealth than existing arrangements. Those hospital staff at the Austin and at hospitals right around the country know what a struggle it has been to get that level of support. Every day at work, they see, coming through their front door, the consequences of 10 years of cuts and neglect to Medicare, cuts and neglect that were initiated by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Gippsland and Riverina will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Compare and contrast this Prime Minister's historic agreement with national cabinet in December with the Leader of the Opposition's first budget as health minister in 2014. Everyone remembers that he tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He tried to jack-up medicines. They might not remember he also tried to cut $50 billion from hospitals in a glossy, blue budget—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The minister will not refer to props or documents in his answer. He will resume his seat for a moment so I can hear from 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, the minister needs to stay within the terms of the question rather than engaging, as he always does, in an unspecified trawl through the records of the opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on direct relevance, given that the question asks the minister to talk about a decade of neglect and cuts to our healthcare system, how can he avoid talking about the Leader of the Opposition?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was asked about a decade of decline. I'm just going to make sure the document he is referring to is to do with that part of the question, not simply his opinion on the opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be like speaking about the Super Bowl without mentioning Taylor Swift. Not only did he cut $50 billion, he tore up agreements on preventive health—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's up with all the cool kids.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  He tore to up agreements on concessions for pensioners. The staff at Austin know now that they have a government in Canberra that's committed to earning more, keeping more of what they earn and funding their hospitals fairly.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>186</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister for immigration. Evidence in Senate estimates has revealed that of the 149 individuals the government has released from immigration detention—that includes seven murderers and 37 sex offenders—the minister has determined that 36 not be required to wear ankle bracelets. How many of these individuals have committed an offence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question but I have already answered this question.</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>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>186</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp> (Canberra) (14:24):</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor Government's closing-loopholes legislation helping Australians earn more? How will Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts help them keep more of what they earn? And what has been the response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Canberra for asking a question about the cost of living. They're all coming from this side. If I go through some of the public servants who are represented by the member for Canberra—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And I hear the interjection about public servants. The only servants those opposite don't like are public servants! An APS grade 5 on $84,000 gets a $1,779 tax cut, because we want people to earn more and keep more of what they are earn, while those opposite want people to work longer for less. The closing-loopholes legislation has now passed the parliament. It passed the Senate last week and passed the House today. That means that for a whole lot of workers who have fallen outside of our system of minimum standards this parliament has decided that they should have minimum rates of pay. Someone who is delivering pizzas on the back of a bike should not be in a situation where their minimum rate of pay is a zero, as though somehow they have a whole heap of negotiating power. Yet those opposite voted for that to be the case.</para>
<para>Australia is not meant to be a country where you have to rely on tips to make ends meet. People should have minimum standards, and now they will, whether it's in the gig economy or whether it's in road transport. Also there should be job security for our casuals. Most casuals will want to remain casuals. Despite the fear campaigns, nothing changes for them. But for the small number of casuals who are wanting to transfer to secure employment and where their hours already reflect what a secure job will be, why would you want to deny job security to them? Their bills aren't casual. Their mortgage isn't casual. Their rent's not casual. If they've got dependants, supporting them isn't casual. If they want security of work, then this parliament should get behind them, and this government has.</para>
<para>It should not be the case that you have to work 24/7. Those opposite over the weekend, in that interview that we'll keep quoting, from the shadow Treasurer—how did he describe their package of repeals on industrial relations? He said it would be targeted—and we know what that means: targeted against wage rises, targeted against job security, targeted against safer workplaces, targeted against closing the gender pay gap.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>187</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Evidence in Senate estimates has revealed that of the 149 individuals the government has released from immigration detention, which include seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 16 domestic violence and stalking offenders, the minister has determined that 36 not be required to wear ankle bracelets. How many of these individuals have committed an offence?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bowman is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for another question. What I think I need to make clear is that since the decision of the High Court in November last year—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Deakin then left the chamber</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>which required the release of a number of people, we have set up a range of measures. The shadow minister refers to evidence in Senate estimates hearings today. Of course that is the evidence. But let us go through what we have done, which is to take all the steps to ensure that community safety is put in place through four layers of protection. The thing that he seems to be missing in this is that we now have the Community Protection Board, which is providing expert advice to government on how to manage the—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's relevance. The thing I'm missing is an answer, an answer to a very simple question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the direct relevance rule, and as the member opposite knows from the time that he was on this side, it has always been the case that the question is whether or not the answer that's being given is relevant to the subject matter. It might not be the answer that the shadow minister wants, it might not be what he would have written had he been offering dictation, but that is not the question under the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. We had this issue last week regarding yes, no and specifics. As the member knows, I can't direct the minister to answer the question that he would like him to answer, but I'm going to make sure he's being directly relevant to the question and to provide the information as requested under the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was nearly finished. What the shadow minister needs to remember is that these are matters—and I've already answered the first bit of his question. One critical element is for him to pay appropriate respect to the good work of the men and women on the Community Protection Board, the people best placed to provide advice to government on how to manage these very difficult issues.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>188</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts benefit our Australian Defence Force personnel, those at the Department of Defence and workers in the Australian defence industry? What would be the impact of alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question, and I acknowledge her service and her ongoing commitment to the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy and those working in Defence industry based at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Albatross</inline> in her electorate.</para>
<para>As we all know, every member of the Defence Force, every public servant in the Department of Defence, every person working in the defence industry will receive a tax cut under Labor's tax plans, meaning that they take home more of what they earn. That includes those who are right at the start of their Defence journey, such as an Army private in the first few months of their basic training at Kapooka, in Wagga, who will receive a tax cut of $1,089. Or an able seaman in the member's own electorate working on helicopters at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Albatross</inline>, who will receive a tax cut of more than $2,000. Or an Army private driving trucks at Puckapunyal, near Seymour, who will receive a tax cut of $1,722. Or, indeed, an Air Force fitter and turner at RAAF Base Williamtown, in Newcastle, who will be receiving a tax cut of $1,463 dollars, which is more than twice the tax cut that person would have received under the policy of those opposite.</para>
<para>It has taken courage on the part of this Prime Minister, on the part of the Treasurer and on the part of this government in bringing forward this tax package. And, as has been made abundantly clear by the tactics of those opposite in this question time, it is now clear that they agree that this Prime Minister has made the right call. If they didn't, they would be opposing the legislation in this parliament and doing as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said they would do and roll this tax package back.</para>
<para>But the truth is those opposite don't have a tax policy; they are all at sea when it comes to tax policy. All they have is a tax grab. And we heard that again yesterday from the shadow Treasurer, who claims that the Liberals will always be the party of lower taxes—only they are not. In modern times the government in Australia which has been the highest-taxing government is a Liberal government. In actual fact, the Liberals are now a party of deficit budgets, of big debt and of make-believe money. The government that is fighting on behalf of Australians in respect of dealing with cost-of-living pressures, the government that is prudently managing the economy, the government that is keeping Australians safe is the Albanese Labor government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>188</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, it's heartening to see you changed your mind on the stage 3 tax cuts and taking cost-of-living seriously, but families in Fowler living on a median wage of $521 a week are still under stress. Your government has collected almost $20 billion from fuel excise. Fuel has gone up from around $1.82 in March last year to $2.26 today. When will families in Western Sydney be given immediate relief through a fuel excise cut?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned, and if she interjects one more time she won't be here for the remainder of question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fowler for her question and for her acknowledgement that Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts will provide tax relief for every single taxpayer in her electorate. They will do something more than that: they will provide more tax relief for 90 per cent of taxpayers in Fowler. Ninety per cent will benefit. Ninety-eight per cent of young taxpayers in Fowler will benefit. More than 90 per cent of women in Fowler will benefit. We have found the best way to provide cost-of-living relief for people in her electorate and in every electorate around Australia, by providing tax relief for all 13.6 million taxpayers. We could have sat back and said, 'Well, we acknowledge the fact that low- and middle-income owners are under pressure, but it's too difficult to do anything about it.' That would have been the easy decision. What we didn't do was that. What we did was to make a difficult decision in the interests of Australian taxpayers—in the interests of middle-income Australians in particular. But also many of those in the member for Fowler's electorate will be amongst the 1.2 million Australians who will benefit from either being taken out completely from the Medicare levy or having their Medicare levy reduced.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Fowler for indicating her support for our tax package. It comes on top of our energy relief plan as well. I noticed yesterday the Leader of the National Party out there on morning TV saying, 'Why don't they consider doing something about energy price relief?' As we say—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  Order! The Prime Minister will pause.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will just pause, so I can hear from the member for Fowler, and the Leader of the Nationals will not interject while I hear from her.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Le</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance: I asked about fuel excise and immediate relief through the fuel excise tax cut.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The question contained a reference to cost of living and tax cuts. The Prime Minister is answering the question. He's being directly relevant. I refer to my earlier remarks regarding being directly relevant in answering questions.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We found a much more effective way of providing cost-of-living relief every single week.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Casey will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When taxpayers in your electorate get their pay packet, they will benefit not just from the tax relief but from the fact that they're earning more. They're earning more as a result of the fact that real wages have increased in the last two quarters. We want people to earn more, and we want people to keep more of what they earn. That's our position. Those opposite in the Liberal and National parties want people to work longer for less.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But I am pleased, and I congratulate—at least there's one person on that side of the House who can get a question about cost-of-living issues.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>189</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help tradies building the new homes Australia needs? What has been the response to Labor's plan for tradies to keep more of what they earn?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I haven't called the minister. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for McEwen for that question. I know the member for McEwen has been a big supporter of our ambitious housing agenda in his own electorate and, indeed, around the country. That's why, of course, every tradie paying tax in Australia will get a tax cut from 1 July under Labor's plan. Every taxpaying tradie will get a tax cut and, for many, they will get a bigger tax cut thanks to the Labor government. Labourers on an average taxable income of $57,000 will get a tax cut of $1,349, over $700 more than under the previous plan.</para>
<para>But it is not just labourers; eighty-eight per cent will get a bigger tax cut under our plan. Sparkies, on average, with their average taxable income of $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,262, over $750 more than the previous plan. Indeed, 84 per cent of electricians across the country will get a bigger tax cut because of Labor's plan. Carpenters, critical to the building industry, on average taxable incomes of $72,000 will get a tax cut $1,563 on average, over $730 more than under the previous plan. Indeed, 94 per cent of carpenters in this country will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan. A plumber on an average taxable income of $79,000 will get a tax cut of $1,730, over $750 more than under the previous plan and 94 per cent of plumbers in Australia who pay tax will get a bigger tax cut under our plan—so 94 per cent of plumbers better off, 94 per cent of carpenters better off, 84 per cent of electricians better off, and 88 per cent of labourers better off.</para>
<para>This is a tax cut for every working Australian, all 13.6 million of them and for the 76,000 of them in the member for McEwen's electorate. But that's what responsible government is about. It's about listening to the people, making the tough but right decisions to help people with the cost of living, and it is in stark contrast to what those opposite are doing. Indeed, they are all over the place when it comes to tax cuts. They said they were going to fight them in this place. They said they were going to roll them back and, indeed, on the same day they support the very tax cuts.</para>
<para>Government 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 infrastructure.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ministers on my right on the front bench will cease interject in or they will be warned. The member for Riverina a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order goes to relevance. The member for McEwen's question was very tightly scripted. It did not include alternatives, and the minister should refer to the question she was asked.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are correct on the first point, but this question contained what has been a response, so the minister—I was listening carefully—was reading a direct quote about the changes that have been presented before the House, so I will not uphold the point of order. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For tax cuts that they support, those opposite appear very angry over there. They either support them or they don't. But let's be honest, these tradies with their tax cuts are critical to building the houses that Australia needs. We know that the tradies are critical to this. We want them to earn more and we want them to keep more of what they earn so they can get on and build the homes that Australia needs.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>190</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Can the minister confirm the seven murderers and 37 sex offenders released from detention are all wearing ankle bracelets.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question. I can confirm, as I think I made clear earlier, that the management of everyone in this cohort is determined by the professional men and women of the community safety board, who have been providing evidence based assessment on the application of those measures, the subject of laws that we all supported in this place, to keep people safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>190</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</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 Industry and Science. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help Australian manufacturing workers, and are there any risks to Labor's plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. This government is one that believes in a future that is made in Australia because manufacturing delivers great jobs—900,000-plus jobs in this country, 85 per cent of them full time, and the bulk of them pay better than average weekly earnings. Under Labor's plans, particularly in terms of cost-of-living relief and overall, in terms of wage increases, we want those workers to earn more and keep more under what we are doing.</para>
<para>What does that mean in practice for manufacturing workers? If you look at BlueScope steel, a well-known employer in the member for Cunningham's electorate, you can see an entry-level blast furnace operator—an important job and a skilled profession at the heart of steelmaking—makes a base salary of around $59,000 a year. They're going to get a tax cut of $1,160. If that worker goes on to gain experience and expertise and goes up from entry-level operator to level 4 operator, their base salary will jump to around $86,000 and they'll get an even bigger tax cut of $1,840.</para>
<para>You can look at others in manufacturing—for example, workers at CSL who research and manufacture life-saving medicines across the country, from Parkville and Broadmeadows and to North Sydney. Workers on the lowest salaries covered by their current agreement, who make a base salary of around $69,000, are going to enjoy more than $1,400 as a tax cut, and those on the higher salaries covered by the agreement, who are currently on a base salary of about $120,000, are going to enjoy a $2,700 tax cut.</para>
<para>Now, I thought there was semicompelling viewing in <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>. I don't mean any disrespect to the makers of the mockumentary, but the better thing to watch was the position on our tax cuts. That was way better viewing. At this point, we cue the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for industry, who, when we offered a tax cut for manufacturing workers, said it was absolutely her position that they will roll back Labor's tax cut if they win the election. The only thing that then happened is that they rolled back her position and didn't go ahead with it. So I'm really hoping there's room for a sequel to <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>. But, if they won't do it, you've got to give us a blooper reel, and there's got to be a Sussan section to <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. He will not refer to members by their first names. He will refer to them by their correct titles. The 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>On relevant: he's well outside the terms of the question. He should be directed back to it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question contained risks to Labor's plan.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It didn't invite him to tour through particular programs on particular television networks.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has 22 seconds. I'm going to remind him to refer to members by their titles and to refer back to the question and to make sure his answer is relevant to risks to Labor's plans.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely, but it is important that manufacturing workers know that the shadow minister for industry and deputy leader doesn't back them getting tax cuts and was actively working to stop that until, at some point, they worked out their position and came to common sense. On this side of the House, manufacturing workers know we've got their backs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>191</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's refusal to phase out billions of dollars in property investor tax concessions to property investors like yourself is denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. Noting that 75 per cent of all Labor members in parliament own investment properties, can you explain to the House why Labor supports big tax cuts for property investors, like negative gearing, that are hurting renters and first-home buyers by allowing investors to outbid renters trying to buy a home?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to remind members about improper motives in questions. That was pretty close to the wind.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure when he took that question to tactics, Senator McKim and Senator Faruqi, with her developments, were very upset with that question. But it goes to a policy question, in that I noticed that the Greens political party, having held up funding for public housing last year, now want to hold up funding to support Help to Buy for renters to get into home ownership. That's what they say they will do. I'll give the member a big tip, which is that it stands on its own and on its merits. The idea that there will be a discussion with that sort of juvenile approach that we've seen from those opposite will not occur. This is not a student council; this is a parliament. It's a parliament that has a responsibility to look after the people who put us here, not to grandstand. The key to that is supply. On supply, for example, our Social Housing Accelerator is developing around 1,500 in New South Wales, 769 in Victoria, 600 in WA, 600 in Queensland, 230 in South Australia and 110 in Tasmania. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will build 30,000 homes, something that those opposite held up.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: we're close to two minutes through this question, and the Prime Minister hasn't once mentioned the tax concessions that many people in this place benefit from.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but, just in line with my previous rulings and my previous statements to the House, when you include a whole lot of information in the question and some extra preamble, the Prime Minister will deal with that question rather than just a short, sharp, one-sentence question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did mention the Greens senators, who benefit from these programs, as well as the Greens members sitting next to the honourable member up there.</para>
<para>We have a comprehensive plan. When it comes to renters, we had the largest increase in rental assistance in 30 years. But the key, of course, is supply. Maybe you could have a word to the member for Brisbane, who is currently running a campaign against a plan by the Catholic archdiocese to develop church land into a retirement village for older people in his electorate. The member claims the proposal is too tall, would lead to a loss of neighbourhood character, and—wait for this—there might be visitors to the aged-care facility who increase local congestion! This includes 68 new three-bedroom dwellings and a four-storey retirement or residential-care facility. The applicant predicts the Sacred Heart site will generate between 90 and 85 active and public transport trips.</para>
<para>Those opposite in the Greens political party have never seen a new home being built that they supported. The key to this is supply. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>191</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer benefit those working in the disability sector? How is the government getting the NDIS back on track to deliver benefits for people with a disability and their loved ones and supporters?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the biggest groups amongst the 13.6 million Australian taxpayers who are going to benefit from Labor's tax cuts on 1 July is the hard-working people in the disability sector. The most recent numbers indicate there are about 398,000 people who work in the NDIS area. The vast majority, probably about 90 per cent, earn less than $100,000. Seventy-nine per cent of these disability workers are women and 40 per cent are casuals. Forty-five per cent of the people who look after our Australians with severe disabilities are over 45.</para>
<para>The award wage for a disability support worker level 2, which is one of the most common occupation categories, is 35 bucks an hour. Thank goodness Labor got elected in 2022. They've had about an 11.2 per cent movement in that award wage. They earn about $63,000 a year. Because of Labor's bigger, better, fairer tax cuts, they're going to get $1,292 extra in the next year.</para>
<para>If you're a disability support worker level 4, which earns you about $44 an hour, you're going to get approximately $2,000 in lower taxes. We're seeing that, for the disability sector, the vast, vast majority are very lucky that Labor has developed the tax cut plan that we have. The other group, who I haven't mentioned so far, are allied health professionals. Many of the allied health professionals, especially in their early years, don't earn much more than $120,000 a year if they're lucky, but an occupational therapist who might have been working for several years in the NDIS will get over $3,000 in tax cuts. This is all very good news, but this is on top of the changes we're making to the NDIS generally.</para>
<para>I do acknowledge that the opposition is making the right noises about working with us to improve the performance of the NDIS. We look forward to bringing forward the first tranche of the legislation in the autumn session. Our aim for the NDIS is to make sure that it's here to stay for future generations, that it is true to purpose and that every dollar gets through to the people for whom it was designed. We want to make the NDIS a more humane experience. We want to make it an experience which is less bureaucratic. We certainly want to evict the shonks from the industry. The NDIS was created to look after Australians with the most severe and permanent disabilities. What we will do by ensuring that it's true to purpose is, for the first time, to help start building out what we call foundational services, working with my colleague the Minister for Families and Social Services. The Prime Minister and the premiers had a real breakthrough where we got state governments to step up with us to provide services outside the NDIS. But one thing is for sure: if you're a disability support worker in Australia, the Labor tax cuts are the best way to go, and we thank you very much for your work for the disabled.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for O'Connor will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fadden, I am trying to call the member for Wannon, and until there's complete silence, he won't get the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>192</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Evidence in Senate estimates has revealed the Albanese government has released seven murderers, 37 sex offenders, 16 domestic violence and stalking offenders, 13 serious drug offenders and 72 other violent criminals from immigration detention. So far, 18 of these criminals have been charged by state and territory police for new offences. Can the minister explain why he has failed to apply for a single community safety detention order?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member was heard in silence; so will the minister be.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question, again. It is worth restating for his and for all members' benefit that the release of these individuals was required by the decision of the High Court in November last year and would have been required under any government. Since then, we have been working around the clock to ensure the community is kept safe. We have done so by putting in place four layers of protection, one of which is, of course, the regime that was the subject of legislation that was put through the parliament at the end of last year that provides for preventative detention and ongoing supervision orders.</para>
<para>I'm sure the shadow minister, like the Leader of the Opposition, would be aware that this is modelled on the high-risk terrorist offenders scheme. He may well be aware that it took more than three years for the first continuing detention order application after that regime was enacted. Three years and 10 months was the shortest period of time for an application to be made to the court under members opposite under the regime from him and other members, including the Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister responsible for putting in place the high-risk terrorist offenders regime. I think we can see this question in that light and also in another light, and this is something that all members should be aware of—something that Senator Paterson pointed out. He said there is 'a very high legal threshold to be met for a court to agree to the ongoing detention of an offender who continues to pose an unacceptable risk'. This is exactly why we need to treat this with the caution and determined application it deserves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the wonderful member for Robertson for his question. It is indeed great to get a question about young people and about what the Australian government, the Albanese government, is doing for young Australians. The Albanese government not only values the ideas and the experiences of young people but also listens to them. Last year, we undertook nationwide consultations with young Australians aged between 12 and 25. Those consultations provided us an opportunity to engage directly with young Australians on the issues that matter to them the most. We ran 58 consultations right across Australia, and the young people very clearly told us that the No.1 issue for young Australians right now is cost of living.</para>
<para>As I said, Mr Speaker, the Albanese government listens. We listen to young people and we listen to our constituents. That's why from 1 July we are delivering a tax cut for every working Australian, making a real difference to 13.6 million Australians. That includes 1.5 million taxpayers aged between 18 and 24. They are going to get an average tax cut of $1,007 under our new tax plan. Taxpayers aged between 25 and 29—that is, 1.6 million taxpayers—are going to receive an average tax cut of $1,573 under Labor's tax plan. These tax cuts are good for young people, they're good for young Australians, they're good for middle Australia and, of course, they are good for our economy. As an example, a young person juggling part-time study and working in retail who earns $30,000 will receive a tax cut of $354 under Labor's plan and, on top of that, another $172 from the changes to the Medicare levy. This is on top of the billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief that we are already delivering for young Australians in cheaper medicines, in energy price relief, in boosting rent assistance—the biggest increase in 30 years—and through increases to JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, ABSTUDY and Austudy.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has undertaken a course of reaching out to young people, involving them in consultations and listening to them—listening to the ways in which the policies that government makes affect them and what we can do better for them. We have heard the concerns and we are acting on them. (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>).</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>193</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister received any advice any of the 36 hard-core criminals released from detention by this government, not wearing ankle bracelets, have been charged with any offence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question. I do say again, though, that the release of these individuals was required by reason of the decision of the High Court, a decision that any government would have to comply with. I say again that the management of everyone in that cohort has been subject to the expert advice of the men and women of the Community Protection Board—and that is advice that we have acted upon—a composed of trusted law enforcement officials. As I have already answered, the operational matters to which the member's question goes to—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was talking about the issue raised in the question. I will listen to the member for Wannon on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It goes to relevance, Speaker. I wasn't asking the minister about operational matters; I was asking whether any of them have been charged with any offence. The public want to know the answers to these questions.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not an opportunity to add additional words to the question. The minister will need to be directly relevant to the question. He was asked about numbers—how many—and also about the advice that he may or may not have received.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just going to the operational matters—which I was about to touch on and which I believe I have already referred to—about the conduct of Operation AEGIS and the manner in which that aspect of community protection is looked after through the work of the AFP and ABF, who are obviously responsible insofar as it relates to breaches of Commonwealth conditions, and state and territory law enforcement officials, who are responsible and who regularly provide updates on those matters when they constitute breaches of those conditions or other offences.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prisoners of War</title>
          <page.no>193</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it important for Australia to keep telling the stories of Australia's prisoners of war, as they do at the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hawke for his question. Yesterday I had the great honour of being the first Prime Minister to attend the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial commemorations that occurred in Ballarat, with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. It was the 20th anniversary of this extraordinary memorial.</para>
<para>It tells of the sacrifice, courage and mateship of the men and women who served our country in war and who were incarcerated and forced to endure extraordinary deprivation, whether it be during the First World War, the Second World War or in various theatres where Australia fought, right up until the Korean War. This is an extraordinary memorial. It tells a story that needs to continue to be told, because we need to continue to honour these great men and women who served our country and who suffered so much.</para>
<para>So many did not return home, but those who did returned home with scars that were long lasting. There are only 10 former prisoners of war alive today, and there were around a thousand people there yesterday: families and friends of those people who had served, paying tribute and honouring and showing respect for these Australians. The memorial is a record of patience, perseverance, humour and, above all, hope—hope that they might come home to their loved ones.</para>
<para>I was reminded of one of the great privileges of my life. In 1987 I attended the opening of Hellfire Pass in Kanchanaburi, in Thailand, with my friend, my mentor and my father figure, Tom Uren. Tom Uren was captured on Timor. He was incarcerated in Changi. He served on the Burma-Siam railway, and then he was taken as a slave labourer to Japan, where he witnessed the second atomic bomb in Nagasaki. He came back not with any bitterness but with hope for humanity and as a campaigner for peace for the rest of his life. During that visit, I had the great honour, as well, of catching a longboat down the River Kwai with Sir John Carrick, a hero of the Liberal Party, a mentor of John Howard and a great Australian. These two great Australians from different sides of this chamber, who had total respect for each other, come from a generation which those of us who have come after have benefited from. We need to continue to show respect and to pay tribute to them. On that visit, Sir Weary Dunlop, one of the greatest of Australians, was there as well as the leader of these fine men.</para>
<para>It was the last time these men would have gathered. All of them who were there—I checked—have passed today. They wept. They hugged. They talked about their experience. As close as I was to Tom, like many former prisoners of war, that visit was the only time that he ever talked in detail about his experience in war. It was a time when people came up and talked about their experience. Tom was a big guy. He fought for the Australian Heavyweight Championship. He stood between so many of the diggers there and the bayonets of the Japanese and saved lives, literally. He'd never spoken about it. So many of them did that, and yesterday was an opportunity to really pay tribute to these great Australians. I think that all of us should be reminded that we live in this greatest country on earth because of the sacrifice of those who've come before us. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I join with the Prime Minister and thank him for his fine words. I associate the coalition with the sentiment of the Prime Minister's remarks. I would say to all Australians of our generation, and our kids and grandkids who are travelling around the world this very day and who do so in the name of our country as ambassadors for our country, visiting friends and family, backpacking and going to different causes around the world: in the run-up to this Anzac Day: think about including in your itinerary a visit to one of the war memorials or one of the Commonwealth graves. There are sites around the country. It doesn't matter whether you're in Asia or in Europe. I note the way in which the Australian government over generations, since the First World War, has been able to establish those cemeteries, those most sacred places which mark the sacrifice provided to Australia to keep us the great country that we are. Over 100,000 people perished in our country's name. People this very day are out there defending our values and our way of life.</para>
<para>So please take just an hour or so to go and visit what is an impeccably kept memorial to those men and women of the Australian Defence Force. The reason that we can celebrate life today, and the reason that as young teenagers you can move around the world freely, is the sacrifice that they made for our country. Honour them in that way, not just between now and Anzac Day but always. The Prime Minister and I had the great opportunity, as does the Minister for Defence and as did our predecessors in that portfolio, to commemorate the sacrifice on a regular basis. That service is here in Australia but abroad as well, and it is one of the most moving, touching things that you can do with your children—to include on your itinerary as you travel overseas just a moment to mark and respect the sacrifice that those Australians made in our name.</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>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>194</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>ASEAN-Australia Special Summit</title>
          <page.no>194</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As members would be aware, on 5 and 6 March Australia will host the ASEAN summit to commemorate 50 years of relationships between Australia and ASEAN. That will be held in Melbourne and will be attended by ministers as well as the Leader of the Opposition and other members of parliament. It will be an important moment for us to signify the work that we have done in building a relationship over those 50 years across successive governments, and we look forward to welcoming the leaders of every single ASEAN nation; all have indicated that they will be attending.</para>
<para>In addition to that, before and afterwards there'll be a number of bilateral official visits. I have invited the President of the Philippines, President Marcos, to address the parliament on 29 February. He will be doing so following on from the very successful delivery to the joint sitting of parliament of Prime Minister Marape, which occurred less than a week ago. It's a reminder that our most important relationships are here in our neighbourhood, and the Philippines, of course, is an important nation for us. President Marcos is a great friend of Australia and a supporter of democratic systems, and we look forward to welcoming him here, and I'm sure the diaspora from the Philippines, which is very large, will look forward to that as well. In addition to that, on 4 March in Melbourne we will host the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, for an official state visit, and on 7 March we will host the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Pham Minh Chinh, for an official visit here in Canberra. I thank all those officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as those from the parliament, who are working so hard to make these visits successful. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the cooperation and the dialogue in ensuring the bipartisan nature of these visits as well.</para>
<para>We live in very uncertain times. We live in an era of strategic competition, including in our region, and our relationships with our neighbours, including those directly to our north, are so important. This week, of course, there is an election in Indonesia, which is a very important neighbour to our north as well. It is important that we engage in our region with ASEAN. This is in our domestic interests, not just our international interests. In today's globalised world, having economic relations is so important for our economy, where more than one in every four jobs is dependent upon our exports, much of those to the region. We know that there is a real opportunity to expand on our exports and those economic relations as well as to expand our cultural links and our defence and security ties. Last year, of course, we signed an upgraded defence security arrangement with the Philippines.</para>
<para>I look forward to the discussions that will include, for each of these visits, discussions with the opposition, because that's the way we do business here in Australia, working in our national interest. I thank the parliament and I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the President of the Senate for agreeing to the invitation to the President to address this chamber. I very much look forward to it being just as successful as the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea's visit was. Mr Speaker, I convey to every member of the House—and, indeed, the Senate; I'm sure they're listening, as they do over there in the Senate, to the House of Reps!—the very warm gratitude that Prime Minister Marape has sent to us for the way that he was received here, for the respect that he was given, because that was also giving respect to the great nation of Papua New Guinea.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>195</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report Nos 14, 15 and 16 of 2023-24</title>
          <page.no>195</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (): I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 14, 15 and 16 of 2023-24. Details of the reports will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings.</inline></para>
<para>Documents made parliamentary papers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>195</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>195</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</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 Monday, 12 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 question time, 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 Tuesday, 13 February at 12 noon; and</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>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Members moving further amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023, which are relevant to, or consequent on, the Senate amendments to the bill agreed to by the House prior to the interruption at 1.30 pm today.</para></quote>
<para>For the benefit of members of the House, what we saw just before question time was the Leader of the House shutting down debate, exercising the guillotine to push through a set of measures passed in great haste in the Senate last Thursday. He did that, of course, because the government is jumping to the tune of the union paymasters. That's what this is all about; it's the government responding to the agenda of the people who control their preselections and fund their campaigns. Only eight per cent of Australian employees in the private sector are members of unions. But this government is not interested in the evidence, not interested in the data. This agenda that it has been pursuing is all about giving effect to the interests of the union bosses, regardless of the impact on jobs, on productivity, on employment and indeed on the future prosperity of our nation.</para>
<para>It is clear—and this is the reason that standing and sessional orders need to be suspended—that there were members both within the coalition and amongst the crossbench who had amendments that they wished to bring forward. It was very important, and it remains very important, that the House is collectively able to turn its mind to these amendments, because the stakes here are extremely high. Extraordinarily, the amendments passed by the Senate last Thursday have had the result of making a really bad bill even worse—and it takes a special kind of genius to achieve that, but that is what this government has done. As a consequence of the procedural steps taken by the Leader of the House, the opportunity was denied, both to the opposition and to the crossbench, to move amendments that we wished to make.</para>
<para>Let me explain to the House what those amendments were. One of those, for example—amendment (11), moved in my name—deals with the issue of the de-merger of unions. This is important, because some of the unions that have come together have come to regret it. Unions that have found themselves suddenly forced to interact with and be organisationally aligned with the CFMMEU have decided that actually this is a pretty unattractive prospect, to be working with a bunch of union officials and delegates who regard having criminal charges as a badge of honour. There are others within the union, other elements of that merged union, who want to demerger.</para>
<para>These were amendments that the coalition put into law when we were in government. We brought forward changes that gave greater flexibility to constituent parts, such as branches and divisions, of amalgamated registered unions by providing them with an opportunity to withdraw from an amalgamation if that would better serve them and their members, and the Labor Party supported it. Indeed, the current Leader of the House had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The problem with the provisions as they currently exist is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place.</para></quote>
<para>In other words, he wanted it to be even more wide-ranging than what we moved and passed, with the support of Labor at that time, but they've now done a complete backflip. Now they are opposed to unions being permitted to de-merge. Why is that? One can only surmise that it is because union officials, union presidents, those who control the cash, those who control the preselections in unions like the AWU, the AMWU, the CFMMEU, the CEPU, the ASU, the CPSU, the TWU and the UWU are opposed to the changes. So, guess what? There is a sudden reversal in position. This kind of cynicism runs throughout this bill.</para>
<para>One of the other amendments that we were seeking leave to move—and I remind the House that in a breach of all ordinary procedures, in a breach of all the normal courtesies that exist between a government and an opposition when detailed legislation is being considered—the minister, the Leader of the House, refused to grant leave for these amendments to be considered. One of the other amendments we would have introduced would have removed the provision in the bill that passed the Senate and that will now be the law, unless we succeed in overturning it now, which completely changes the definition of 'employment'.</para>
<para>This is all about a direct attack on people who want to work for themselves: for tradies, for subcontractors, for those who decide they want to be their own boss—and that is something the unions hate. The unions hate the idea that there are people who want to run their own show, who want to have a go, to take a risk, rather than being forced into the straitjacket of being treated as employees. Of course, many millions of people are employees and that is absolutely fine, absolutely noble. For those who want to be employees, that is absolutely a proper and legitimate way to work. I say that to respond to the inevitable strawman from the Labor member and—surprise, surprise—former union official on the other side of the table. We have no objection at all to employee status but what we do object to is when, substantively, the status of an individual or group of individuals is not employee status. What we object to and what so many fair-minded Australians—people who want to have a go, who are aspirational, who want to be better for themselves and their family and for our nation—object to is being forced into being treated as employees because it's something that the union bosses want for them. We say that is wrong. We say that is profoundly wrong. We say that is a consequence of the amendments that were rushed through in a disgraceful and undemocratic process just last week. We call for those to be changed, and that is one of the amendments that I have put before the House this afternoon.</para>
<para>And then, of course, we have the issue of the right to disconnect. On any view, these are very complex issues but what is clear, quite rightly, is that there are already protections available for employees. What is problematic about this legislation is it fails to recognise the balance between employees and employers. Today, many employees are able to leave their physical place of work to work from home, to go and pick up the kids from school, to go and have an urgent medical appointment or to take an elderly parent to an urgent medical appointment. All of that flexibility is possible because people know that, if there is an urgent need, they can be contacted.</para>
<para>As a result of a grubby deal done at the last minute between Labor and the Greens means that these rigid legal provisions have now been introduced and passed into law. There has been no time for affected stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on these changes, to analyse their impact, because it was all done in 24 hours. It is an absolutely disgraceful way to proceed and it is no surprise that many in the business sector have expressed their alarm about what this means when there might be something that needs to be dealt with urgently, for example, because it is imperative to the interests of a customer. There is no reference to 'customer' in the legislation proposed by the Greens and supported by Labor. Because as far as the Greens and Labor are concerned, the customer is somebody who doesn't exist. They are just not interested. The risks to our economy, the risks to our national security are absolutely profound.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, resume your seat for a second, please. Your own colleagues are not doing any favours when the assistant shadow Treasurer, the minister at the table, can barely hear the Manager of Opposition Business speaking because of the interjections. They are very unhelpful. You've completely disrupted your own colleague's speech, and I think you should show him the courtesy of a bit of silence while he speaks. I have asked the minister to do likewise.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, I want to put on record my appreciation for the strong support I am receiving from my colleagues and make the point that this is a terrible bill, a terrible act. Extraordinarily, it has been made worse, and the amendments that we have moved are designed to deal with some of that. I know that the member for Wentworth wants to speak and I wonder whether she may indeed wish to second the motion. If she does so, she has a real-time opportunity to do that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I might just give you the call first, member for Wentworth.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion. I have two key points I would like to make in relation to both this motion and also to the legislation that the government has rushed through today. The first is do not rush legislation because the people who pay the price from rushed legislation are not in this House but they are out there in the community, in our businesses, in our workplaces, and they are the ones who are the victims when we don't get it right. And when we stuff things through the parliament so speedily and without proper investigation and consideration of the detail of the legislation we're going to put through, then we are creating problems for the real people in Australia who have to deal with the consequences of our actions.</para>
<para>The second point I would like to make is that the House cares—certainly I do, and I think actually most of us do—very deeply about real wage growth. But if we're going to grow real wages, then we need to grow productivity and we need to be assessing how this legislation and other legislation effectively grows productivity. I am deeply frustrated that the government has cut off the debate today, so now we can't debate whether we should actually have the Productivity Commission assess our workplace laws and see whether we can actually grow wages, because that is what this country needs if we are going to raise the living standards of Australians.</para>
<para>Going back to the first point, the government put forward the legislation and the details in the Senate last week. I have had deep concerns with this legislation from the start. I do not think the government has made a strong case as to why this is going to make a fundamental difference to the productivity and long-term wage growth of people in our country. I support that there are issues we need to deal with, such as the gig economy, which is a new part of the economy, but what the government has done here, and previously, is significant overreach, including the changes made to the definition of 'casual', which is extremely problematic.</para>
<para>In terms of what the government rushed through, particularly over the weekend—there has been put forward this idea of the right to disconnect. I feel very strongly that it is important for people to be able to take a break from work, to be able to do that and to work with their employers to make sure they can do that in a way that works with their family life but also works for the employer. However, the way to do this is not to rush through legislation. We didn't get the amendments until Thursday. We got the details today, Monday, and we are now being forced to vote.</para>
<para>One of the things that I do in my electorate is talk to people because most of my businesses do not spend their time watching question time—thankfully, because it's a waste of time; they don't spend time reading through detailed IR legislation amendments coming out of the Senate. They are too busy running their businesses and doing their jobs. The problem with what the government is doing today, as it has done previously, is it rushes through legislation and then the business community—not just the peak bodies, but the small businesses, the medium businesses—are actually going to have to deal with this legislation. They're actually going to have to deal with how this affects their staff and how they'll make this work. They have had no chance to engage on this and really give us their thoughts on what is going to happen. We pass it and they have to live with the consequences. That is why I'm so frustrated with what the government has done today, both in rushing it through from last week and then forcing the House to rubberstamp legislation that we have barely seen. That is incredibly problematic. It's quite against what the government said it was going to stand for, in terms of integrity of government and better consultation, and I significantly object to it.</para>
<para>The last point I want to make is about real wage growth. I have sat here in the House and listened time and time again to the Leader of the House lecturing us about the government's desire to push up real wages. He and I are 100 per cent on the same page on the desire to push up real wages. But if he is serious and if the government is serious about pushing up real wages, then they should have absolutely no problem in having the Productivity Commission look at what the implications of workplace legislation, including these changes, will be on real wages. We know the only way that real wages grow is through productivity growth. But the government is rejecting even a debate on whether the Productivity Commission can look at workplace laws. I looked at their e61 legislation, which showed that previous Labor governments pushed through legislation that was meant to help workers and actually ended up with more workers in the casual sector and more money going to capital instead of labour.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. I welcome, too, the crossbench contribution made by the previous speaker, the member for Wentworth, and the very valuable contribution she made.</para>
<para>To follow on from the member for Wentworth and what she was saying, there have been a lot of broken promises from this new government based on what they said before the election and what has happened after the election. We know the cost of living is one, and there have been a whole lot of others. What the member for Wentworth was touching on—and a point that I want to reinforce too—is that one of the things that the government said before the election was that they were running on themes of transparency and integrity. You heard a lot of those words before the election: 'We are going to be a government like you've never seen before. We're going to be an extremely transparent government. We're going to take integrity in government to a whole new level.'</para>
<para>The fact is that it is not the first time that the Manager of Opposition Business has had to move a suspension of standing orders to try and have a discussion about very serious matters in a bill. This is quite a common occurrence. I say to the crossbenchers who are in the chamber: it is unusual in parliamentary practice that an opposition has to move so many suspensions of standing orders to try to get a debate, to try to get a discussion, on so many pieces of legislation. What we've seen with the new standing orders, what we've seen with the Leader of the House, on so many occasions—usually with the most serious and significant legislation that we're talking about, including these IR laws—is that you get gagged. The debate gets guillotined, and the process gets gagged. When this legislation went through the House the first time—Deputy Speaker, you may remember—the same process happened. There was a gag and a guillotine of it. When the legislation first went through the House, the debate on every amendment was limited to 20 minutes. That is almost unseen and unheard of in this chamber.</para>
<para>To go back to where we are now: this legislation, after being guillotined and gagged, went to the Senate. We saw the same process in the Senate. The legislation in the Senate was guillotined and gagged—and in fact there was a mistake made because of that process. Now the legislation's come back to the House, and we have had almost no opportunity to look at this amended legislation. Some of these things we hadn't seen when it went through the first time. The problem with this, and it's a problem with any piece of legislation, but this is significant legislation for every business, for every employer, in this country, is that—we know, because we get told this—neither big business nor small business are clear on the significance of some of this legislation. When you read media reports from the ministers on some of these issues, it's confusing as to what some of this legislation means.</para>
<para>I don't believe, with all due respect to the Leader of the House and the minister, that he necessarily understands all the ramifications of this legislation. You would normally have a great opportunity in this chamber to flesh that out. There'd be lots of views. You could even have a parliamentary committee look into it and have real stakeholder engagement. The minister said he had stakeholder engagement. Believe you me, Deputy Speaker, the most stakeholder engagement the minister would have done would have been with the union movement. We could've had parliamentary committees look into this and really flesh some of these questions out. We didn't do that. That's one thing, but the fact that we can't now even have a proper debate and questions in this chamber, and move amendments on the legislation because of some of the things we're worried about, again shows the hypocrisy of this new government, given that they spoke about integrity and transparency before the election. They've shown that that was a furphy.</para>
<para>I welcome the member for Wentworth's contribution to this. Again, I say to the crossbenchers: it is almost unheard of, how many bills of significance are being gagged and guillotined in this chamber. There's no surprise in it, especially with this IR legislation, because we know who preselects and pays for the members opposite. This is paying the puppetmaster. It's still a great shame—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd be very careful. I'm going to remind the member of standing order 90.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that the thing has been gagged, but it's not a surprise, coming from this government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before we go any further in this debate: I don't enjoy interrupting people, but, if there are imputations cast on particular members, I will be pulling you up. Standing order 90 stands in this House.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very disappointed and I'm very disillusioned. When Labor came to office in May 2022 it promised to be accountable and transparent, and yet we have seen the opposite occur. It started when Labor didn't allow all the members in this place to talk on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). That was the first time I can recall that that particular debate had been gagged, guillotined and cut short. We have another case here today. This is why the suspension of standing orders motion moved by the member for Bradfield—the Leader of Opposition Business—is so important and needs to be treated as such.</para>
<para>When you have a motion such as this put forward by a leading Liberal member of the parliament and seconded by a teal, the member for Wentworth, you know just how important and unusual it is. That's why standing orders need to be suspended and the amendments, very carefully and thoughtfully put forward by the member for Bradfield, need to be considered. It's not for us, it's not for politicking and it's certainly not to support the member for Wentworth's cause for re-election or ours. It's for the people of Australia—the public, the business owners, the workers.</para>
<para>Australians need to have this legislation and these amendments considered in a far better fashion than what we've seen today. It's been unedifying and unfortunate. Standing orders need to be suspended because the government's handling of the legislative process with respect to its so-called closing loopholes bills has been mismanaged badly. The opposition are not going to just stand by and allow this to happen in a fashion whereby the issues and concerns that we bring forward responsibly, on behalf of Australian taxpayers and Australian businesses, are just washed away.</para>
<para>Let me remind members about the origins of these amendments. Members would recall that the first time the House considered a form of these amendments was in September last year when the bill was originally introduced. That bill was hundreds and hundreds of pages long. We've had less than 24 hours to consider legislation that's already had—and will have with these further amendments—a ripple effect across Australian workplaces and the economy, even if you just look at what the Senate was proposing and what the Greens were putting forward regarding the right to disconnect between workers and employers.</para>
<para>Whilst this debate was going on in the House of Representatives, a private member's bill pushing, promoting, advocating and encouraging it was put forward by a Labor member in the Federation Chamber. We heard the member for Lalor talking about how teachers don't deserve to be phoned at 9.30 at night by the team leader. To my way of thinking, team leaders are not employers, as such, and this goes to the nub of just how difficult, complex and far-reaching this legislation could indeed go. Team leaders are not responsible for the wages of teachers. Yes, they are at middle management level and they are important. Whilst I appreciate that teachers do a very hard job, it's not just a nine to 3.30 job. My daughter, Georgina, is a schoolteacher and I know how hard she works. The member for Lalor, in using that example, forgot to mention that it's actually principals who have the responsibility for employment at their schools.</para>
<para>This legislation is very complicated. The member for Bradfield has brought forward very good amendments. That is why standing orders need to be suspended and why the member for Wentworth has seconded a coalition motion to suspend standing orders. That, in itself, should say everything about this legislation and everything about how important these amendments are. When you get the teals and the coalition agreeing, then it really is important.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:48]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>62</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</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>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</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>Le, D.</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, 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>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</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>Webster, A. E.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</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>77</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>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</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>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>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</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>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>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</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.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>200</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>200</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>200</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Ghosh has been appointed as a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, Senator White has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and Senator Grogan has been appointed a member of the committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>201</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>201</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="s1377" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>201</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></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>201</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>201</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When an Australian makes a decision that the effort isn't worth it, we all lose. We lose when a small-business person decides expanding their business is not worth the stress and the paperwork. We lose when a talented leader decides to base themselves overseas, and we lose when a businessperson chooses to invest offshore rather than in Australia. The stage 3 tax cuts were a major economic reform. They were designed to end bracket creep as well as provide a way to challenge government to live within its means—to focus on growing the economy rather than stifling it. It meant taking away the tax penalties middle income earners faced when getting a new job or expanding a small business.</para>
<para>But deeper than any concern I have about the value these tax cuts have for Australia is my concern about the way this government is attacking the idea of aspiration. The government believes its future pathway to success is an embrace of a class-war outlook rather than long-term reform. The problem with Labor's class-war vision, which always pits one group of Australians against another, is that it's removing the incentive to work harder, to take a risk and to grow. Our job in this place is to unleash Australians—not to continue to look for ways to hold them back. That's for everyone, from young people entering the workforce to older Australians contemplating retirement.</para>
<para>I'm reminded of a visit I had before Christmas from an 18-year-old named Emma, who'd just completed her HSC. I spoke about Emma recently at the Young Liberal National convention. Emma embodies aspiration but wonders if the economy still works for young people. Emma has just finished her HSC and has been accepted into midwifery at the University of Newcastle. She hopes to transfer to medicine there after finishing her degree. In high school, Emma saved for a car, because she lives in an area of my electorate that is not well served by public transport. There wasn't enough money in the family budget for another car, so she worked three jobs, she saved, and she bought her car. Then she had to fund the petrol, the rego, the insurance, the servicing and all the general running costs. With petrol on the up and up and some unexpected repairs, Emma found herself at the end of high school with no savings and seriously questioning what was ahead. That is many years of HECS, the cost of living away from home and the realisation that, even if everything goes according to plan and she becomes a doctor, it may be many years before she gets the money for a deposit for a home.</para>
<para>She said to me: 'I don't want to be 30 or 40 and living in my mum's basement. My mum has done so much for me, and I don't want to leech off her forever.' I thought to myself: 'Here is someone who's smart. Here's someone who's motivated, with great values, who is about to start her studies, and even she's lost confidence in our economy to deliver.' I acknowledge, of course, that Emma will get a tax cut. But the bigger issues around housing, incomes and job security aren't being faced by this government. And what of the Australia Emma will inherit as she enters the full-time workforce as a medic in the 2030s? Will it be one where her effort will be rewarded, or will she be waved down and held back by tax scales that punish middle-income earners? Australians are suffering under a government with no economic plan. These tax changes offer many Australians some temporary relief. My concern is that, without economic reform and a culture committed to encouraging effort and aspiration, Australia and Australians will continue to go backwards. The temporary relief is welcome, but this government needs to make changes to make our economy stronger.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These changes are all about supporting aspiration in our communities and making sure that working people across communities in Australia, such as in my community in Chisholm, keep more of what they work so hard to earn. There are 81,000 taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm that will receive a tax cut under this government's tax plan. There are 66,000 taxpayers in my electorate who will receive a bigger tax cut than under the previous plan. I know from community feedback how much this is going to make a significant and meaningful difference to the people in my community. We introduced our legislation to ensure that every Australian taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut—all 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. The average amount of savings per year that each taxpayer in my electorate will save under our Labor government's tax plan is $1,640. More than four in five or 82 per cent of people in my electorate of Chisholm will receive a larger tax cut under our government's tax plan compared to the previous plan. This reform builds on our targeted cost-of-living relief while not adding to inflation. This is just one of many measures our government is taking to ensure that we support people in our communities to get ahead and to be able to pursue opportunities and ambitions.</para>
<para>Our plan delivers a tax cut for every taxpayer, and every member in this place should vote for it. Average-income earners will now be getting a tax cut of $29 a week, which is more than double what they were offered under those opposite. Our tax cuts will deliver a bigger tax cut for middle Australia to help with the cost of living. The reason we're doing this is that our government is taking responsibility for governing. We are responding to the pressure Australians are under here and now and responding to the economic circumstances that we are in. Under our plan, more Australians will get a tax cut and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. That means nurses, teachers and truck drivers will stand to benefit, and those professions are among those that will benefit the most, with more than 95 per cent of taxpayers in those professions getting a bigger tax cut. This is a fair and reasonable change, and it's one on which I have received a lot of positive feedback in my community.</para>
<para>Every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Unfortunately, those opposite lacked the vision, the ambition and the aspiration for our communities with their previous plan. Our side has listened to the communities that we serve and have the privilege to represent. It's increasingly clear that people expect governments to respond to the situations they find themselves in, and they also expect governments to take action when people are struggling. We know people are under pressure, and that's why we're making this change.</para>
<para>Let's think about what's changed since these tax cuts were first legislated. Indeed, they were first legislated before I was even in parliament. A lot of things have happened. There's been a once-in-100 year pandemic. There have been global conflicts, a global inflation spike and higher interest rates. We know that these events together have put people under greater cost-of-living pressure. Good governments do what they need to do in the best interests of the nation. It's not just about doing what's easy, what is most politically convenient or what makes the best headlines or creates the most distractions; it's about doing things for the right reasons. Sometimes the right thing can be hard, but it's always, surely, about putting people ahead of politics. That's what people expect from governments.</para>
<para>We've acknowledged that this position is an improvement on what was previously offered, and we think that good governments should respond to the situations they find themselves in. We govern for the times we're in. The Prime Minister has stated that it is not the job of a leader to sit back and wring their hands when confronted with new challenges, nor should members or governments in this place be frozen in time. I certainly didn't stand to become a member of parliament just so I could sit here and do nothing. I became a member of parliament because I want to be part of a government that supports ambition and aspiration in our communities and that seeks to govern responsibly and fairly and make this country a better place for everyone in our communities. It's our job to act, to take responsibility, to do the right thing and to respond to the times we find ourselves in, and that's exactly what our government has done.</para>
<para>The Labor Party and the Labor government have always supported aspiration. We want people to get ahead. We want people to keep more of what they earn. People in our communities work really hard to earn their wages, and we want to make sure that they get to keep more of them so that they can pursue opportunities and be able to build the life for themselves and their families that they seek to. Reforms like this enable aspiration. I've said many times in this place and elsewhere that I'm ambitious for my community and I want people to be treated fairly and to be supported to pursue opportunities and get ahead. These changes here do precisely that.</para>
<para>In my home state of Victoria, an extra three million people will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to the previous plan. When it comes to women, I'm also proud that under our plan an extra 1.5 million women taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. That means that 90 per cent of women in Victoria are getting a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to the previous plan. So these changes are better for women. They are a bigger cut for women, and it's fairer for women too. We know that there have been many barriers in place for women to get ahead when it comes to their wages and keeping their wages. I'm proud that our government is standing up for Australians; and I'm proud that we recognise the need to respond to the times that we find ourselves in.</para>
<para>We know that there are many workers who work incredibly hard to earn what they do. Around 8,000 workers in my electorate undertake working hours that exceed 50 hours a week. They are working very hard to put food on their table, and I think it's a really positive step that we're doing what we can to make sure that all workers keep more of what they earn. There are lots of different professions in my electorate which will benefit particularly from these changes, such as the almost 12,000 workers who are employed within the healthcare and social assistance sector in my electorate and the almost 6,000 labourers who work on our roads or on construction sites. I'm thinking as well of the benefits that will be realised by more than 8½ thousand workers in the retail industry who work all across my electorate, whether it's in fabulous Hamilton Place in Mount Waverley or in Blackburn Village or in larger retail precincts such as The Glen. There are many educators in my electorate too who will benefit from these changes. I've got many childcare workers and early childhood educators, many primary and secondary school teachers and many academics as well working at both Deakin and Monash universities in my electorate.</para>
<para>All of these workers and more in my electorate deserve a tax cut, and I'm proud that as I meet people around the electorate they can see that our government is listening to their needs and is taking action to make sure that they and their families can get ahead. I've been really encouraged by the support received in my community about our package. Maryanne from Mount Waverley contacted me to say that the government must prioritise cost-of living relief to support those hardest hit, and she commended our government for the actions that we are taking. Perran in my electorate stood to benefit the most under the stage 3 tax cut arrangements previously in place, but they contacted my office and stated very emphatically that they supported Labor's revised plan because it was fairer. I also received an email from Jessica in Burwood in my electorate who said that he proposed amendments 'are undeniably a fairer way to proceed for the majority of Australians'.</para>
<para>When I've been out and about, I've spoken to many in my community about the need for these changes. I know that many people have been doing it tough. That's why we've been taking the measures such as we have, whether it's for cheaper medicines, for cheaper child care, or, indeed, for this tax package, to make sure that it is easier for people to meet the costs that they need to. Our No. 1 priority as a government remains addressing the cost-of-living challenge. This package is of course in addition to the many other cost-of-living relief measures that we're delivering, and I've mentioned some of those. One that's particularly significant in my electorate has been the implementation of 60-day prescriptions in Australia. My electorate has benefited the most out of any electorate in the country with over 24,339 60-day scripts dispensed. That's more money in the pockets of patients. It's fewer people in the queue at the local GP, which makes it easier for everyone to see a doctor.</para>
<para>We've been doing a lot to get wages moving, and this package means that not only are people's wages increasing but they are going to be able to keep more of it. Unfortunately, those opposite have come up with no meaningful plan at all to ease the cost-of-living burden on Australian families. It is disappointing that they have failed to be constructive when it has come to a contest of ideas and wanting to solve some of the challenges of our time. I wish those opposite had more to offer our country than negativity and division. But our government is getting on with the job of thinking about ways we can improve things for families and communities right across our country. We will always have the best interests of Australians at the front of and foremost in our minds. We will always put people ahead of politics.</para>
<para>I'm pleased that, as part of this legislation, we will also increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for the coming year, which will benefit more than a million low-income Australians. Medicare is, of course, something that we enjoy only because of Labor governments, and it is something that Labor will always protect. I note that we've recently celebrated 40 years of Medicare, a really significant milestone for a really significant nation-building program.</para>
<para>Ensuring middle Australia can get ahead is central to our economic plan, as are getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers. I'm really proud to be part of a government that takes its responsibility to its community and to its nation seriously. Our government is ambitious, aspirational and unapologetic when it comes to supporting more Australians to keep more of their hard-earned wages, and I'm really proud to support this bill today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Fundamentally, the reason the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill is that we are the architects of the stage 3 tax cuts. We're the architects, the legislators and the choreographers of stages 1, 2 and 3. We brought these bills about. We brought them into the parliament with the support of the now government, when in opposition.</para>
<para>The previous speaker is just leaving the chamber. When the government say that we have no plan, I'd remind the House and the previous speaker that this is our plan. Stages 1, 2 and 3 are ours. We legislated them. I'll speak further to the stage 3 tax cut changes that have been put forward and I will suggest that we should no longer refer to the stage 3 tax cuts that were legislated in this House as stage 3; we should refer to them as stage 2.2, because they go some way, but not all the way, to what we were trying to achieve.</para>
<para>I can understand why Labor have made the changes that they have and have brought them to the House. The immediate polls are suggesting the Australian public have received them quite well. Everyone loves a sugar hit. Everyone loves an extra couple of bucks in the pocket. But we will always be the party that brings lower taxes to this House. We are the party—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Hasluck! Member for McEwen!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the previous speaker was heard in absolute silence, Madam Deputy Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, they were, and I'm asking all members to show that courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not only are we better legislators and better with money; we're actually more respectful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have great respect for the House, being well aware, of course, of the standing orders in this place.</para>
<para>But I do want to take those in the gallery on a journey of what happened in the lead-up to the 12 months prior to these backflips and broken promises being brought to the House. I will recap how it started. Last year the Australian Labor Party went on a crusade, with a commitment of $450 million being spent on a referendum in Australia that was overwhelmingly rejected by every single state in the country.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can't rewrite history, those on the other side. It was lost by every single state. That is $450 million that we will never get back.</para>
<para>There were hundreds of detainees let loose by those on the other side, those in the government. In question time today we spoke about how many of them had committed extreme crimes—murderers, paedophiles—that would not be acceptable in any—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rob Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is this relevant to the amendment?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It actually speaks to the amendment because—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for McEwen, please. The member for Wright didn't interject previously, and I'm asking—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to get a copy of the amendment from the member for Hume. I'm painting a contrast with what it looked like for the 12 months leading into this. I know it's painful for those on the other side to hear, because they do not want to be reminded of this painful history. They do not want to be reminded of this journey, because not only was there the failed referendum and the release of the detainees; there was the $275 electricity commitment, which was offered on more than 200 occasions, to help struggling families.</para>
<para>We hear nothing but irony from those on the other side about cost-of-living pressures. None of the policies that they've had in the 12 months leading up to this point have done anything to reduce cost-of-living pressures; in fact, I think at last count there had been 13 rate rises from the RBA. We've had higher inflation and a housing crisis. But all this was cast in an environment, before the election, in which Labor said, 'You'll be better off under Labor.' I'm yet to have people walk into my office and say: 'Honourable Scotty Buchholz, you've got it wrong. We are actually much better off under a Labor government.' In fact, one of the things that those on the other side have managed to do, with acute success, is increase the size of the Public Service by 10 per cent.</para>
<para>The polls were tanking, and Christmas couldn't come quickly enough for Labor. Now we get to the point of the changes that happened over the Christmas break. We were told on 13 occasions by the Prime Minister that no changes—not one—were going to be made to the stage 3 tax cuts. They weren't considering it. It wasn't part of the plan. But because last year finished on such a low—and the data is there, with the polls, to suggest where things were going—Labor, to their credit, regrouped very swiftly and effectively. They made the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, which should now be referred to as 'stage 2.2', and said: 'What we need to do is get back to Canberra a couple of weeks before everyone else and give the illusion that we have spoken through this process and are going to deliver everyone greater tax cuts. But we have one small hurdle to overcome. We've got a situation where the Prime Minister came out and said, "My word is my bond, and we will not be moving on any changes."' History will reward those comments as it has other comments.</para>
<para>One of the problems in making these changes to the stage 3 tax cuts is that the tax cuts were already legislated. Stage 1 were delivered, stage 2 were delivered and stage 3 were in place. Predominantly, they were just getting rid of one of the tax brackets—I think it was 39c in the dollar—to address bracket creep for those Australians who were aspirational. As a consequence of this change—or backflip or broken promise—the Australian Labor Party have taken the Australian public for mugs. The Australian public are not stupid, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Australian public will not forget this broken promise. When it comes to the cost-of-living narrative, which is front and centre, if they were really serious about addressing cost-of-living pressures here, why are the Australian Labor Party leaving it 16 weeks to bring it into effect? It could be brought in right now. So don't mix the narratives up.</para>
<para>Before we came back from Christmas, they had the meeting with the statisticians and those from the Labor think tank and said: 'Right, we've got to do something a little bit different. I'll tell you what we'll do. I rang someone from the department back on 11 December and asked them to start rejigging the stage 3 tax cuts, so we've actually already got a plan. We just need you to rubber-stamp it for the two weeks when we bring everyone back.' The great thing about this lady who has done all of the work out of the department is she has also written other about negative gearing, about death tax—that might be called something different—and about franking credits. So when you get an iron-clad guarantee that nothing is going to change under Labor, from this point on, it will be very difficult to take them at face value.</para>
<para>But no doubt the Australian public will get a sugar hit from the immediate effects of this because that's what was intended to do, and we welcome that. But when you start dabbling with the Robin Hood tax—a tax that takes money from someone and gives to the others—there are two groups of people in that scenario: there are those who receive the money, who will be happy, and those who it has been taken from, or those whose benefit has been shrunk, who will not be as happy. You just have to wait until tax time to work out on which ledger, in which pile, you will be.</para>
<para>Let me remind the House what happens to prime ministers when you attack the aspirant and take money from the aspirant. In this place, we make rules; we legislate. One of those is the tobacco tax. We increase taxes as a vehicle to change your behaviour. We increase taxes on cigarettes to stop you from smoking. There are health benefits that go with not smoking. So when you remove the words 'tobacco tax' and you insert a tax that disincentivises people to go and be successful, when it disincentivises people to be aspirant, when it disincentivises those people to go and earn and be on the top tax bracket, it is suggesting that they don't encourage people in Australia to be successful and that's a shame.</para>
<para>I can tell you what happens to prime ministers who break promises. I have been fortunate enough to be here for 14 years and I remember what happened in the parliament to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who was a good prime minister, before an election. She made the fatal mistake before the election of saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Then, with the rigours of this place and a deal that was done with the crossbenches, under her leadership, a carbon tax was introduced. Track where the polling went for Prime Minister Gillard afterwards, when the pressures of leadership came from the other side. When you tie that scenario with 'my word is my bond', all I can suggest to the Australian public is watch this space when it comes to a revolving door of leadership in this place. 'My word is my bond' will be a slow burn for the Australian people.</para>
<para>As I have outlined, the Australia public will feel the sugar hit but it will come and go, and it will go because the sugar hit they get from the tax will be offset by the extra tax tariffs every time they fill their car. If you duck down to the pub with a few of your mates to catch up with a beer, you will pay for it through a glass of beer. Just those two alone offset the benefit of this tax that is coming in. Evidence of that is that this brings forward a $28.2 billion saving as opposed to the stage 3.</para>
<para>We will be supporting this tax because we understand the cost-of-living pressures on the Australian public at the moment. We are disappointed that it's taken so long to bring it in. We would love to have seen it introduced earlier. But at the end of the day, for those other taxes that Labor have said that they won't introduce into this place, I will just remind Australians how many promises we have seen those from the other side consistently broken. On 200 different occasions Labor said you were was supposed to get a $275 electricity boost—didn't happen. The list goes on and on and on and on—'my word is my bond'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rob Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How do you stand there and lie?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, Member for McEwen, it must pain you to be reminded of these atrocities. It must pain you when you talk about cost-of-living pressures on that side and I come in and talk about cost-of-living pressures in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. You cry: 'Boo-hoo! You can't talk about real people. You can't talk about real issues. You shouldn't remind us, Member for Wright, about how well you articulated this during your speech, because we don't want to be reminded of the last 12 months.' Well, guess what: every time you walk in here, I'm going to remind you, and you and the Australian public will be reminded every single day, because you need to be held to account, because what you've done—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just direct your comments through the chair, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand. That's a very salient point, Madam Deputy Speaker. With that, I will conclude my comments and just suggest that, under your stewardship and deputy speakership, you offer some counsel to my good colleagues in this House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wright. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and I hope that you will be heard in silence too. I'm giving the call to the Member for McEwen.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I wish the member for Wright could stay here so we could address the absolute untruths he told. As to the $275—don't run, because I want you to hear this—you come in and say we've broken a promise that's not due till 2025, so somehow we've broken something 12 months ahead of what it's supposed to be. This is an absolute joke.</para>
<para>If you want to talk about those who broke promises and were masterly at breaking promises and being untruthful, you only have to watch <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis </inline>tonight. It is a great show on the ABC, where we'll see exactly the untruths that were spoken consistently under nine years of mismanagement, rorts, chaos and broken promises: no cuts to SBS, no cuts to health, no cuts to education, $500 back for power and all these things. In fact, it was so bad that one of the prime ministers in that chaotic nine years, Mr Abbott, saw his own chief of staff—now one of those knuckle-dragging <inline font-style="italic">Sky After Dark</inline> presenters—get up and say that this story about 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' was an absolute lie. Even today, Mr Buchholz, the member for Wright—who is not a bad person but has the memory of a goldfish—can't remember the second sentence that was said, which was about a market based mechanism, which is exactly was done. What you can be assured of with the leftovers of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott mess is that truth is not—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a moment. I am taking a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Caldwell</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Relevance, Deputy Speaker: this has got absolutely nothing to do with what the member should be addressing—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, he is actually—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Caldwell</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I would ask that he be brought back to the point.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, your point is not taken.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please, Member for McEwen. I am being asked a question about the point of order, so excuse me. You've raised a point of order. The member is being directly relevant to the previous speaker's speech, I'm listening to him very carefully about this, and he is responding to issues that were raised in that previous speech as well as to the bill before the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The point I'm raising is that you cannot trust anything that comes out of the opposition's mouth. In fact, on this particular bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, they said no to it before they knew what the legislation was. You heard the member for Wright talk about this Robin Hood tax where you look after some but not others. The only people who are being impacted by this in a negative way are the high-income earners. So, if you listen to that lot over there, they are quite happy for most taxpayers not to get a tax cut as long as they get theirs. They want their $9,000 tax cut, but they don't care about people on low and middle incomes. They don't care about tradies, nurses or shop assistants, people who are working every single day and struggling with the cost of living. It doesn't matter if you're on two hundred and something thousand dollars over there or you're out working in a shop earning $40,000 a year; you still pay the same for petrol, milk and bread. But it's a bigger impact on people on low incomes than it is for that lot over there.</para>
<para>But, of course, they don't want to talk about that. They just sit there and say: 'No, we're opposing this. We're not going to stand up for it.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said straight out: 'No, we are going to reverse this or cut it back. We want stage 3 back.' Well, we're proud that we don't want stage 3 back. We're proud to say that we're standing up for Australian workers. Low- and middle-income earners who are doing it tough need help, and now they're got a government that's on their side, a government that's actually working to fix the mess left to us.</para>
<para>We hear about the increases in mortgage repayments. That started under those opposite. The things they left in place created that mess, and we have tried to turn it around. They talk about stage 2 tax cuts as if that was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But what they neglect to say is that when they were in government they set up that that tax expired—a $1,500 hit to workers that they sit there and try to run through for an election, and then it expired after the election. It was their hand grenade that they left that put extra pressure on people. But they don't mention that, because there's never been a worker they have stood up for. They voted against our putting measures in place to lower electricity prices. They said no. They voted against Medicare. They voted against cheaper medicines. They voted against making sure we have minimum standards for workers. Every single time there is something to help Australian taxpayers, the leftover rump of the conservative party are there to say no. But by gee, get in front of their tax cut and they're quick to really arc up. It is absolutely wrong. It is absolutely appalling that they do that.</para>
<para>Right across our communities in McEwen we've been doing it hard. Prices are going up, things are costing more and bills are getting higher—because of decisions the coalition made in government. We can't get to see doctors. But it's our government that addressed it. You can shake your head—and we get that little rattling sound—all you want. But the fact of the matter is this. The former government took away the District of Workforce Shortage, which has meant we can't get doctors in our communities. Why would you do that to a rural or regional area? That would be the question to ask, but you never get an answer.</para>
<para>But, thankfully, a government came in that stands up for people and looks after communities and changed that—and changed that very quickly—to help address that shortage, a shortage those opposite didn't care about. As long as their seats were comfortable they didn't care. They do not show any interest in supporting the 13.5 million Australian workers who are going to get a tax cut at a time of an economic crisis. This is why we have done things such as increasing the Medicare threshold. We've done that so that people on low incomes won't be paying that, but they'll still get that great Medicare that Labor stands up and believes in, the Medicare that we have fought for for 40 years, to make sure it's there and to make sure people can get health care where they need it and when they need it.</para>
<para>Think about the average person in the community who's on a $73,000 wage. They're going to be nearly $1,000 better off than they would have been under the previous government. People who are on $50,000 are going to be a lot better off, because that side had said no to them. Those opposite had said that they shouldn't get a tax-cut, that if you're on a low to middle income you don't deserve a tax cut, according to the opposition, the rump of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott mess that we had during those nine years. They sit there and say we must have high-income tax cuts, that people need them. They forget that 90 per cent of women taxpayers, nearly six million, are going to be better off than they would have been if a conservative government was in power now.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House know that 90 per cent of women are better off under the Albanese Labor government, because we have a strong government that actually thinks about people in all the different sectors. Those opposite might call it a Robin Hood tax. We call it a fairer distribution. If you're on $200,000 or $300,000, I'd question whether you're in trouble and needing a taxation cut of $10,000. But I know that when you're on $50,000 and you're doing it hard you need as much help as you can get. It's got to be done in a fair and reasonable way that does not put pressure on inflation, and that's what we've done, right across the things we've been doing, through Medicare, through child care, through cheaper prescriptions—all these things that government can work on without putting on inflationary pressure.</para>
<para>Remember how the former government came in here with all that bravado and gusto and called workers 'leaners'—we had this 'lifters and leaners' type of thing. The first promise they made that they broke was that they would deliver a budget surplus in their first year in government and each and every year after that. How many did they deliver? Zero. In fact, when they left office we had the highest debt and deficit in this nation's history. The two highest taxing Australian governments in history were Howard's and Morrison's. Yet they sit there and they feign this, 'We are the party of lower taxes'—lower taxes for the high end, but expecting the bottom end to pick that up and carry it.</para>
<para>The real lifters are the people who get out there and work every day and work very hard. A lot of people don't get paid a lot of money for good work. The real leaners are sitting over there. They're the ones that sit there and do nothing and expect everyone else to carry the can for them. Why did they oppose these tax cuts? Why did they say that these tax cuts were wrong before they'd even seen them?</para>
<para>They put stage 3 in six years ago. As an education for those that weren't here at that time, we fought against stage 3. But because of the pig-headedness and arrogance of former prime minister Morrison, they refused to split the bill. We supported stages 1 and 2. We wanted people on low and middle income—</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can laugh. You might think it's funny that we stood up for low- and middle-income earners. But you, being the opposition, wouldn't allow that to happen. You were holding low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts as a weapon if we didn't give high-income earners tax cuts. That's just the model of thinking you get in today's Liberal Party. I'm not a big fan of Robert Gordon Menzies, but he would turn in his grave if he saw the way the Liberal Party has become nothing but a cheaper version of One Nation. That's what we've seen. The days of true Liberals have gone. We see that sitting here in the chamber. Every moderate-seat member is gone and replaced by someone who actually does care about things that matter. It's like the anti-corruption commission they promised. I'm looking forward to the members opposite getting up and saying, 'Well, we didn't deliver it.' Why? Some people think probably because there'd be a big queue of them going in front of it. But they never delivered that. Why? Another broken promise.</para>
<para>What you will always get with this Labor Party, this government and this Prime Minister is people that are out there trying to help workers and families. We want to do this because we know people are doing it hard and because it's ingrained in us to stand and say, 'We've got to help people who need the help when they need it.' It means that we don't get as big a tax cut as we might have got. So what? I am much happier to know that money that is coming out of government receipts is going into helping people who need the help the most. It's not just the fair thing to do; it's the right thing to do. In fact, you'd sit there and you'd say, 'It's the moral thing to do to make sure we help people when they need it and where they need it.'</para>
<para>We've had the contradiction of those opposite saying: 'Fifteen dollars a week is not enough. It's rubbish.' But then they don't want to give any money at all. So $15 is not enough, but under their plan it would be nothing. I tell you what: there are many people out there for whom $15 a week makes a huge difference. The member opposite is laughing. That's just what we get with this conservative opposition. They think it's funny. I can tell you that all of our organisations out their helping people with food banks and support are getting more and more people. In fact, some groups are actually getting people who used to help them but who are now coming in to get support because they need it.</para>
<para>Imagine if we still had a conservative government. This would be a lot worse and a lot harder. It's time those opposite started, just for once, to stand up for low- and middle-income earners instead of standing on them and using them to prop things up. Actually go and help them. Nothing those opposite did in their nine years of power did anything to help this nation set things up for now or for the future. Everything that was done under that government was wrong. They focused purely on themselves and re-election.</para>
<para>We changed our mind. We had to, because economic circumstances have changed. We don't shy away from that. We know because we go out and listen. That's what we do. I challenge those opposite to go out and listen to communities. Go out and talk to people who are earning low and middle incomes. Go out and talk to them about what life is like and what's really happening. I do every day, and it's so important that people on low incomes have people in this place to stand up for them.</para>
<para>That's why we did the closing loopholes legislation. Again, it's about protecting workers and making sure that people aren't being exploited, because that's one of the great problems we have in this country. A handful of bad employers will exploit workers, and it needs to stop. We also need to make sure that this place and the other place work together to make sure that we get the best value and the best outcome for taxpayer dollars and focus on people who need it the most. We have to stop what we had for nine years, with those opposite being focused on themselves. We need to get out and actually focus on people who need the help and support. That was a government, under those across there, that voted against increasing pensions and voted against increasing wages for aged-care workers. Enough is enough. It takes an Albanese Labor government to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As soon as it became clear that the government was going to change its mind on the stage 3 tax cuts, I commissioned a survey of the Goldstein community. In a little over 48 hours, the survey attracted close to 2½ thousand responses. We used paid advertising to reach a broad cross-section of the community, and we asked respondents to nominate their marginal tax rate to see whether attitudes to the changes varied depending on their tax liability. I acknowledge that surveys of this kind are not perfect, but they do provide some evidence of what the community is thinking. Fully 77 per cent of respondents agreed that the tax cuts should be adjusted to provide greater benefit to people at the lower end of the income scale, and that's even though more than a quarter of those who responded to the survey—27 per cent, to be precise—reported taxable incomes of $180,000 or above. That is the very cohort who had stood to benefit the most from the coalition's version of stage 3 and now stand to have that benefit reduced.</para>
<para>Here's a small sample of what people had to say in responding to my survey:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"I would be a beneficiary, but don't need it."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"I am concerned about rising costs for others, not myself so much."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"We are seriously concerned with how lower income people are able to cope with rising expenses across the board."</para></quote>
<para>Clearly not everyone in my community will agree, and some, especially those who are on relatively high incomes but also experiencing very high mortgage stress, will be upset, but the survey numbers are a strong indicator of sentiment. They show to me that, in one of the wealthiest communities in the country, attitudes to change can be more nuanced and more sophisticated than the assumption that it's what directly benefits them financially that determines their attitude and, indeed, their vote. I saw at the last election that Goldstein people are good people, many of whom believe in the things that I campaigned on—fairness, equality and prosperity for all—and I'm so very proud to represent that community.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that this version of the tax cuts is fairer than stage 3 mark 1. According to Treasury data, fully 71 per cent of the 77,000 taxpayers in Goldstein will be better off than they would have been had the original version remained in place. These changes mean that the average tax cut in Goldstein will be just over $2,100. And, while the community that I represent is wealthy overall, the electorate includes increasing numbers of lower- and middle- income workers. Many of them are renters rather than mortgage holders. Many of them are women, more than 25,000 of whom work in feminised industries, and almost 9,000 of those are women who work in the care sector. These are among the millions of women I've been talking about repeatedly since I was elected and, indeed, before, at the Jobs and Skills Summit and in conversations with ministers as I've strived to convince them of the need to place a gender lens over all legislation.</para>
<para>Treasury applied the principles of a gender impact statement to these tax changes. It's about time. As I've been saying, all pieces of legislation should have a gender impact statement attached. It's good to see that the government has finally got the message, and let's hope this is not just a one-off. According to Treasury, 5.8 million women, 90 per cent of all female taxpayers, will now get a bigger tax cut, with an average increased benefit of more than $700. Treasury also notes that the changes before us deliver a larger tax cut to taxpayers in what it terms 'in demand occupations', largely dominated by women, including teachers, nurses, aged care and early childhood education staff—as I've said, many of whom live in Goldstein. Treasury modelling also says that the re-engineered tax cuts will increase hours worked and participation by women with lower incomes—that is, those earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Will these tax cuts alone be enough to encourage women to work an extra day or two? We will see. But if Treasury's right, there would be an increase in women's participation of 930,000 hours a week—the equivalent of 25,000 full-time jobs. I do hope it's right, but I have a niggling doubt that's informed by international evidence.</para>
<para>After inflation, productivity is our most significant economic constraint, and has been for years. 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 northern Europe, female workforce participation at the age of 25 is comparable, but at the age of 30, female participation in Australia is 10 per cent lower and remains that way. One of the reasons is that in Scandinavian countries early childhood education and care is largely free. Analysis by the Australia Institute indicates that if we had Scandinavian female participation rates, our economy would be $60 billion, or 3.2 per cent, bigger. Imagine unlocking that. Actually, don't imagine it, just do it! This is one of the pathways to economically empowering half of the population.</para>
<para>I've spent considerable time, as the changes to stage 3 have come forward, talking to the Goldstein community at pop-up offices, at community events and on the street. Some are not impressed by the government saying one thing and doing another. Fair enough. Integrity in political decision-making is critically important. That said, so is being responsive to circumstances. Arguably, the central issue with the change of heart is the lack of foreshadowing and being honest that it may be on the cards rather than the policy change itself.</para>
<para>The world is a vastly different place compared to when the legislation was originally passed. Back then we were blissfully unaware that there was about to be a global pandemic. There was no war in Ukraine nor conflict in the Middle East escalating the price of energy. In turn, no-one was predicting the return of inflation. No-one was predicting a cost-of-living crisis. But that is what we have. And just as those in the corporate world must adjust their plans according to market conditions, so do governments.</para>
<para>Apart from anything else, the debate over stage 3 and Labour's about-face is a reminder of the folly of promising tax cuts fully five years ahead of time. Never should it happen again. Indeed, never need it happen again. Over the years, governments have been happy to reap the consequences of inflation by holding onto the proceeds of bracket creep because it gives them cash to play with. Then, just before an election, we're expected to reward them for handing back some of that bracket creep by announcing a round of tax cuts.</para>
<para>I asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to calculate the impact of introducing tax indexation—that is, adjusting the tax thresholds to account for the impact of inflation to ensure that taxpayers pay no more in real terms year by year. Initial analysis from the PBO, using its SMART online tool, estimates that the immediate introduction of tax indexation would cost the budget $11.3 billion over the forward estimates. That's a significant sum, but it would be even fairer and more equitable than the changes now being proposed in this legislation by the government. It would mean that taxpayers would get the real value of tax cuts year on year, not just in the year of their introduction. It would take the politics out of taxation, and it might even encourage governments to consider real tax reform rather than fiddling at the edges while the tax system becomes less and less fit for purpose.</para>
<para>Just a reminder: it's now a quarter of a century since the last substantial round of tax reform in this country—that is, the introduction of the GST. It's more than a decade since the last comprehensive review of the tax system, chaired by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, was completed with a range of excellent recommendations and then left to gather dust. As former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Indexation would … put a stop to much of the politicking about tax, requiring our political leaders to focus on the policy reasons for changes. Indexing the income tax scale might also force current and future Australian Governments to start addressing more fundamental tax reform as the nation needs to … fund increasing public services while still rewarding innovation and effort and productivity.</para></quote>
<para>It's time for that reasoned conversation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The guiding principle of the Albanese government is: no-one held back and no-one left behind; to use the power entrusted to us by our constituents to make a positive difference in their lives; and to make the right decisions, not the easy decisions, to create a better, fairer future. And that is exactly what Labor's tax cuts will deliver. Labor's tax cuts are about making sure you can keep more of what you earn by putting cash back into people's pockets when they need it most.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, every single Lilley taxpayer will receive Labor's tax cut. That's 82,000 people living on the Northside of Brisbane who will receive an average of an extra $1,634 from 1 July. A retail worker working at Westfield Chermside and earning $75,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,554; a high school teacher in Banyo earning a base salary of $81,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,704; an enrolled nurse working at an aged-care home in Brighton and earning $61,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,204; and a lawyer earning $110,000 at Stafford will get a tax cut of $2,429. Importantly, these tax cuts are responsible and will not add to inflation. That's what addressing the cost-of-living concern looks like. Eighty-five per cent of Lilley taxpayers will be better off than they would have been under Morrison's tax cuts which were legislated five years ago, because it is the right and the responsible thing to do to deliver more relief for more Northside workers without adding to inflation.</para>
<para>Since the Prime Minister's announcement that he was pulling this lever, I've been on the ground listening to my constituents about how they feel about the proposed bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Ted came to my mobile office at Stafford City Shopping Centre and told me that Labor's tax cuts were just 'common sense'. Nicholas from Shorncliffe told me that he will be directly impacted by the changes, but he doesn't mind, because it shows that he has a strong government, with strong leadership, who do not mind making the tough decisions. Doug from Wavell Heights said Labor's tax cuts were a rational and pragmatic approach that recognises that, when circumstances and evidence change, decisions may need to change. And Leanne from Chermside West said: 'Times have changed and everyone knows it. The changes you have proposed are more equitable, and the vast majority of Australians will thank you.'</para>
<para>The Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing this inflation and cost-of-living challenge. We know a lot of people are doing it tough. Australians have been living through the economic aftershock of the pandemic, the first recession in three decades and the ongoing, far-reaching consequences of conflict overseas. Unprecedented inflationary pressures across the globe and damaged supply chains have pushed up interest rates at home. Everything we have done as a government has been about managing these compounding pressures and delivering sensible, targeted relief that will not add to inflation: cheaper medicine; making it easier and more affordable to see a GP; cheaper early education; expanding parental leave; building more social and affordable homes; increasing rent assistance; fee-free TAFE; backing a future made in Australia; and supporting stronger wages, because we know that sustainable wage growth is part of the solution to the cost-of-living challenge, not part of the problem. That's what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government have made the biggest-ever investment in Medicare, and Lilley locals are seeing a difference in their health and in their hip pockets. Two months after the bulk-billing incentive was tripled, Lilley locals have accessed almost 3,000 more bulk-billing services, saving household budgets more than $117,000. By the lowering of the patient co-payment for PBS medicines from $42.50 to $30, 143,000 locals have saved more than $1.62 million. That's what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like. In just three months after changing dispensing rules, more than 12,000 Lilley locals have saved money by accessing 60-day prescriptions. The Northside urgent care clinic is the crown jewel of Lilley now, nestled along Gympie Road between the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital and the Prince Charles Hospital. Less than 24 hours after our urgent care clinic opened, Kim from Wavell Heights sent me this message:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My daughter needed stitches for a head wound last night and it was going to be an 8 hour wait at the local hospital. My daughter was in and out of the Urgent Care Clinic within an hour of arriving. Such a great initiative, thank you for helping our family.</para></quote>
<para>Kim and her daughter are just two of the hundreds of Lilley locals who have saved time and money by going to our Northside urgent care clinic.</para>
<para>Another cost-of-living pressure leaving holes in the household budgets of Northside families was early education. Over eight years of consecutive coalition governments, early education costs soared by 41 per cent. Many Australians wanted to work more, but it wasn't worth it because their additional pay was being gobbled up by early education fees, and 8,900 families living in my electorate of Lilley have benefited from the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare measures. That's what addressing cost of living concerns looks like. The average Australian family has seen a reduction in out-of-pocket expenses by 11 per cent for centre based early education, 8.8 per cent for outside school hours care, 12 per cent for in-home care and 13.8 per cent for family daycare.</para>
<para>These measures are also helping to address the gender pay gap, because this government understands we must ensure more women keep more of their hard-earned money. The Albanese government has applied a clear gender impact lens over our cost-of-living relief. Labor's tax plan will see Australian women taxpayers receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. On that date, the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut for all women who pay tax in Australia—a bigger tax cut for 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers, who will receive an additional $707 on average, compared to the Morrison plan and a boost of 630,000 additional hours per week worked by women. That is what addressing cost-of-living concerns looks like. Our commitment is clear. Last year, the Albanese government also invested $11.3 billion to lift wages for workers in aged care. It's a sector where more than 80 per cent of the staff are women.</para>
<para>Australian taxpayers don't want the coalition's cost-of-living confusion. They want stronger, fairer wages for their hard work. Almost three years ago to the day, I stood in this place on the other side of the chamber, fighting for Lilley workers who were being smashed by nine years of insecure work and low wages. Their aspirations were being smashed by an economy that was built to work against them, not for them. When they reached out for help, they were told, 'It is what it is,' by a coalition government which was phoning it in. I'm here today as a member of the Albanese Labor government, continuing my fight to support the aspirations of Northsiders so that every single Lilley taxpayer can keep more of their hard-earned income, because that's what addressing cost of living concerns looks like.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. It seems to me that the word 'women' came up in the member for Lilley's speech about 400 times. Are there no men in Australia?</para>
<para>I think the first and most important thing with any race of people is that they simply don't vanish from the gene pool; they simply vanish off the face of the earth. When 20 Australians die, they are replaced by 16 Australians. You don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure out that we are a vanishing race. We are a race of people who are eliminating ourselves from the gene pool. Some anthropologist in a thousand years' time will look back and say, 'Who were those people there who decided they disliked people so much that they eliminated themselves from the gene pool?' It's a pretty sad comment upon a country that it doesn't want to have children—that it doesn't love children. In fact, it's dreadful indictment of a country when they murder about 30,000 before they are born every year and a few of them after they are born, under the same laws. That's particularly true in Queensland. Does anyone care about Australians being a vanishing race? Surely we would love our young people to have the joy of having a family.</para>
<para>I was among the first generation where women were supposed to have careers. Well, they're careering off into nonexistence. A lot of them, very sadly, are old people now. They sit at home. They have no kids to love and no kids to love them, no grandkids to love and no grandkids to love them. It's very sad because society cheated them and lied to them. It told them they had to have a career. I go no further than my own wife. She's been a stay-at-home mum, and her assets are quite substantial. She climbed up on roofs in the middle of summer, painted them and did up houses with a partner of hers—a bloke, I might add, who was illiterate, but boy oh boy he was master of everything.</para>
<para>Let me switch completely. I do not know how families in Australia are living. Careers—what, you're going to be a rich person, are you? You want every woman to be out there having a career and being rich. Well, I'll tell you that a bloody lot of women in this country are not rich; they're extremely poor because they've got kids. If you have kids, I just simply don't know how you can survive economically. Even if you're on $100,000 a year, after tax of $25,000 is taken out and $75,000 is left, you'll need $40,000 for a home. According to a <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline> study from 10 years ago, education costs for two kids were $30,000 a year. So, if you've got a take-home pay of $70,000 and spend $40,000 a year on the home and $30,000 on education, how the hell do you stay alive?</para>
<para>Needless to say, most boys in Australia are not living in a home with their natural father. So how successful are we as a race of people? We're a vanishing race. We can have no children. It is financially almost impossible for the average person, and that's assuming he's on $100,000. The average person is not on $100,000. But, assuming he is on $100,000, it's just not possible. I don't know how they are managing. Do we care about them? Does the word 'family' ever come up in this place? Does the phrase 'the future of our nation' ever come up in this place? No.</para>
<para>We go around crying about minority groups. What's that about? Do you really care about my mob—the Murris, as we call ourselves? Do you really care about us? You wouldn't be seen dead with any of us. Do you play on our football teams? No. Do you have any social intercourse with us? No. Do you have anything to do with us at all? No, but you want to cry about us so it makes you look good. You don't care about us; you care about yourself looking good.</para>
<para>If you want to give families a fair go in this country then it's about time the word 'family' started jumping up in this place, because there aren't going to be any of us very shortly. For those of you who are young people in here today, when you get old there's going to be nobody looking after you. It's the Chinese syndrome, as we all know. That population is old and there are no young people to look after them. It's infinitely worse in Australia. Our rate of having children is lower than China's now—not in the past, but now. So if you want to do this and you want to give them a fair go, you can't expect them to pay the same tax as DINKs. They're on $100,000 each. They pay $25,000 in tax each. Their disposable income is $75,000. But for the poor bloke who has a family, who has a bit of love in his soul for young people and a bit of a care for his nation, he—the five of them—has a disposable income of $15,000. So do you want a disposable income of $75,000 or do you want $15,000?</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">C</inline> <inline font-style="italic">leo</inline> magazine ran a series of excellent articles on why Australian women don't have children. Most of them—the vast bulk of women—intend to have children, but they don't because they're just waiting until they've got enough money together and they've settled down and they've got a stable relationship. I used to think the Christian churches' attitude towards marriage—that you married for life—was a bit primitive, but I'm not thinking that now. I've seen the terrible pain and sorrow. Has anyone ever met a kid where the father has left the family? Has anyone seen the heartbreak that they suffer? No. Does anyone care about them? No. Needless to say, a lot of them rebel, and who could blame them for that.</para>
<para>Let us say that we are going to provide a lot of extra money to people with families. How are we going to do that? For starters, we're the only country on earth that doesn't have a charge on imports. So let's start with a five per cent charge on imports, a primage charge. Billy Wentworth was one of the finest men ever to set foot in this parliament; Billy kept going on about primage. Just a five per cent charge on everything coming into the country would give you $20 billion a year.</para>
<para>Gas—this is the nation's disgrace, and you know what I mean. You people, Labor, have been in government for most of the last 30 years. You people, the coalition, have been in government for most of the last 20 years. So what did you do about gas? You gave it away. You gave our gas away for 6c, and my union—God bless the CFMEU!—are the ones that have brought up that figure. Now we're buying our own gas back for $16. We can't have a fertiliser plant in Australia, because no fertiliser company can afford to pay that amount for gas. The biggest fertiliser company in Australia, and there is only one—there are two, but one is a little fertiliser operation in Western Australia; the big fertiliser operation is in North Queensland—is buying its gas in America for $6. Another outfit is buying it for $4. And they're paying $16 here! It's diammonium phosphate. It's two parts ammonia—from natural gas—to one part phosphate. We've got the phosphate, but to get the ammonia—our own ammonia—we have to pay $16, whereas our competitors are paying $6. How many times can we repeat that?</para>
<para>When Qatar, which produces and exports the same amount of gas as us, gets $29 billion for their gas and we're getting only $600 million for ours, surely there is a case. Let's be conservative: surely, we would should be getting $15 billion. If Qatar is getting $29 billion or $30 billion, we should be getting at least half what Qatar gets. So there's $35 billion that you've got in the till.</para>
<para>Far be it from me to talk about taxing share transactions—the rich people. My two old aunties on separate sides of the families—they're both deceased now—used to go down and have their little games on the pokies. That was their fun and their intellectual challenge for the week. They'd pay about 20 per cent tax. My rich relatives in Sydney play the share market and they pay no tax, and the share market is much more socially damaging, I can assure you, than my old aunties putting five bucks in the pokies once a week and having a bit of fun with their friends.</para>
<para>Now, that's before you touch development. I was in a government and I cannot believe it when I look back on the figures, and I think the history books will say: 'Did this really happen?' Yes, it really did happen. There's a place called the Gold Coast. My family had a house there, right next door to Cavill Avenue. It was a swamp. It was worth nothing. We bought it for nothing. Surfers Paradise was just a big swamp, and a bloke called Les Thiess said, 'I can put canals in, drain the swamp and create a beautiful city here,' which he did. The tallest building in Surfers Paradise for half of my life was a three-storey building, the Broadbeach Hotel. Go down there and have a look at it now. Similarly, who created the tourism industry of Cairns and the Whitsundays in Far North Queensland?</para>
<para>So I watched this incredible government, the Bjelke-Petersen government. We were a coal-importing country when Bjelke-Petersen and that great man Leo Hielscher—who was the chief executive officer, for want of a better term, of the Queensland government—decided that they were going to put out a massive amount of money to build a giant railway line to export coal and then to make giant outlay on a coal export port. I thought they were quite mad. We were a coal-importing country, and they said we could become a coal-exporting country. Well, much of this nation's income for the last 60 years has come from coal, and there are people in this place who want the coal industry abolished. What are you going to do? Bankrupt the country? One-quarter of your nation's entire income comes from coal. What if you want to buy all your motor cars and fuel from overseas? I don't, but the ALP and the LNP do. They've done absolutely nothing about supplying our own fuel; we buy it all from overseas, and we buy all our motor cars from overseas. Whose decision was that? It was Mr Keating's decision on the motor cars, and it was the other mob on the fuel. So you've got a lot to be proud of yourselves about, haven't you? The history books will be terrible to you. Who broke this country? You did.</para>
<para>We can produce our own fuel tomorrow. In Brazil, 49.2 per cent of their fuel is ethanol. We are the best-suited country in the world for ethanol. It comes from grain or sugar cane, in both of which we are big players on the world stage, so we are uniquely programmed for that. Tell me the only country on earth that has no ethanol in the fuel tank. By law in Europe they are at five per cent. China claims it's on five per cent; I don't think it is, but it's going there, anyway. Japan is on five per cent. America is on 15.5 per cent. In the great juggernaut economy of Brazil, which has 200 million people and is going at 100 miles per hour—it produces aeroplanes, computers and every other sophisticated thing you can think of—49.2 per cent of their fuel is ethanol, and they fill up at the bowser for $1.09. Why aren't you doing it? Are you so owned by the oil companies that you can't do one single thing to make us self-sufficient?</para>
<para>As to the morons on my right here, they ask—and I'll name him. Mr Angus Taylor was ordered to have emergency supply, and he put the emergency supply in Texas—not Texas, Queensland, but Texas—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the member for Kennedy to withdraw that word that he used.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw unequivocally.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll move on, but people must be responsible for their actions. Dr Bradfield wasn't exactly an idiot. He built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He built the water supply system for Sydney, which is still their main water supply today. He built the underground railway system, for which he received the world prize for engineering. He built the University of Queensland. He built the Story Bridge in Queensland. His scheme, by itself, would bring in $35 billion— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about the fact that the Albanese Labor government will be delivering a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. This is truly great news for all Australians. The original stage 3 tax cuts under Scott Morrison were legislated five years ago, before Australians experienced a global pandemic, catastrophic bushfires and a global inflation spike with higher interest rates and witnessed wars and global conflicts. The economy is not the same as it was when the stage 3 tax cuts were first legislated. As the great economist John Maynard Keynes said: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?' It is not for governments to not act when circumstances change, and what we have done here is to listen to communities, including mine, who wanted to see a fairer plan for tax relief and tax cuts that will help more taxpayers with the cost of living through a bigger tax cut. That is exactly what we are delivering with this tax plan under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>Taxpayers earning below $146,486 will get a bigger tax cut. Those earning above this level will still receive a tax cut. And we are delivering fair and responsible tax cuts for all 13.6 million taxpayers; 11½ million people will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under Scott Morrison's plan, and that is 84 per cent—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask the member for Canberra to refer to members by their seat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Apologies—the member for Cook. Taxpayers earning up to almost $150,000 will get a larger tax cut. This means that more people are getting more money in their pocket to help combat the cost-of-living crisis. Our government is committed to helping combat the cost of living for more Australians. Many of my constituents raised their concerns with me about the legislated stage 3 tax cuts introduced by the member for Cook, the former prime minister, and I welcome that engagement with me as their local member on this really important issue. They were concerned about a policy that could have been done much better to benefit more Australians. They were concerned about the benefits going mainly to those on the highest incomes, many of them benefiting from it themselves but writing to me to say they wanted to see a different plan. Under our plan, as I've said, more Australians will get more of a tax cut, and this is great news.</para>
<para>The government is responding to the pressure that Australians are under right here and now. As the Prime Minister has said, it's not the job of the government to sit back and wring their hands when confronted with new challenges. It's our job to act, to take responsibility and to do the right thing, and that's what we've done. Australians are under pressure right now, and it's clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Under our government's plan the average Australian wage earner who is on $73,000 per annum will receive a tax cut of just over $1,500, which is $800 extra in their pocket than they would have received under the original plan. In my electorate 78,000 taxpayers will be getting a tax cut, with 60,000 Canberrans receiving a bigger tax cut under our government than they would have under the original stage 3 tax cut plan. That is 77 per cent of Canberran taxpayers receiving a bigger tax cut.</para>
<para>Our plan is also fairer for women. Women will receive tax cuts that are fairer, better and bigger under our plan. All women taxpayers will receive a tax cut and 90 per cent of women taxpayers will be getting a larger tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's plan. That is 100 per cent of working women who pay tax in Australia getting a tax cut, and this is fantastic news. On average, Australian women will get a tax cut of $1,649 each year under Labor's plan. Ninety per cent of Australian working women taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's new tax plan compared with the stage 3 tax cuts. And under Labor's plan 97 per cent of childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers will be better off. Ninety-six per cent of nurses will be better off and 98 per cent of teachers will be better off compared with the previous government's plan.</para>
<para>Labor's plan will put more money in women's pockets and make it easier for them to pick up extra hours of work if they want to as they will keep more of what they earn, because our government wants to see people earning more and keeping more of what they're earning. With the gender pay gap still at 13 per cent, giving women more money to help them in the short term while we work to close the gender pay gap means that the sting of the increased cost of living will be eased; 5.8 million women, or 90 per cent of women taxpayers, will receive a bigger tax cut, an average increase of $707, and all 6½ million women taxpayers will receive a tax cut of $1,649 on average.</para>
<para>Our plan is also great for young people. I have one of the youngest electorates in the country—in fact, the fourth-youngest electorate in the country. There are over 22,000 people under the age of 30 enrolled in the division of Canberra, and it is young people who are facing the cost-of-living crisis head on. This tax cut will ease some of the pressure on them to ensure that they can prepare for their futures adequately. Under our government, all 1.5 million taxpayers aged 18 to 24 will get an average tax cut of just over $1,000. And all 1.6 million taxpayers aged 25 to 29 will get an average tax cut of $1,573. This is great news for Canberrans, and I'm proud of the action that we're taking to reduce the cost-of-living pressures on everyday Canberrans and everyday Australians. Under Labor's plan, more Australians will get a tax cut, and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. As I said, around 79 per cent of taxpayers in the ACT will receive a bigger tax cut from 2024-25, and this is great news for our members of the community who are working hard, who talk to me every day about the difficulties that they're facing with the cost of living and who raise concerns with me about the fairness of the stage 3 tax cut plan. This is for everyone who is working hard and deserves a tax cut.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Before the last election, Labor made several promises to the Australian people. They promised that life would be cheaper under Labor and that Australians will be better off. Instead, Australians are battling the highest inflation in decades and a cost of living crisis. Australians were told that they would enjoy cheaper mortgages. Instead, we've seen 12 interest rate rises since Labor took office. A family with a mortgage of $750,000 now has to fork out over $24,000 extra per year in repayments. This is not sustainable. Australians were told over and over that they would benefit from a $275 reduction in their power bills, but we all know that the opposite has occurred.</para>
<para>Sadly, some Australians are deciding between meals on the table for their families and turning on their heater or, indeed, their air conditioner at the moment. Voters were told there would be no changes to super, yet we know what's coming in the next couple of weeks: Labor's plan to introduce several changes. This will undoubtably capture those self-funded retirees and farmers within my electorate of Durack. And then we get to the stage 3 tax cuts. Labor didn't commit to the legislated cuts at just the 2022 election but also the 2019 election. On over 100 occasions, they promised to deliver the stage 3 cuts. It's worth repeating here what the Prime Minister said about this promise. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">People have a right to believe … that when a politician makes a commitment before an election, they keep it …</para></quote>
<para>He proudly declared, 'My word is my bond.' What a joke. Well, I asked the House, 'When you break promise after promise on the cost of living, mortgages, energy, super, tax and trust, what sort of bond is that?' I say it's a very slimy one.</para>
<para>I agree with those opposite that the government has developed a record that it can take to the next election. The problem for those opposite is that this is a comprehensive record of failure and broken promises. It's certainly not a record to be proud of. You have to ask yourself: why would the Australian people have any faith in this government or believe a word that this Prime Minister says? Understandably, they will be wondering what promise this government is going to make next. I would like to speak on behalf of the 1.8 million taxpayers who are worse off because of this latest broken promise. You see, this is effectively a tax increase for those forgotten 1.8 million Australians on what they were otherwise going to receive. We've heard from members across the chamber and from commentators in the media that these Australians don't deserve to receive the legislated stage 3 tax cuts—remember, it is law—and that's because, you see, these people are very rich. That's why they don't deserve it. Why should we allow them to keep more of their own money? The reality is that most of these people are not rich at all. I can tell you that, in my electorate of Durack, there are a lot of people who will be disadvantaged by this broken promise and who will be paying more tax than what was promised. They will pay more tax than what was in the law of this land. For instance, many of those in the Pilbara and the Kimberley who are hardworking people in the mining and resources sector might be earning more than $150,000 a year, but, let me tell you, they are not living a life of luxury. They are not rich people. It is incredibly expensive to live in towns like Broome, Karratha and Port Hedland, and they too are suffering from this current cost-of-living crisis. They too have to deal with higher mortgages, higher rent, higher food prices and higher fuel prices. And, because they're in the north, of course they're also dealing with higher insurance premiums.</para>
<para>Many would have understood that these tax cuts were coming. They would have understood that this was the law of the land, so therefore they could rely upon the fact that they were going to get these tax cuts from 1 July. They would have taken notice of the Prime Minister promising them, on many occasions, that he would not deal with the existing law. They would no doubt have started to take account of the fact that they were going to, after that first pay packet in the next financial year, have more money in their pocket, as we promised them. They were starting to account for the fact that they might be able to perhaps afford a little luxury or even just be satisfied that they could pay the mortgage from now on.</para>
<para>I believe we were right to legislate, together with those sitting opposite, to get rid of that 37 per cent tax bracket, as it meant you weren't punishing people for working that extra shift or for working FIFO, which many people who work in my electorate do—away from their family, making sacrifices to get ahead and help their family to get ahead. For many, they are helping to create the wealth of this nation—helping to pay for the lifestyle of the Australians who live in the city. These are the people that I represent, and they are very angry. Also, it's not just the 1.8 million Australians who will be worse off; due to the inevitable bracket creep, this number will increase to four million Australians by the end of the medium term. This bracket creep will account for a $28 billion tax grab by this big-spending government—more money in their reserves, definitely not more money in the hands of Australians.</para>
<para>But what's really rich is for those opposite to pretend that they're serious about tackling the cost of living. They have been responsible for not addressing the root cause of inflation—namely, their bad policy. Their energy, immigration and big-spending policies have all contributed to higher prices and higher inflation. They've left all the heavy lifting to the RBA, and we know that this has led to more interest rate rises and more pain for hardworking Australian mortgage holders. They have failed, since coming to office, to provide any real support. On their watch, in just 18 months food has risen by nine per cent, housing has gone up by more than 12 per cent—that's if you can get it, by the way—electricity has gone up by more than 23 per cent and gas has gone up by some 29 per cent. On this government's watch, the purchasing power of an Australian earning a salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,600. Every dollar they earn is worth less under the Albanese government.</para>
<para>So I say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: don't pretend you can draft a piece of legislation and just slap the words 'cost of living' into the title and proclaim that you are making a real difference to the lives of the Australians that we desperately need to support. Don't pretend that an extra 15 bucks a week is going to make everything okay, because I know it's not going to. You may be able to rest easy at night, but I surely cannot. We all know that these tax changes are just a means to try and shift the focus from their dreadful record.</para>
<para>This government has had the wrong priorities from day one. It has done nothing to address the cost of living and has made Australia weaker. But I think Australians have woken up to the failures of this government. Those opposite understood the direction the polling was heading in, and they've tried to turn this around—just in time for the Dunkley by-election. How convenient, I say! Australians won't forget their failure to address the cost of living and can't be bought off.</para>
<para>I'm proud to say that the Liberal Party has always been the party of lower taxes. We unashamedly believe that Australians should keep more of their hard-earned money, whether they're earning $30,000 or $170,000. We don't just talk about it; we believe it, and we have delivered it time and time again.</para>
<para>In government, we delivered the stage 1 and stage 2 tax cuts, which were targeted towards low- and middle-income owners. We also installed the low- and middle-income tax offset that delivered real relief for Australian families and has been sorely missed under this government. The introduction of the stage 3 tax cuts was to complete the package. We had stage 1, stage 2, stage 3; that was how it was to work.</para>
<para>Now, while I do have issues with this legislation, it does seek to reduce the tax threshold for incomes between $18,200 to $45,000 from 19 cents in the dollar to 16 cents. Because of our commitment to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, we will not oppose this reduction or stand in the way of this bills package. I acknowledge that there will be many in Durack who will benefit from this. However, it is also because of this commitment that we remain determined to deliver a tax package that is in keeping with the original stage 3 tax reforms. The tax package that we take to the next election has to include lower taxes and ensure people keep more of their money, because we are really ambitious for Australian people. We want them to keep more of their money. We will fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in the tax system. I think that's what we all want. We want people who are earning $40,000 to aspire to earning $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000, knowing that they will be able to keep more of that hard-earned money in their pocket.</para>
<para>Our package will be fully costed and will guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on while supporting a strong and growing economy. We will also commit to a plan that reduces the cost of living, which will not only support taxpayers but also benefit pensioners and those below the income tax threshold who don't benefit from this current policy. Let me make this point clear: Australians will be able to trust us to follow through on these commitments. They can trust us because when we promise lower taxes, we mean it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really excited to be here today to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Medicare Levy) Bill 2024. Any change that is going to leave 87 per cent of people in my electorate of Gilmore better off is great news for local people, and I will celebrate that every way I can. This bill will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. That is 64,000 people in my electorate on the New South Wales South Coast. And I can tell you, local people need this extra support. They need a fairer tax system and they need real support to deal with the cost of living right now.</para>
<para>People are struggling with their rent and mortgages. They are struggling with their groceries, their petrol costs and their electricity bills. They need help and they need it now. More than that, they want to see a system that is fair, that puts the needs of those struggling the most first. The changes we are proposing here with this bill deliver that, and local people across the South Coast have been telling me how welcome that is for them. Tony from Malua Bay says, 'This is good policy and quite good politics.' Duncan from Callala Bay says, 'Cutting that tax handout is not a broken promise; it is a promise to review taxation equity policy.' He says, 'It is good economic sense because tax relief for poorer people will return to the daily economy. It will support and create employment rather than further imbalance wealth and power.' He says, 'Thank you for supporting this taxation recalibration.' Your welcome, Duncan. Joan from Kiama called it 'a wise and necessary change that will benefit most workers'. I agree, Joan. Jean from Kings Point said, 'The original policy was designed to give crumbs to low-income families and generous tax cuts to high-income earners who do not need tax cuts. It would increase their earnings and investments and increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.' Well, Jean, that's exactly why we are making these changes, to make the system fairer, to help those who need it and to do so without increasing inflation. I could go on with the wealth of people across my electorate who have contacted me to praise the government's changes to these tax cuts, but I think we get the picture. As Tony from Malua Bay said, it is good policy. It is sensible policy. It is fair policy, good for local people and good for the economy.</para>
<para>Let's take a closer look at exactly what this bill is going to do. Under these changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut—one they would not have gotten under the former Liberal government's plan. These are modest income earners, people working part time in my electorate, and we have a lot of them. Those earning average wages, around $73,000, will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year, around $29 a week, and more than double what they would get under the coalition's plan. Nurses, hospitality workers, teachers, aged-care workers, childcare workers and those transitioning into retirement are the people who are better off, and these are the workers keeping our economy on the South Coast going. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000, their combined tax cut will now be over $2,600. That's about $50 a week extra in the family's budget and $1,600 more than they would have gotten under the old plan of the Liberal Party. That's why we are making these changes. It's to support families, women, those working in the care economy and in tourism, young people and those on award wages. These are the people that are struggling to get by. They are who we are helping.</para>
<para>By focusing on middle Australia and addressing bracket creep for middle Australia, we will improve participation of women with a taxable income between $20,000 and $75,000. We will see more people working more hours, increasing labour supply, Treasury estimates, by around 930,000 hours per week. That's more than double the labour supply impact of the former Liberal government's plan.</para>
<para>I want to dwell on this point for a moment, because on the South Coast supply of labour is a real problem. We've got cafes that can't keep their doors open and farmers who can't harvest their crops because they don't have the workers. The tourism industry in particular is really struggling. Providing more incentive for those sitting on the cusp of the bracket, particularly part-time workers, is completely valuable to these businesses. Providing more incentive for those who are transitioning to retirement, more incentive for women returning to work and more incentive to young people to work while they study will make a huge difference to those businesses that rely on these workers to keep the doors open. It will have a real economic impact on the South Coast, supporting our tourism industry and helping our economic recovery.</para>
<para>I'm a broken record on this, but there is good reason for it. The South Coast is still recovering from the 2019-20 bushfires. We are still feeling those impacts economically, socially and emotionally. We are not recovered. We are not recovered from a pandemic that decimated the industries we rely on—namely tourism, but it impacted everyone. We are not recovered from a dozen disaster declared floods, and that's without even mentioning inflation and the rising cost of living that has made recovery from all those disasters so much more difficult. We have been hit over and over again ever since that terrible summer. We are not back on our feet, and local people need all the support they can get. That's why I'm excited about this plan. That's why I'm excited to see 87 per cent of local people left better off than they would have been if we had stuck to the Liberal Party's plan. It will provide better support for our economy and better encouragement for workforce participation.</para>
<para>Local people demanded that we as the Labor government look at the current economic conditions that we consider our new reality, not the reality of five years ago when the original plan was put into place. What does our economy need for those conditions we are facing right now? What does our economy need to keep inflation down? What do we need to ease cost-of-living pressure? No-one could have predicted these specific conditions five years ago. We hadn't seen the bushfires, the pandemic, crippling inflation and the rising cost of living. So what we did was listen to the community and to the experts. We looked at the economic conditions and we decided on the right thing to do and the responsible thing to do. We showed our integrity, we stood up for what the Labor Party stands for and we put middle Australia first.</para>
<para>While our 10-point economic plan is bringing down inflation—we've seen it start to moderate and that is incredibly welcome news—we are not out of the woods. The plan the Treasurer has carefully calibrated is making a difference, but we are not being complacent because it is so clear there is more that must be done. So from 1 July this year we will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent, reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $120,000 to $135,000, and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000.</para>
<para>Sixty-four thousand people in my electorate of Gilmore will receive a tax cut under this plan, and 87 per cent of them will be better off than under the former Liberal government's plan. That's what we are delivering here today and that's what local people on the South Coast need.</para>
<para>I am proud to be part of the government that is delivering real cost-of-living relief targeted to where it is needed most. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we gather today, I reflect on the year that has passed since I first called for a significant redesign of the stage 3 tax cuts. It is with a sense of vindication that I note the government's consideration of this narrative in their proposed legislation. Moreover, it is encouraging to witness the government finally taking the cost-of-living crisis seriously, an issue that hits close to home for many Australians including those within my electorate of Fowler.</para>
<para>The stark reality of the cost-of-living crisis is being felt by working Australians both day and night. They are confronted with rising rents, record petrol prices, soaring food costs and insurance premiums that are nothing short of unbelievable, not to mention the 13 interest rate rises that we've endured.</para>
<para>This level of financial strain and pain is unprecedented in recent memory, underscoring the disappointment in the government's delayed response to amend the stage 3 tax cuts. This was a golden opportunity to extend a helping hand to ordinary Australians, an opportunity that has been evident since the inception of this government 21 months ago. It begs the question: why did it take the government so long to act and why did it fall upon a small backbencher like myself, representing the resilient community of Fowler, to highlight the pressing need for more immediate support for working-class Australians?</para>
<para>The need is palpable in my electorate, where a significant portion of working families fall within the low- to middle-income bracket, making them the most vulnerable to our ongoing cost-of-living crisis. The bill in question aims to reform, relieve, support a broader swathe of Australians, with a commendable 84 per cent of taxpayers poised to receive a more significant tax cut. Specifically, individuals earning under $45,000 are set to benefit from a tax rate reduction from 19 per cent to 16 per cent. At face value, this revision offers some relief to low-income earners, a move that should indeed be welcomed.</para>
<para>However, while the government's revised plans are a step in the right direction, they are not without their flaws. The Grattan Institute has voiced concerns about bracket creep potentially diminishing 'the value of the tax cuts over time', given that Australia's tax scales are 'not indexed' to accommodate 'wage growth or inflation'. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to tax reform—one that lessens the burden on the income tax of working Australians and addresses the inequality of the current system. The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on jobs, small businesses, housing affordability, food security, household energy and the general wellbeing of Australians is still acutely felt in my community of Fowler and, undoubtably, in other parts of Western Sydney and Australia. My commitment has been unwavering in pushing the government to introduce policies that genuinely alleviate these issues and support our people. Time and time again I've stood up in this chamber to raise the alarm with the government about the cost-of-living crisis, sharing the heartfelt experiences of my constituents, which were often met with insufficient consideration.</para>
<para>Even the new tax cut offers minimal relief to my community in Fowler, which continues to grapple with the spiralling increases in the cost of essentials. We need to implement measures that will make a tangible difference in addressing the cost-of-living crisis now. The amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts are a step in the right direction, but they fall short. The average benefit of $15 a week does not cover the wide array of increases we have endured. Why have insurance premiums risen significantly more than inflation? Why is petrol excise relief not being considered? Who is profiteering, and what is the government doing to address it? Despite a significant drop in wholesale electricity prices, ordinary Australians are yet to see a reduction in their electricity bills. These are all areas where the government could and should take immediate action.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker, allow me to bring specific examples from my electorate of Fowler, which is among the most disadvantaged and comprises some of the lowest income earners. According to the 2021 census, the median weekly wage of individuals in Fowler is $521 a week, equating to an annual income of $27,092. Under the proposed changes in the bill, this translates to an annual tax cut of merely $267 or a meagre $5 per week for each individual. This amount is insufficient to alleviate the financial pressures faced by my constituents.</para>
<para>Several constituents have shared with me their cost-of-living struggles, which I want to bring to your attention. One constituent with a low-salary entry-level job struggles with the expense of taking public transport to work and job interviews. With many of my constituents having to commute outside the electorate for work by car, the cost of petrol adds up. I've previously called on the government—and again today I asked a question about this—to do more about petrol prices, which are impacting low- to middle-income households' ability to travel for work. I have asked for a fuel excise cut so that hardworking Australians are not being penalised for making a living and providing for their families. The government have demonstrated that they are willing to listen in their adjustment of the stage 3 tax cuts, so why aren't they willing to listen and apply the same approach to fuel excise, when the government is reaping almost $20 billion from it? A fuel excise tax cut right now is really needed to help our community.</para>
<para>Another of my constituents, in Bonnyrigg, attended our office visibly upset, said that she could not afford to pay her electricity bill and asked for anything we could provide. The Australian Energy Regulator highlighted in their latest <inline font-style="italic">Wholesale </inline><inline font-style="italic">market</inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic"> quarterly</inline> report that average annual wholesale electricity prices in the National Electricity Market have dropped between 44 per cent and 66 per cent. I understand that there are no current plans to cascade the drop to energy retailers immediately, but it's critical to pass on the lower wholesale energy prices fast. I ask the government to consider what measures can be taken so that there is further energy cost relief for Australians.</para>
<para>Amongst those suffering from the cost-of-living crisis are individuals who have pursued tertiary education and cannot keep up with the aftermath of their student debt. Those who have completed tertiary education are locked into their HECS repayments, and these tax cuts offer little benefit for them. According to a Nine news article, a survey conducted by Think Forward with 1,000 millennials and gen Zs on their views of this tax system revealed that 90 per cent were of the view that the government was not doing enough to support them. A constituent from Fairfield East shared that she followed the traditional pathway of studying hard at university and finding a job but struggled to pay off her $60,000 HECS debt due to the 7.1 per cent indexation and a good portion of her salary going to income tax.</para>
<para>These are just some examples of the impact of the cost of living on my constituency. There are over 38,000 students in Fowler, with 20 per cent at university and 21 per cent being hopeful high school students who may eventually attend. They will join the workforce in entry-level roles. How do you expect them to survive? HECS indexation is determined by CPI, and it may increase again to keep up with the cost of living. I call on the government to consider freezing HECS indexation now to allow students and tertiary graduates breathing room. I have said repeatedly that young people are our future and good policy must be formulated to support them. This is not too much to ask from the decision-makers in this room and in this House, many of whom enjoyed free university degrees in their time.</para>
<para>Income tax is a sensitive matter to my constituents, as they are directly affected by the surrounding issues of the cost of living and affordability. I have joined with the member for Wentworth to call on the government to be bold and look at reforming our tax system. Currently, it's ordinary working Australians, the majority of low income and middle income, who seem to be carrying the weight of this country by paying the most taxes through the PAYE system. As Australians, they have a duty to pay tax to continue the running of the economy, but this should not be at the expense of being able to provide for their families or furthering their education. For low-income earners, who often are sole breadwinners of their families, it's harder, as they must ensure they distribute their income towards rent, food and their children. It is a paycheque-to-paycheque exercise.</para>
<para>I ask the government to put two hats on: a short-term one and a long-term one. In the 2021-22 financial year, low to middle income earners—being those earning $48,000 to $90,000—were afforded a $1,500 tax offset. I understand that this was a temporary measure. However, the feedback that I receive from my electorate was that it was very welcome relief during trying times. The extra money back in their pockets allowed them to allocate funds for varying needs of their families. If this is within the boundaries of the government's budget plan, I ask the government to consider a similar tax offset again as a short-term relief. If the former Morrison government was able to provide this short-term relief for low to middle income earners as well as the petrol relief, surely a Labor Albanese government—the party of the 'working people'—can match it or do better?</para>
<para>Tax policy is daunting, but we need to rethink the system. We need a fairer and simpler system. I call on the government to be bold and courageous and tackle this tax system that's overdue for a rethink. There are plenty of tax specialists and economic experts who I have no doubt would be able to provide the government with ideas and policies that could help tackle the pain points in the cost-of-living crisis. This can be a way forward. The time for action is now, and we cannot afford to delay in providing more of the support and relief that working Australians so desperately need. They cannot be left behind and forgotten, because they are the backbone of our country and the economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. In my electorate of Jagajaga, that's 77,000 people. That's because our government has put together a tax plan that puts more money back into people's pockets, a plan that benefits more Australians than what was offered under the plan put together by the Morrison government, a plan with fairness at its core.</para>
<para>This tax plan is the work of a responsible Labor government. We have listened to Australians, to people in communities like mine, who are feeling intense cost-of-living pressures at the moment. We have listened and we have acted on those concerns. We are building on our government's existing economic plan, together with our work to get wages moving again, to bring inflation under control, to drive fairer prices for Australian consumers and to provide cost-of-living relief, such as energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, higher income support payments and the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years.</para>
<para>By dropping two tax rates and lifting two thresholds, we are giving everyone a tax cut, providing $359 billion in help with the cost of living, and returning the most bracket creep where we can do the most good—in middle Australia. As a result, the average taxpayer will pay $21,635 less of income tax over the next decade. That is a sizeable change. I know it will make a great difference to households in Jagajaga and across Australia.</para>
<para>In my community there are workers at cafes, at the local supermarket, in our local shops who do a couple of shifts a day or a week. They earn around $30,000 a year. These workers will get a tax cut of $354 from 1 July and will also receive $172 as a result of our government's indexation of the Medicare levy—more than $500 directly back in their pockets. Real, tangible cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>In Jagajaga, we have hundreds of nurses working at the Austin Hospital, the ONJ centre, the Warringal hospital and elsewhere. For those nurses earning $75,000 a year, our Labor government will deliver a tax cut of $1,554 from 1 July. If we'd maintain the tax cuts as legislated by the Morrison Liberals these nurses in my community would only be getting a $750 tax cut. Under our fairer tax cuts, these nurses on $75,000 a year in my local community will benefit from a tax cut that is more than double what they would have received under the Liberal's plan.</para>
<para>For the electricians in Jagajaga, and there are 990 of them, earning around $100,000 a year, your tax cut will be $2,179 from 1 July—an extra $779 than those electricians would have otherwise received had the coalition's version of the tax cuts been maintained. For the apprentice electricians in our community, earning around $46,000 a year, their tax cut is $845. That is a huge amount to have back in your pocket as you work towards finishing your apprenticeship.</para>
<para>For someone in my community earning $76,000 a year—one of the 1,577 primary school teachers in Jagajaga or the 584 plumbers or the 980 carpenters—they will get a tax cut of $1,579. A person on $85,000 a year, people like the 1,477 secondary school teachers in Jagajaga, and even the 115 tax agents in Jagajaga, will get a tax cut of $1,817 come 1 July. A receptionist—there are upwards of 1,100 of them in my community—or an aged-care or disability care worker, and there are 1,042 of them in Jagajaga, on $44,000 a year will get a tax cut of $774 from 1 July. And the 521 university lecturers working at places like La Trobe University on a wage of $119,000, they'll get a tax cut of $2,654. As I've said, every single Australian taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut from 1 July. Everyone will get more money back in their pockets.</para>
<para>These fairer tax cuts are the latest part of our government's ongoing response to the cost-of-living pressure at the moment. We have put in place cheaper child care, which has made child care more affordable for 6,600 families in my community. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive to help make it easier for people to see a GP. And in just two months this has lifted the bulk-billing rate in Jagajaga by 3.1 per cent. Locally, we have the Heidelberg Medicare urgent care clinic, that our government established, seeing patients and providing people with a way to see a GP in an emergency that doesn't have to end up at the Austin Hospital.</para>
<para>We've delivered cheaper medicines. Victorians have saved $52 million on 4.7 million cheaper scripts since the changes our government introduced. And we're rolling out support, taking $250 off power bills for eligible households. And I have received feedback from locals about how helpful this program has been and how they appreciate that the money is coming straight off their bill via the energy provider without them having to do anything about it.</para>
<para>I could go on. Our cost-of-living relief is extensive—building more social and affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave, increasing rent assistance, tens of thousands of free-fee TAFE places, getting wages moving again—because our government gets it. All of us, from the Prime Minister down, hear from Australians that it's not an easy time at the moment, that the pressures are real, that families are making significant decisions about what they can spend money on and where they have to save. That's why we are prioritising all of these measures. That's why we are prioritising these fairer tax cuts: to help take some of the pressure off, to provide for households, to support people to have a better future.</para>
<para>Our fairer tax cuts put money back into the pockets of Australian women. Our government's tax cuts will see Australia women on average receive a tax cut of $1,649 each year. Under our plan, 90 per cent of working women paying tax will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Liberals' version of the tax cuts. For women in the care economy—such a big sector for women—97 per cent of childcare workers, disability carers and aged-care workers will be better off under our plan. These tax cuts are going to be better for so many people, including in my community, and that is why our government has introduced these changes.</para>
<para>Of course, while our approach has been to help Australians with the cost-of-living pressures they are facing at the moment, that doesn't seem to have been the approach of those opposite. What's become clear is that they're not focused on supporting Australians who need support the most. In fact, they're focused on the politics. We've had members on the other side, on the opposition benches, who reportedly told the Leader of the Opposition: 'Don't do it. Don't support the changes.' They wanted the Liberals to not support tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer. They wanted the Liberals to say no to what, in some cases, is a doubling of tax cuts for workers who need that support the most.</para>
<para>When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked if the opposition would roll back Labor's tax cuts, she said: 'Well, this is our position. This is absolutely our position.' The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have taken similarly confused approaches to what should have been a simple decision for them. Within a single day the shadow Treasurer had gone from calling the government's fairer tax cuts 'Marxism'—I think that was in the morning—to saying on radio in the afternoon that he might vote for them. The Leader of the Opposition originally called for an early election on a policy that he has now said he and his party will support. I do think it must hurt those opposite for the 'no-alition' to ultimately have to say yes to something. While the opposition may get there in the end, it's clear that their heart isn't in it and it's clear their loyalty and their support aren't with middle Australians looking for support with cost-of-living pressures. They have once again revealed their priorities, which are not about supporting those nurses, electricians, apprentices and childcare workers in my community—who I've talked about—or in communities right around Australia.</para>
<para>Some of the opposition from those opposite has been framed around aspiration—this idea that, because our government supports middle Australia, we're somehow not supporting aspiration. I find that concept quite offensive, to be honest. Those opposite seem to want to live in a country that doesn't recognise that aspiration is something that Australians right across the board hold. Australians of all kinds, in all sorts of positions, are aspirational. They want a better life for themselves, for their kids and for their communities. That's what they work hard for. Aspiration isn't just for Gina Rinehart or Clive Palmer. Aspiration isn't just for those opposite watching <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> tonight and contemplating what their own future leadership pathway might be. Aspiration is something for every single Australian, and that is something that our government is recognising through these tax cuts. We are recognising that, for those feeling the cost of living the most at the moment, the extra money they will get in their pockets will be a great relief as they—as aspirational Australians—continue to work hard to pay their bills and their mortgages,, to put food on the table and to make all those decisions about what their family can afford. They will be aspirational and they will be supported by this government with tax cuts that are targeting people who need that support the most. I know that for some households that will mean they will be able to do things that they may previously have thought were out of reach. I'm really pleased to have heard from some people in my community that that is the case as a result of these tax cuts.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that I've heard from many constituents right across my local community who have taken the time to share with me their thoughts on the previous stage 3 tax cuts and the changes our government has made. Many people in my community have been contacting me for some time now, asking for changes similar to what our government has outlined and asking for us to make these tax changes fairer for Australians on middle and lower incomes who need support the most. I've had positive feedback from those people and from others since we have announced these changed tax cuts.</para>
<para>I have also heard from people in my community who wanted the coalition's version of the tax cuts maintained, and I respect the opinion of those people. In politics, our decisions can never please or satisfy everyone. It is the job of a good government to think about what is best and fairest for the country and to act accordingly, and that's what this government has done. From the Prime Minister taking these changes to the National Press Club and explaining to the nation why the government felt the need to do this work to support Australians feeling the cost-of-living crisis the most, this government has behaved responsibly. It looked at the situation that we find ourselves in. It looked at the tax system that is going to best set our country up to be a country that is fair into the future, a country that supports aspiration right across the board, not just for Gina and Clive. That is what this government is doing here. It has done so in a responsible manner.</para>
<para>We have been clear and upfront about the changes we are making and how those changes will benefit all Australian taxpayers. I am pleased that from 1 July our government's decision means every taxpayer will benefit from a tax cut. I'm pleased and proud to be in here supporting these changes. I know that in my community these changes will mean more money back into the pockets of more people. They will provide that cost-of-living relief to the people who need it the most at the moment. They will provide more support to low- and middle-income earners, those people who are feeling the most pressure from the cost of living. These, together with the work our government is doing in so many other areas, such as bringing down the cost of seeing a GP, making medicines cheaper and making it more affordable for families to send their children to child care, are tangible things that this government has done and will continue to do to support Australian families, support working Australians and make sure that the country we live in, the country that we all work hard in, is one that is fair now and into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's important to remind the House about the core, the nucleus, of these two bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, and that is a broken promise by this government. Unfortunately, these tax changes will barely touch the sides of the struggle for people under the current cost-of-living crisis, a crisis that has been made worse by the actions of this government. These changes will lock in long-term bracket creep, which is something that I'll touch on a bit later in this speech. I think it's important to recognise the impact that these changes will have over the long term, not just the immediate sugar hit that the government is hoping to achieve.</para>
<para>The coalition will not stand in the way of this bill. We will support it in order to support struggling Australians, not to support the Prime Minister's broken promise. We acknowledge that Labor's decisions in government have made life much harder for Australian families, and this bandaid solution will do little to fix the mess that they have made.</para>
<para>On Saturday, when I returned to my electorate, I had a mobile office at a local shopping centre at Mount Cotton. A number of my constituents came up to my little table and talked to me about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on their purchasing ability in the local IGA there. They were talking about what they used to buy at this time last year that they couldn't afford to put in their trolleys this year. They talked about how these tax changes will do little to make an impact upon their household budgets, and they certainly talked about the lack of faith that they have in the current Prime Minister and the current government to deal with the economic challenges facing our country.</para>
<para>The Treasurer and the Prime Minister repeated their commitment to the stage 3 tax cuts over 100 times. The attitude within this chamber when members of the opposition or even members of the Greens party were asking questions regarding stage 3 was dismissive of any questions that were asked. Of course they were going to honour this commitment; it was madness to suggest that they wouldn't. Well, here we are, changing the promise that they committed to. The Prime Minister said that his word was his bond in relation to this commitment. Well, here we are, having suddenly discovered how much the Prime Minister's word actually means. The Treasurer now admits that the work to make this change has been underway since late last year.</para>
<para>Of course, this is only the latest in a series of broken promises from this government. We had the promise before the election of a $275 reduction in energy prices. This is something that they have not dared speak about within this chamber or within any media outlet since the election, but the Australian people remember that promise, and we're certainly going to hold the government to account on that. They promised there would be no changes to super taxes—another broken promise. They promised an increase to real wages, no changes to franking credits and cheaper mortgages. A lot of people at Mount Cotton on Saturday were telling me about the impact of increased interest rates on their mortgages and the challenges they're facing in just keeping their heads above water. And, of course, they promised no changes to the stage 3 tax cuts, but here we are this evening discussing those very changes. The Prime Minister has broken all of these promises I have listed. If the Prime Minister can make such promises to the Australian people so blatantly and then walk away from them, you have to ask the question: Can you ever believe anything that he says ever again?</para>
<para>Australians are struggling to pay their mortgages, their power bills and for their groceries, yet this government sees as a solution these tax changes that will save some Australians only $15 a week. Since the 2022 election campaign, Labor have promised to deliver cost-of-living relief yet, since then, prices have continued to rise. In the 18 months of Labor from June 2022 until December last year, we have seen food prices increase by nine per cent; the cost of housing, 12 per cent; electricity, 20 per cent; gas, 27 per cent increase; and insurance costs up 22 per cent over that period of time. This is at a time when the purchasing power of an Australian earning a gross salary of $85,000 has fallen by more than $7,600 since Labor came to office. So these tax changes will only return 10 cents to every dollar that individuals have lost due to Labor's failed management in this cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>We can also note that during this period the intake from personal income tax by the federal government has risen by a record 27 per cent. This government has added $209 billion in spending since they came to government and that's over $20,000 of extra spending for every Australian household. They should, of course, be reining in spending in order to help tackle inflation, and we know that Australia's inflation rate is significantly higher than a lot of the advanced economies around the globe. The Prime Minister has, unfortunately, ignored the cost-of-living crisis and is distracted by nearly every other issue under the sun, including spending so many months on the Voice campaign trail last year.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has brought down two budgets and has failed to take any action to truly assist families, and this is just the latest in a rather meagre response to the cost-of-living crisis. I will give you an example. I asked a question of the Prime Minister late last week in relation to food bank lines within my electorate. Champion Support Services in Thornlands do a terrific job providing a whole range of services to locals in need. They are finding that over the course of 2023 the lineups for their food bank have tripled. They're telling me it's not just pensioners, it is not just people who are unemployed, it's not just the usual people they have experienced over recent years but, more and more, it is people who are struggling to pay a mortgage, it's people who are earning a good wage, or it is families who are finding it just impossible due to the circumstances that we are currently in to actually make a dent and make ends meet.</para>
<para>The coalition, of course, will always deliver lower, simpler and fairer taxes, and Australians can trust us to deliver this because we have in the past. Of course, we saw stages 1 and 2 of these tax reforms deliver significantly more dollars back in people's pockets than what the Prime Minister's new stage 3 tweaks will ever deliver. The Prime Minister's failed promises mean that delivering the stage 3 tax reforms is now impossible. However, the coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax reforms. We remain committed to fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration within our tax system. Of course, that is so important. We will bring a tax package to the Australian people that will reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian has the ability to get ahead and we want to unite Australians rather than pick them against each other. A lot of the rhetoric, unfortunately, we have seen around these changes is pitting one group of Australians against another and it's not the Australian way. I don't think it is a narrative that will run well over the long-term.</para>
<para>Our package will be delivered while providing for Australia's future security and guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. This package will be fully costed and ready to implement when and if we are elected and, most importantly, we will keep our promises. I think the Australian people have noticed through the tax reforms that we delivered in the last term of government how we can be trusted to deliver. The previous coalition government implemented this tax cut plan, with stage 3 to kick in on 1 July this year, to help Australians with the cost of living and to encourage aspiration. Stage 1 and stage 2 of the tax reforms of course delivered $40 billion in tax relief to low- and middle-income earners. The coalition also delivered tax relief to 10.1 million Aussies earning under $120,000, through the low- and middle-income tax offset.</para>
<para>In Bowman, my electorate, 8,900 constituents of mine will be worse off under the changes. These are hardworking Australians who of course deserve the tax break that parliament had legislated and that the government had promised to honour. Unfortunately, these people have been let down. It is also important to remember that if you consider Labor's decision to end the low-income tax offset in conjunction with these changes, there's a significant number of my constituents who are actually worse off. In fact everyone earning up to $120,000 is worse off when you consider the totality of Labor's tax changes in this term of parliament.</para>
<para>Of course we can't forget the impact of long-term bracket creep that this change in policy is embedding into our tax system. It was a fundamental feature of what stage 3 was supposed deliver. It was supposed to flatten out the tax brackets and avoid the impacts of rising wages and inflation on the tax intake over the course of the coming decades. Bracket creep is famously the thief in the night that steals the extra income that people are earning, particularly as wages naturally increase over time. Labor's broken promise entrenches bracket creep in our tax system, and it will in fact increase taxes by $28 billion for over four million Australians over the course of this decade.</para>
<para>Only those earning between $120,000 and $140,000 are truly better off under these changes, and even then, only modestly so. A lot of Australians, a lot of Redlanders, mentioned to me over the weekend as I set up mobile offices over the electorate, that they want to know what's next on the table. What else is this government going to be considering in terms of tax changes, now that they've made such a significant U-turn on this front?</para>
<para>The Prime Minister promised that under no circumstances would he touch the stage 3 tax cuts, in the lead up to the last election. My question is: what else is the Prime Minister promising not to touch that may well form part of their current considerations for this year's budget, or even heading further afield? Are we going to see changes to negative gearing? There was a question on that today. Are we going to see changes to CGT on the family home? These are questions Australians are asking, and we're not getting many answers from the government.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has broken his promise on this front, and I fear that further promise breaking is certain to come. I certainly think the Prime Minister has failed to give a straight answer when asked very simply over the course of question time so far this week and last week to rule out breaking his promises in relation to negative gearing. The Treasurer was asked on 29 January about a plan to make changes to negative gearing, and he said that Labor wasn't considering it. That of course famously mirrors the lines that the Treasurer used in relation to the stage 3 tax cuts just a few weeks ago. The finance minister on the <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">oday </inline><inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">how</inline> was asked the same question and said, 'We have no plans to do that.' That very closely mirrors some lines that the finance minister used in relation to stage 3 tax cuts as well.</para>
<para>They clearly haven't learnt the lessons from the 2019 election. Unfortunately, I fear that any changes that may be coming to negative gearing are actually going to be further killers of aspirations, particularly if the government is considering grandfathering existing provisions. People who currently have negatively geared properties benefit from that arrangement. My question would be: what about the next generation of Australians, the next generation of aspirants—the young people who I talked to over the course of the weekend—who aspire to one day own an investment property? Is the government proposing to kill off their aspiration to do so?</para>
<para>Ultimately this boils down to the fact that you cannot trust this government. I don't believe you can trust this Prime Minister either. No promise that they can make can ever be taken in good faith again. Every single policy commitment needs to be second-guessed. This Labor government has made life more difficult for Australian households over its course so far, and this relief will barely touch the sides when it comes to making a meaningful difference to household budgets.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very proud to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. We hear members from the opposition saying that you can't trust this government because of the changes we've made, but all I can say is that you can trust this Albanese government to put more in your pocket than you would have got under the former Liberal government. There's no doubting that when you look at the figures. As members of parliament, we speak to our constituents regularly. My constituents in the seat of Adelaide are very pleased with the changes that we've made. Yes, we did make a promise: we promised that we would be making tax cuts. We made that promise in the run-up to the election. We've changed it. We're now saying: 'Sorry, we're not going to give you the amount that we said. We're actually going to put more in your pocket. We're going to give you more.' That's the change that's been made. The majority of Australians will be getting more of a tax cut than they would have under the previous government.</para>
<para>This Labor government is putting more money back into the pockets of Australians, especially of hardworking Australians—those that need it the most. This isn't just a concept; it's a practical move to build a solid base for the financial future. It's also a readiness to prepare for a substantial, straightforward change that underscores our commitment to a resilient and financially secure future. At the same time that we're doing that, we're assisting those that are doing it the toughest—those low- and middle-income earners and those aspirational Australians. We know that people are doing it tough. We hear them. That's why these changes are being made, and that's why these tax cuts will put more into Australians' pockets.</para>
<para>The government is here to deliver. It's a good government, and good government isn't about doing what's easy for yourself. It's about doing the right thing for your constituents and for the nation, as well as doing it for the right reasons. It's about putting people ahead of politics. All we've seen from the opposition is politics on this particular measure that's taking place, yet they're voting for it. They're attacking it and condemning it, but they are voting for it because they know in their hearts that this is a better policy and a better change for Australian workers. It's about putting people ahead of politics, as I said. When I go around my electorate, as I'm sure you and other members of parliament do, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, we hear how people are doing it tough. We hear about the circumstances that a lot of people are in.</para>
<para>When economic circumstances change, the right thing to do is change your economic policy. We know that since five years ago, when the Morrison government was in, the economic realities have changed, and this government is making those changes because it recognises that. Australians are under pressure; there's no doubt about that. They're under pressure right now and deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges that they are facing. When the coalition's planned stage 3 was legislated—five years ago, mind you—the world was a very different place. It was before a once-in-100 -year pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty put Australia under a more sustained cost-of-living pressure. When the circumstances change, as they have in the last five years, changing policy is the responsibility of a good government. It's the thing to do, and that's what we've done.</para>
<para>Cutting taxes for middle Australia is a central part of the economic plan, along with getting wages moving again, and you saw at the beginning of this government how they opposed that minor increase for the lowest-paid workers in this country. Every time there's more money to go into Australians' pockets, they oppose it, especially when it's for lower-income and middle-income workers. We hear nothing but opposition from them. As I said, when circumstances change, the responsible thing to do is to change and to do things to adapt to the current present day. This government is providing meaningful cost-of-living relief with this policy and these tax changes. It's doing it in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures while laying the foundation for a stronger and more resilient economy, and at the same time putting more money into people's pockets. That's what we're doing. We're doing the right thing for the right reasons.</para>
<para>From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will witness a substantial tax cut. We're doing this because we believe in not just increasing earnings but ensuring individuals keep more of what they earn. Cost-of-living pressures are this government's top priority, and we've seen that with cheaper medicines, with cheaper child care and with changes to Medicare. All of those things assist people in this current climate. Our tax cuts are not isolated, as I said. They're part of a robust economic plan addressing wage boosts, inflation control and fairer prices for consumers. That's what it's all about. Australians are under unprecedented pressure in 2024—right now—and they deserve a meaningful tax cut right now, not next year or in three years or five years. The need is right now, and we're delivering on that and delivering one that makes a tangible difference for 13.6 million hardworking Australians. I'll go back to what I was saying—this is not about populism. It's strategic, and it's the right thing to do under the current economic climate.</para>
<para>I'll give you some examples. A nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579. A primary school teacher earning $80,000 receives $1,679. A truck driver earning $77,000 benefits from a $1,604 tax cut. Those who keep us safe—police officers, for example, earning $110,000—will see a tax cut of $2,429. This is real money going into their pockets. This is money that will help them during these cost-of-living pressures. Supporting those who tirelessly work on those front lines to keep Australia running is not just a financial decision; it's an acknowledgement of their invaluable contribution to our society and our economic strength. It gives us strength and resilience.</para>
<para>It's not just about numbers; it's about equity. All 6.5 million women taxpayers get a tax cut averaging $1,649. In fact, 90 per cent of women taxpayers, 5.8 million strong, receive a more substantial tax cut than under the former government's 2019 plan, with an average of $707. What we're currently giving them is well over double what they would have got under the previous government's proposals. The median taxable income of around $68,000 gets a tax cut of $1,379. That's $804 more than the former government's 2019 plan.</para>
<para>It's as I said earlier. We promised to give people tax cuts, and we're saying, 'Sorry; what we're doing now is we're going to give you more.' So I don't think the argument from the other side is quite correct. Labor's tax cuts are not letting anyone down. We want to ensure that no-one is let down, and that's what we're doing. We've delivered intergenerational benefits. For example, younger Australians who are aged 18 to 24 get an average tax cut of $1,007. That's the average across the board. Those aged 25 to 29 experience an average tax cut of $1,573. Older Australians, who have been the backbone of this economy for many, many years and who have worked hard and are going towards those twilight years of retirement, get an average tax cut of $1,731 for those aged between 65 and 69, $1,685 for those aged 70 to 74 and $1,726 for those over the age of 75.</para>
<para>In my own home state and in my seat, around 89 per cent of taxpayers will receive a more substantial tax cut than that offered by the opposition and former government. In Adelaide, in my electorate, 93,000 taxpayers—that's more than the majority of the taxpayers in my electorate—will experience an average tax cut of $1,540. Importantly, 79,000 taxpayers in my electorate will get a more substantial tax cut than under the previous tax cut, representing 85 per cent of taxpayers.</para>
<para>So, the Labor government's tax cut strategy is strategic, equitable and focused on the prosperity of every Australian. Even those at the high end, at the top end, in the $200,000s and over, will get a tax cut of around $4½ thousand. So, no-one's been left behind. No-one will be without a tax cut. And the majority of Australians—I know the majority of people in my electorate—will be receiving a higher tax cut than that proposed earlier.</para>
<para>On this side of the House we stand for a nation where hard-earned money is kept. We know it is tough out there, and we know that times are tough. I see this when I talk to my food banks and to the different charitable groups around the place. We're seeing people lining up for charity because they're doing it tough. Hopefully this will help. And it's not just those who are, for whatever reason, homeless or have found themselves in dire straits. The food banks are telling me that working people are fronting up on a regular basis—working people who can't make ends meet.</para>
<para>I know that what we're doing is not a panacea for everything, but it certainly will go a long way in putting a few extra dollars in people's pockets. That's why I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and I hope everyone on the other side supports it as well. It is a very important bill that will put extra money into the pockets of the people who need it the most.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've listened with interest to the debates on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and you can understand why Australians will despair. We've heard the government speakers, speaker after speaker, stand up and give a long list of the great gift they are giving Australians in a tax cut, and then they'll single out aspects of the community that are getting more with the changes. Of course Australians are doing it tough. Of course there is a cost-of-living crisis. And of course if there is an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of Australians then we will take it. But let's not forget the circumstances of how this happened, because the motive and the timing of the change matters. It doesn't just matter in the day-to-day Punch and Judy show of politics. It matters to whether we can address serious challenges that this country faces.</para>
<para>When a debate comes before the parliament I usually pull out the <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntergenerational report</inline> and see if that has something to say on the particular issue we're talking about. And when you look at one aspect that we can control in this place more than any other, it's government spending, because all the effort is being put on two places. First, the Reserve Bank addresses inflation by lifting interest rates—the only blunt instrument it has, and it punishes a particular cohort of Australians more than any other: those paying off a mortgage. And we seek to punish those who are trying to aspire to a better life, to earn more income and to produce more, to lift this country up. On page 144 of the <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntergenerational report</inline> there's a chapter on government spending, and it's quite alarming. Using 2022-23 prices, at the turn of the century government spending per person was about $15,000. So, in real terms, the projections for that, on the same prices—so, this isn't inflation; this is in on those prices—is projected to be $40,000 per person by 2062.</para>
<para>We know that productivity has fallen off a cliff, so we know that that difference is not going to be made up by this country lifting the tide. We've heard the JFK quote, 'A rising tide lifts all boats.' That's not just a cute line; that is an important expression of where the growth in this country comes from. Australia is a prosperous, free country in spite of this place, not because of it. It is a prosperous and free country because of the hard work and free enterprise of Australians who have taken risks, worked hard and studied hard. And this place has said to them, 'If you do that, there is not only a place here for you; you will be rewarded for it.'</para>
<para>This isn't a new debate—the debate about democratising power and prosperity to your country or centralising it in a place like this. That debate has been had. It has been won. It's one sided. To the credit of the Labor Party, there have been times when many Labor Party senior figures have understood that and fought for that. They certainly did in the 1980s under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. They did that with the support of the Liberal opposition. Our history—our DNA—is that, whenever there is a chance to lean into giving more to and supporting Australians, we will take it, and we will support you. The idea that our decision is driven by politics is ridiculous. It's nonsense. The timing and the motive of this change show that this is entirely driven by politics on the government's side. For 20 months, we have been telling you in speech after speech that Australians are hurting. Food bank queues are through the roof. People are wondering whether they can keep their homes, and businesses don't know whether they will survive. And the government was focused on other things.</para>
<para>But something happened over summer, and it wasn't that in the summer break the government members accepted our claim that Australians are doing it tough. There was a concern about an upcoming by-election, and it's in my home state of Victoria in the seat of Dunkley on 2 March—weeks away. We know that timing and motive matter, because the Treasurer told us so. The Treasurer went on ABC. The government has liked to quote ABC throughout the last week, but, on <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>, the Treasurer said that the timing was about Dunkley. That's why we've rushed this along here. Australians have been hurting for 20 months, but there's a by-election, so let's hurry up and get it done.</para>
<para>Many speakers have also spoken about how, if we isolate just the money that you will get back compared to one proposal for another, we're missing the reality of how people live their lives. There are multiple sides to this ledger. Of course more money at home is needed. But let's not forget what's going out. The average house is going to get about $1,000 more for this change, and we welcome that. But the average house on the average income has seen a real loss in real wages of $8,000. You're giving 10 per cent with one hand, and you're taking 10 times that with the other. For those who are paying off a mortgage, the average mortgage of $750,000—and, in seats like mine, that is a fraction of what's needed to buy a modest house or a unit—has seen a $24,000 per year increase. Many young Australians who aspire to owning their own home, particularly those in metropolitan Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, where house prices are at record levels, are giving up. What are we saying to them? This was the pathway back. 'If you study hard, you work hard and you aspire to earn more, you too can own your own bit of Australia.'</para>
<para>Last Friday, I spoke to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. We noted how the average income earner on $93,000 can only afford a median house in three of Melbourne's suburbs. Some correctly observed that most people purchase a house as a couple or a household. Others noted that the median salary is more relevant than the average salary. So let me outline each. For those watching, I ask you to imagine a table full of M&Ms. If you focus on metropolitan Melbourne, where I am from, there are only 354 suburbs. You can expand the definition and make it more or less, but let's focus on metropolitan Melbourne—354 suburbs, 354 M&Ms on a table. Let's start with the assumption that everyone has managed to save a deposit of 20 per cent. That's a big assumption. The median property value in Melbourne is $900,000. It's $1.2 million in Sydney. That assumes a deposit of $180,000 in Melbourne and $240,000 in Sydney. Then add stamp duty for both—$42,000 for each. So, if you're looking for a median house, you require a total of $222,000 in Melbourne and $282,000 in Sydney.</para>
<para>Assuming that has been saved, a couple who both earn the average Victorian wage of about $95,000 can afford to buy a home in just 49 out of 354 suburbs—out of all of those M&Ms, 49. But not every partnership is made up of full-time workers. Some are part time. Some are on parental leave. So the average household is often a more useful measure. And the average household can only afford 26 out of 354. If we are to use the more accurate and relevant measure of average wage being median wage—because average wage is skewed by those who are earning significant incomes, the billionaires of Australia—a couple earning the median wage in Australia can afford a total, out of 354 suburbs, of zero. Zero houses are affordable for a couple on the median wage in Australia—out of a table of 354 M&Ms, not one. You might say: 'Well, temper your aspirations. What about a unit?' Well, out of 354 suburbs, they can afford 15 suburbs for a unit.</para>
<para>But let's go back to the assumption I made at the start about deposits. It gets significantly worse if we remove that assumption, which is the reality for most Australians, given after-tax income is required to save that, unless you are in the fortunate position of a family being able to help you. So how long would it take to save 20 per cent of the price of a median house in Melbourne? How long would it take you to save $222,000? For a couple on an average wage, it would take them nine years. For the average household, it would take 13 years. For the median couple—with two people earning, and, if you take 10 Australians, they are both halfway—as a couple, it would take them 17 years to save the median deposit and stamp duty for a house in Melbourne. And all of those figures are much longer for Sydney. It's similar in Brisbane and similar in Adelaide.</para>
<para>And all of this assumes there's no relationship breakdown, illness or loss of income—and we know those statistics are too high for so many families. This is for people who do everything right—they study and work hard; they stay together; they're healthy. And yet still this Australian dream is out of reach. It is no wonder the bank of mum and dad is now the ninth-largest lender. It is no wonder those who are not in landowning families are losing faith.</para>
<para>Migrants move heaven and earth to come to this nation, as my family did, for a dream of a better life. The Australian dream puts a premium on study and hard work over the lottery of birth. It's what distinguishes us from any other country on earth. People speak of the American dream, but the Australian dream is far more powerful and leans towards aspiration and opportunity more than the talking points of US presidential candidates. But the Australian dream is now under threat. Solving a problem starts with recognising that you have one. So when we see speakers stand up and read out the talking points about the great gifts that people are getting from this place while their real incomes are 10 times worse, at the same time government spending is out of control. You're asking people to save money in their households, but we won't save money in our household here.</para>
<para>When people despair that the one legislated bit of tax reform we've had in recent memory has been torn up, they can also despair at the capacity of this place to move beyond the Punch and Judy show that is the political cycle. It's not good enough when Australians, particularly young Australians, have given up on the idea of owning their own home, and that's what's happened. And I'm not pretending that that is the cause of this particular government; that's been building for a while. But you can do something about it. This government can do something about it. We can all do something about it. That is so much more important than the talking points of this particular debate.</para>
<para>When we change the 37 per cent bracket, when we increase the comparative income that's paid at the top end, we're saying to those young Australians who didn't have parents who could help them, who did everything right—they studied hard, they worked hard, they aren't in those brackets now, but they want to be and we know they're talented enough to get there. They're not just thinking about their pay packet today; they're thinking about what they can aspire to. And let's not forget the true inequity here: there are those who can afford to create structures and trusts that minimise their tax anyway, and the people who will be impacted by this can't afford those arrangements. How this happened matters. The timing matters. We should all do better in turning our minds to proper tax reform and helping young Australians buy their own homes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today with pride to support the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. In Melbourne's outer south-east, where families are grappling with steep housing costs, soaring energy bills and rising childcare expenses, the cost-of-living crisis is deeply felt. Working Australians have shouldered the burden of these issues, struggling to make ends meet despite their tireless efforts. This bill represents a leap forward in our nation's journey towards economic fairness and social equity. It is a testament to the Albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to the welfare and prosperity of all Australians.</para>
<para>This bill implements the Labor government's cost-of-living tax cut for middle Australia. It means every single Australian taxpayer will now get a tax cut, no matter their income. It means that 90 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate of Holt will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the coalition. This means more tax relief for more workers to help with cost-of-living increases.</para>
<para>When the Prime Minister spoke during question time last week, his words echoed the sentiments of every resident in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. They reminded us of the fundamental truth that aspiration knows no bounds. They remind us that the concept of aspiration is not confined to a select few who have enjoyed privilege or come from an elite background. Instead, it is evident in every corner of our nation, touching the lives of every hardworking individual.</para>
<para>As I engage with my constituents from all walks of life in Holt, I see the profound aspirations that drive each and every one of them. From fast-food workers to IT professionals, from the dedicated staff at Woolworths to the migrants who have journeyed to our shores through our skilled migration programs, the desire for a better future resonates deeply within the hearts of every Australian. I understand this aspiration better than many because this is also the story of my family, who migrated to Australia to ensure a better life for their children. Under a Labor government, these aspirations are not only acknowledged but championed. We understand that the foundation of a fairer and more prosperous society lies in ensuring that every individual has the support they need to pursue their dreams regardless of their current income. That's why our government is committed to implementing policies that empower middle Australia and to providing them with the support they need to thrive.</para>
<para>Our plan will give all 13.6 million taxpayers a tax cut. It will mean that, compared to Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago, 2.9 million more people will receive a tax cut. It will mean 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than under the coalition. The biggest beneficiaries of these tax cuts will be the nurses, teachers and truckies. When I went to vote in my first election, I asked my mum who I should vote for. She told me that I should vote for Kevin Rudd because the Labor Party is the party that represents working-class Australia. Only the Labor Party stands up for Australians who are doing it tough, and this legislation is proof of that.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, the Albanese Labor government will reduce the 19 per cent tax rate to 16 per cent. The decrease in the 19 per cent tax rate will ensure that minimum-wage and part-time workers, like many of our nation's youth, will be better off. These workers, of whom I used to be one, received zero support under the coalition's plan. This is the difference between Labor and the coalition. The Labor Party is here to support everyone. The coalition is only here to support those in the top percentile of society. On top of this, the government will also increase the threshold for the Medicare levy by 7.1 per cent. These changes will support low-income households, as households with taxable incomes below $32,500 will not be liable for the full Medicare levy. These changes will give back money to an estimated 1.2 million low-income earners, in addition to the lower tax rate.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, the Albanese Labor government will also reduce the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent, increase the threshold above which the 37 per cent tax rate applies from $122,000 to $135,000 and increase the threshold above which the 45 per cent tax rate applies from $180,000 to $190,000. The increase in threshold above which the 37 per cent and 45 per cent tax rates apply will ensure that the middle-income earners in my electorate of Holt will receive a fairer share of tax relief. In Holt, the average tax cut will amount to a substantial $1,321 a year, offering significant relief to families grappling with the rising cost of living. A minimum wage worker on $45,000 will save $800 under Labor's plan. A nurse or a primary school teacher on $76,000 a year will save $1,600. The average truck driver on $80,000 a year will save nearly $1,700. A welder who earns $110,000 will save nearly $2,500. Those who earn $180,000 and above will still get a tax cut. In fact, those who earn over $180,000 will receive the biggest tax cut of all, 4½ thousand dollars.</para>
<para>By putting more money back into the pockets of hardworking families, Labor is empowering them to better navigate the challenges they face daily. The decision to amend the old stage 3 tax cuts was not taken lightly by the government. We understood the political sensitivity and the potential challenges involved in altering tax legislation that had been in place for five years. However, we recognised the significant changes in the economic landscape since then, including the once-in-a-century pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates and global uncertainty. These factors have placed greater pressure on the cost of living for individuals and families across the nation.</para>
<para>Over the summer as I engaged with my community in Holt it became increasingly evident that more comprehensive cost-of-living relief was necessary. As responsible managers of the economy, Labor understands the importance of adapting economic policy to changing circumstances. The tax changes outlined in this bill reflect Labor's commitment to addressing the evolving needs of Australians. In the words of ANU Associate Professor Ben Phillips, 'These are the right measures to implement driven by reasons and timed appropriately to provide relief when it is most needed.'</para>
<para>However, it is important to acknowledge the tax cuts alone are not enough to address the root causes of the cost-of-living crisis. In Melbourne's outer south-east, where families are grappling with steep housing costs, soaring energy bills and rising childcare expenses, a holistic approach is needed to tackle these issues. The Albanese Labor government understands the daily struggles faced by families in Holt and across the nation. That's why our comprehensive approach goes beyond mere tax relief.</para>
<para>We have delivered electricity bill relief, with $1.5 billion in power savings to Australian households. We are delivering cheaper child care, benefiting 1.2 million families. We have delivered the largest increase in rent assistance and income support payments in history. We have strengthened the beating heart of Medicare by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. We have delivered cheaper medicines, with the 60-day prescriptions saving patients $1.6 billion over the next four years. We are delivering 300,000 fee-free TAFE positions, upskilling Australians in the jobs of the future. We are investing over $10 billion to build more affordable homes, we are expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks and we are creating jobs and getting wages moving again after a decade of stagnation.</para>
<para>While these tax cuts will undoubtably provide much needed financial breathing room for hardworking Australians, we recognise that they are just one piece of the puzzle. That's why Labor is committed to investing over $23 billion in a range of initiatives to ease the burden on working families. From investing in affordable housing and renewable energy and providing greater support for child care and education, we are taking decisive action to address the underlining factors driving the cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>In Holt and across the nation, working people can rest assured that we will be better off under a Labor government. We will continue to fight tirelessly to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations and achieve their full potential, because in Australia aspiration belongs to every single person, and it is our duty to ensure that it remains within reach for all. Whether it's a part-time worker striving for financial security or a supermarket worker dreaming of home ownership, only the Labor Party's policies are designed to uplift and empower all Australians. We understand that true prosperity is more than just financial gain. It's about having the opportunity to build a better life for oneself and one's family. That's the promise we make to the people of Holt and to all Australians. Under a Labor government, everyone will be better off.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Treasurer Jim Chalmers for his tireless work on this bill. His dedication to the welfare and prosperity of all Australians is evident in the thoughtful measures outlined within this legislation. I commend this bill to the House, confident that it represents a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to create a fairer and more equitable society for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just as the schoolchildren of the 19th century chanted, the collective pants of this Labor government are on fire. From the first time Mr Albanese and his Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, used the weasel words, 'We have not changed our position,' when pressed on tax cuts, we can assume they had already decided they would. Otherwise, why repeat such an odd phrase in such a stiff, formal way, as we heard it on more than 100 occasions? Since at least 9 October 2022, just 4½ months after they were elected to office, the Prime Minister has studiously repeated the phrase, 'We have not changed our position.' Now, of course, he has. He said, 'We have not changed our position,' but he didn't say, 'We will not change our position.' He didn't say, 'Absolutely we'll be delivering the full package.' He just said, 'We have not changed our position.' And you guessed it—the public guessed it—what he should have added to that phrase was 'yet'. The Prime Minister should have said 'We have not changed our position yet.' Then it would have been much more honest. This means they have been lying to the Australian public from at least that day, if not before. After telling us that his word was his bond and promising to bring back integrity and honesty to Australian politics, Mr Albanese has proved that he is bereft of both those virtues.</para>
<para>It's worth noting now that even the Treasurer is using a similar form of weasel words in connection to negative gearing and capital gains. Last week in this place, Dr Chalmers said in question time, 'I have dealt with these issues previously,' and then quickly went on to bashing the opposition and not making any commitment to leave negative gearing as it is. On the weekend, he was quoted—in the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>, no less—as saying that the government is not considering changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That's not something that we're proposing, not something that we are considering, not something that we are working up.</para></quote>
<para>Come on, Mr Treasurer, spit it out. 'The government will not make any alterations to negative gearing and capital gains tax.' It's simple; just spit it out. No, it's not exactly the same phrase as, 'We've not changed our position,' but it's loaded up with all the same ambiguity. For the record, the Treasurer has said multiple times in the past that you can't have genuine tax reform without attacking negative gearing. The Labor Party, the Prime Minister and Dr Chalmers went to the last election promising to leave the stage 3 tax cuts alone, but we know that their word is worth nothing, and clearly they are not to be trusted.</para>
<para>To the legislation, it will be welcomed by some, probably most, who are getting a bigger tax cut than they would have. In an electoral sense, it would be impossible to remove once granted. The government's posturing on this point is no more than a cheap diversion from the duping of the public. It is disingenuous for them to say, 'Put up or shut up. Remove the legislation if you are elected,' because they know full well that no-one would be elected on that basis. As an opposition, it is imperative we focus on the things we can change, not the impossible, regardless of the moral merit. Of course, going to the next election promising to increase taxes as a commitment to reverse Labor's tar-baby tax cuts would ensure failure. To not recognise this reality would be to fail Australia. We always need oppositions to be within reach of government, with the alternative leading to hubris and overreach, and there's every sign that this government has succumbed to those urges already. The most important thing for Australia is that the coalition go to the next election putting pressure on the government.</para>
<para>The Labor Party has chosen to take the path of higher taxes by stealth. It's called bracket creep, and it will slug taxpayers an extra $28 billion over the next 10 years. The government says that 11.5 million workers earning about $146,486 or less will be better off under this plan, but it's only for the first year. Over a decade, a worker earning $130,000 will pay almost $3½ thousand more tax annually under the government's plan, as compared to the original stage 3 tax package, while a worker on $140,000 will pay $12,723 more. It's all short-term benefit and long-term pain, with no courage.</para>
<para>The underlying truth of the legislation is that it leaves the prospect of long-term reform of our taxation system in very dire shape indeed. It has signalled that at least this government has a complete focus on short-termism—whatever it takes for a vote tomorrow, or clearly, in this case, whatever it takes it for a vote in the Dunkley by-election on 2 March. The Treasurer even admitted it on <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we didn't want to wait, frankly, until after the Dunkley by-election …</para></quote>
<para>After all, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the tax cut is due in five months, why on earth are we sitting late tonight? How shallow and obvious is that? The government are totally focused on the short-term sugar fix to get them through the month and continue to attack entrepreneurism, endeavour, initiative and enterprise. They are the enemy of aspiration and are focused on rekindling the class war.</para>
<para>When John Howard was in office, personal income tax as a share of tax receipts was just over 40 per cent. The 2023 <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> tells us that without structural reform personal income tax is set to soar from 50.5 per cent of total tax receipts in 2022-23 to 58.4 per cent in 2062-63, on the back of bracket creep. The stage 3 cuts would have removed the 37 per cent rate and lifted the 47 per cent threshold to $200,000. Mr Albanese's crab walk delivers short-term benefit and long-term strangulation.</para>
<para>Another fact: in the two years from September 2021 the quarterly tax paid by households rose by 40 per cent, or from $65.1 billion to $91 billion, mostly due to bracket creep. And here's the news: because the government has squibbed it for short-term game there is worse to come. The government told us they would be reformist in the mould of the Hawke-Keating governments. Really? What a joke! They could barely be less reformist on this issue if they tried.</para>
<para>We've had a tax system that's far too reliant on income tax and loaded with disincentives to innovation, expansion and success. Far from the abusive rhetoric of the political Left, we have one of the most extravagantly progressive tax systems in the world. High-profile economist Chris Richardson calculates that the top one per cent of income earners pay the equivalent tax contribution of the bottom 77 per cent of adults. That is about as progressive as you can get, you would have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.</para>
<para>The three tranches of tax cuts which commenced in 2018 were designed to deliver a 31 per cent decrease in tax to those earning $45,000 per year and a 20 per cent decrease to those earning $60,000. For those earning around $200,000 it was 11 per cent. To those who think that favours the top end, I can only say that it becomes increasingly difficult to give a tax cut to someone who pays little or no tax. Also worth considering—and we need to listen to the government's rhetoric on this—is that someone earning $45,000 a year will receive just $804, or 15 bucks a week. I don't know how long it's been since either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer did the family shopping, but if they did they'd find that 15 bucks doesn't go so far, particularly not when you consider that this government, in the last budget, cancelled the low-income tax offset for exactly this group. That was worth $700 a year. So get this: you take $700, give $804 back 12 months later and expect $104 to cover the rising cost of power—remember the $275 promise on electricity?—fuel, food, council rates or insurance. You can take your pick. To those on $45,000 a year: enjoy your extra $104. Mr Albanese has not only broken his word, betrayed the trust of electors who took him at his word and provided a new disincentive to innovation and enterprise but he has made the task for all future tax reform that much more difficult.</para>
<para>This is not sound policy. It lacks any concept of a plan for the future. As a decision in isolation, it is not reversible. Australians need to elect a government with a comprehensive understanding of the taxation system, an understanding of international competition for finance and how other jurisdictions are fashioning their tax systems to respond in a changing world. The current government is demonstrating it is not capable of gauging that far into the future. The last Treasurer to offer relief from bracket creep was Peter Costello, and since that time bracket creep has vacuumed billions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets. We in the coalition are focused on offering real reform of the taxation system. We are the only team likely to deliver in this area. We will continue to prosecute the case over the next 18 months in the lead up to the next election.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Much has been said about our government's revised tax cut policy, with media commentators, a variety of politicians, financial gurus, financial advisers, stockbrokers, bankers, everyone having a say on this. I know that much has been said about whether it is a broken promise or whether the government has moved with the times and decided to do the right thing by the majority of the Australian population. I have been arguing for support for the cost-of-living crisis in my electorate for years. The previous government was happy to see some of the most vulnerable people in our communities suffer under this cost-of-living crisis with very little being done.</para>
<para>I am proud to be part of a government that is offering relief for cost-of-living difficulties that we are all facing to over 90 per cent of the Australian taxpaying population. What we're hearing from those opposite is sophistry; it is a desperate message from a desperate opposition, who have now, after much grandstanding, finally agreed not to get in the way of these tax cuts. It is really quite ridiculous to see the behaviour from the opposition. They are tying themselves in knots trying to criticise a policy that they are going to vote for. It would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic that they are trying to weaponise a policy that will give some relief to the many families, particularly in electorates like mine, Macarthur, from what is a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>I will tell you what the cost-of-living crisis means in my electorate. For young families, it means they can't afford their rent. It means maybe getting evicted. We have families in my electorate living in their cars because they cannot afford the rent. It means that you may not be able to pay for your child's school excursion because you can't afford the costs. It may mean you can't afford decent food to feed your family. We have working families going to support groups in my electorate like St Vincent DePaul, Lifeline et cetera trying to get money to put food on their tables. In a country like Australia, a wealthy country like Australia, that is a living tragedy. We need to recognise that and that is why it has been so urgent to offer these tax cuts and relief to some of those most vulnerable. My office hears this and sees it every day. I have been to the Lifeline credit support centre in my electorate, in Macarthur, and have seen what some families are going through. To me, it is a tragedy. The pressure that this puts on young families who are trying to get ahead in a very difficult world is terrible. We are seeing increased stress on mums and dads and increased mental health difficulties in young people that relate to this cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>These are challenging times. We have to remember, when the Morrison government rolled out the stage 3 tax cuts, in 2019, the world and the economic situation was very, very different. No-one had heard of COVID-19. We were yet to experience the horrors of the pandemic, the bushfires in 2019-20, Russia invading Ukraine and the present difficulties in the Middle East. These and many other difficulties have had significant economic impacts on the federal budget, on the world and, in particular, on Australian households.</para>
<para>That's why it's very sensible for us to introduce these overhauled tax cuts, to try to give support to young families who are just trying to get ahead. It was very sensible for us to do this and very important that it was done urgently. These tax cuts are fairer for Australians who are trying to get ahead and they ensure that everyone gets a tax cut, with a bigger cut going to low- and middle-income Australian households, who are often hit the hardest by the effects of global conflicts and resource constraints.</para>
<para>I'm proud of our government's changes. They benefit my electorate greatly, with 90 per cent of Macarthur taxpayers better off under our proposal. That is really important. It means people can afford to go to a doctor and it means people can afford to buy medicines, together with the other important cost-of-living measures that our government has done. It means young mothers can eat properly and have their kids eat properly. It means people can provide school clothes for their kids. Every suburb in my electorate of Macarthur will be better off. It means real relief to some of the households doing it the toughest.</para>
<para>It's even more important for the 28 per cent of Macarthur residents who are on very low incomes, under $45,000 a year, because under the coalition's original stage 3 plans they would have received a tax cut of nothing—zero. Can you imagine trying to live on $45,000 a year? Every cent counts. For them to get nothing in these stage 3 cuts, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, would be terrible. These are individuals, often single parents, students or elderly workers, who would have received nothing under the original plans that those opposite fought so hard for us to retain. Thankfully we didn't take their advice and instead have now rolled out our own overhauls, providing tax cuts to more Australians. For the group I just mentioned, this ranges from cuts of up to $804 for those earning $45,000 per year or less.</para>
<para>Across the nation there will be more Australians—2.9 million, to be specific—who will now receive a tax cut. After all the uproar from those opposite when we announced our overhaul, I ask them: could you tell those taxpayers, all 2.9 million of them, that they are worse off under Labor? You can't do that. They are doing better under Labor and will always do better under us, particularly in this time of cost-of-living difficulties. Should they forget about their tax cuts and focus on a broken promise? I don't think so. I'm sure these individuals are looking forward to receiving their tax cut and putting it into their children's sport or their energy bill or buying some fresh food, because that is what these tax cuts mean. They are fairer and more beneficial for more Australians than those the coalition wanted under their original plans. They are part of Labor's program to provide cost-of-living relief for all Australians. They come together with things like the cheaper medicines policies, the tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing rebate for some of the most disadvantaged, improvements in funding for education, and improved funding for our overall health care and our hospital system.</para>
<para>Of course, women are some of the biggest beneficiaries of our policy, with 90 per cent of female taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut now, which is so important, given that many women, unfortunately, earn less in terms of both salary and superannuation than men do. These things are really important, particularly for young families. They're the ones that I want to support the most. It's not particularly meaningful for taxpayers on very high incomes to get the tax cuts that were originally planned by the coalition. What is meaningful is to be in the low- to middle-income bracket and get these tax cuts from us on 1 July. I thank the Treasurer and the Prime Minister very much for their hard work in this space. They know what it means for families to struggle, and they know how important it is that we provide support for those struggling families.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank all those in our government for their work in addressing the cost of health care and medicines and thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his work in advocating for more patient friendly and cost-efficient changes. We are trying to undo some of the pressure that the previous coalition government put on young families. Unfortunately, the coalition defunded Services Australia, so often young families are tying themselves in knots trying to get maternity leave payments or childcare rebates because of the lack of funding for Services Australia. The coalition government damaged young families in Australia, and we are trying to undo some of the mess that they've left them with. We're giving young families extra help. Lifting the low-income Medicare thresholds, which are part of those plans as well, means that more very low income earners get additional tax relief on top of the tax cuts we're providing. This is crucial for my electorate of Macarthur. Not only do we have significant demand for healthcare access and affordability; health care is the largest industry for employment in Macarthur, with over 13,000 people, or just over 15 per cent of the electorate, working in the health sector. They will all get tax cuts. Thank you very much to the health minister for his work in this space.</para>
<para>We've not yet been in government for two years, but our policies are already having very positive effects, with our cheaper medicines, 60-day dispensing and lower PBS co-payment providing over $1.6 million in savings to all Macarthur residents by the end of last year. On top of this, our increase to the bulk-billing incentive has benefited nearly 104,000 Macarthur residents, resulting in better access to GPs and medications. Our urgent care centre is making a significant difference already for access to health care. Just last week I received a letter from someone at a local GP clinic, who wrote to thank our government for taking what they call 'a brave and correct policy decision to triple the Medicare rebate'. They went on to outline in their letter how the 'outlook and engagement of general practitioners has improved significantly as a direct result of this funding increase'. Best of all, may I say, they went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The objection by GPs to bulk-billing has fallen away, and the focus is back on delivering care to patients—</para></quote>
<para>sometimes the most vulnerable—</para>
<quote><para class="block">rather than seeking to implement private charging.</para></quote>
<para>That is an incredible result and yet another sign of a government that understands cost-of-living pressures, that understands which families and which people are most at risk and that is trying its very best in really difficult times to provide support for those people. The letter closes by saying that the Medicare bulk-billing incentive increase 'is the single biggest lockstep change that I have seen in my time running general practices'. How wonderful it is to hear that our policies are providing real benefit to patients, practitioners and residents in my electorate.</para>
<para>I'm proud of these schemes. I'm proud of these tax-cut changes. They are really important for my constituents. These are policies from a government that listens, understands and is willing to move with the times. More people are getting access to support. More people are getting support with rent and mortgage payments and are benefiting from the changes in health care that this government is providing. Our cheaper childcare policy is benefiting 10,000 Macarthur families. It is vital for the education and social development of our children and is a wise investment in our nation's future. We also have the fee-free TAFE provisions, which have made a huge difference to Macarthur residents.</para>
<para>We know that much more needs to be done. We're not saying that our support for these people and these families has stopped. We need to look at what more can be done to provide cost-of-living relief to households as well as economic and social opportunities for our nation.</para>
<para>I look forward to a bright future with a Labor government providing support for some of our most vulnerable, including many of my patients. We have a proud record that we are keeping up in helping these people. I'm proud that our government is aware of the difficulties facing young families and is acting now, not tomorrow. We will continue to advocate for all Australians, not just some. I again thank the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and the wider cabinet for their work on these very important issues. There is much more to be done, and I think we need to recognise that our population is increasing. We need to encourage young families to have aspirational ideas, and these tax cuts will help in that. I thank the government for their support for my electorate, and I look forward to further improvements in cost-of-living relief for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about this Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and a related bill, addressing the cost-of-living tax cuts. There are very mixed feelings about this. It's like the old chestnut with the two nuts under three half shells. There's a lot of moving around here, and I think the government benches are hoping that no-one has realised.</para>
<para>If you recall, this is more like giving back some of the tax offsets that you removed at the last budget, rather than a tax cut. The actual tax rate has been reduced from 19 per cent down to 16 per cent in the $18,200 to $45,000 bracket. The flat $45,000 to $200,000 threshold that was to be taxed at 30c in the dollar has been abandoned, and that bracket has been split in two. The 30c rate will only go from $45,000 to $135,000, and then from $135,000 to 190,000 the 37 per cent tax bracket still applies. In our original tax plan stage 3, that whole 37c-in-the-dollar tax rate was going to be abolished until a person's income went up above $200,000.</para>
<para>One of the other features in our last budget was the low and middle income tax offset, which had been there for three years at $1,052 for earnings up to $37,000. It was significantly greater than what these tax cuts are now. Obviously, when we lost the election—and because we didn't announce that that was being increased from $1,052 up to $1,500 for people earning up to $90,000—we lost government, so of course we couldn't introduce that increase. But those opposite had the opportunity to help people at the last budget and continue that low and middle income tax offset. People have been worse off for a year. Lots of people came to my office when they did their tax returns and all of a sudden they weren't getting the refund that they had gotten for the two years before that.</para>
<para>These Dunkley tax cuts are not really as good as they were made out to be. No-one is ever going to object to a tax cut. I like lower taxes, like everyone. But you were getting a better deal out of the coalition's tax plan. There are people who, when this comes through, will be stuck on the 37c in the dollar rate. We had a holistic plan rolled out over several years so that the issue of bracket creep was addressed, so that people who are working hard, wanting to do overtime or getting promoted, would—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 7.30, we're going to do adjournment, and then we're going to come back and resume the debate, in which you'll be given the call in continuation, Member for Lyne.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>232</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis Awareness Month</title>
          <page.no>233</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. Endometriosis is an extremely painful disease affecting around one in seven Australian women and teenage girls. It's a long-term inflammatory condition where deposits of tissue similar to the lining of the uterus are found outside the uterus, on the bowel, bladder and ovaries, and it causes significant pelvic pain. It can lead to issues with infertility for a third of those affected. Endometriosis can have a profound, debilitating and life-threatening impact. Women cannot prevent endo and, as I said, it's extremely painful. There is no cure, and it can have life-changing effects on women. Currently it's not known what causes endo, and it can only be effectively diagnosed with surgery.</para>
<para>I was very proud when the coalition introduced the first ever National Action Plan for Endometriosis. I'm also proud that Australia was the first country in the world to enact a national action plan for endo, with awareness and education, the first ever clinical guidelines for endo, a digital platform for endo research, and support, management, care and research as the focus. Our plan has been copied by other countries. Australia is a global leader in this field. In government, the coalition also supported pelvic pain clinics, and it supported the Pelvic Pain Foundation providing education in schools through their pep talks.</para>
<para>It's taken us many years to get to this point. I understand the first time endo was raised medically was in 1893. I acknowledge the bipartisan work of the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness and my coalition colleagues who worked tirelessly to keep endo at the forefront of health considerations while we were in government. I'm also grateful that the current government is continuing to support the national action plan. I acknowledge the groups and individuals who continue to work on endo and thank them for their dedication. Women have historically waited 6.5 or more years for a diagnosis. At a recent Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness event, we were told about women who currently have to see at least four doctors to get an accurate diagnosis. I also acknowledge the great work of Professor Jason Abbott, who is involved in training health professionals in endo. It's important. I understand that only around five per cent of GPs are adequately tooled and trained to deal with endo. I want to also thank Endometriosis Australia board member Associate Professor Anusch Yazdani, who is a leader in surgery and reproductive endocrinology.</para>
<para>I also want to encourage women with endo to sign up to the Australian National Endometriosis Clinical and Scientific Trials Registry. Australia is the best place in the world to do endo research. This site aims to build a complete picture of how endo affects people's lives. It's a research network made up of clinicians, healthcare providers, scientists, patients and consumer reps who are determined to fill gaps in endo research to improve patient care and provide better treatment options and more affordable medicines. NECST has 1,800 women on the registry. As I said: if you are a woman and have endo, please sign up. You could help lead to a breakthrough to improve the understanding and, hopefully, one day lead to a cure.</para>
<para>EndoZone is a site that women can explore to look at endo basics. It's a collaboration of EndoActive and other groups and researchers. We are approaching EndoMarch. Please join in. Wear something yellow. In Australia and worldwide, they're lighting up venues in yellow. There'll be endo high teas. Come up with your own EndoMarch activity. I know we have a plan in this place with the parliamentary friendship group as well. I've been out there campaigning to have one or two pelvic pain clinics in my electorate in the South West of WA and for the South West. I want to see more of those pep talks for young women to know what the symptoms are, and I want all GPs to take them seriously.</para>
<para>I want to also thank my daughter, Kylie, for letting me tell her very personal story, which helped to lead to this first ever national plan for endometriosis. It was tough for her to do. I thank all of those other incredibly brave and often long-suffering women with endo who've worked with us over these years to help tackle endometriosis. I encourage you all to get involved with EndoMarch and keep working on a cure for this disease.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Small Business</title>
          <page.no>233</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my job I've been lucky to spend a lot of time travelling all around my electorate. One of the best parts of travelling around the Hunter is being able to see so many small businesses. The Hunter is packed with great small businesses providing the best goods and services that you can find. Whether you're looking for wine, meat, fruit, veg or maybe even a delicious burger, or whether you want a haircut or some beauty treatments, you can find it all in the Hunter. These are only a few examples of the many kinds of small businesses in my electorate. Not only do they provide amazing food and produce and help you with whatever service you may need; they are also the heart of our communities. They're often run by locals, for locals. They serve our community, but they are a part of our community.</para>
<para>This isn't just the case in the Hunter; this is the case throughout Australia. Across the country, there are 2.5 million small businesses, which make up 97.5 per cent of all businesses. These small businesses help over 5.2 million people put food on their table and contribute more than $500 billion to the nation's economy each year. But, sadly, times have been tough for our small businesses in recent years. They've had to deal with COVID-19 and the challenges that came with that. Then, when the country began to reopen and business began to find their feet again, they had to face challenges like interest rate rises, inflation and lower levels of consumer spending. But, if anything, these past few years just go to show how resilient our small businesses and their owners are.</para>
<para>We want to support our small businesses in any way that we can, and we have already introduced a number of measures which are aiming to do exactly that. Something that is hurting all Australians right now but making life especially hard for small businesses is the price of electricity bills. We have made energy relief for small business a priority so that they can continue to operate their businesses without the added pressure of the price of electricity. We are taking action to limit the worst of the energy price spikes, by delivering up to $3 billion in direct energy bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund. There are already many businesses which have benefited from this, with energy bill relief of up to $650 flowing since July to around one million small businesses. This has meant that retail electricity prices are around 25 percentage points less than we expected before our intervention. We have also invested $310 million in the Small Business Energy Incentive, which is a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for small businesses investing in energy efficiency and storage. Six hundred ninety small businesses have already benefited from these grants and are now saving on their electricity bills.</para>
<para>That's not all the help we are providing to small businesses. We are also providing a $20,000 instant asset write-off for assets first used or installed ready to use between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024. We are helping to reduce the time small businesses spend doing their taxes. We will do this through a range of measures, including enhancing the National Tax Clinic program by funding an additional five tax clinics, allowing employers to make Single Touch Payroll engagement authorities to their tax agents for extended periods, trialling an expansion of the ATO independent review process to small and medium businesses being audited by the ATO and allowing small and medium businesses up to four years to make self-amendments to their income tax assessments.</para>
<para>We are a government who represent the people of Australia, not our own interests. The things that are important to Australians are the things that are important to us. Small businesses are important to all Australians. They are the heart of all of our communities. We will always stand up for small businesses, because, if our small businesses are doing it tough, then so are our communities and so is our country as a whole. So get out and enjoy discovering the hidden culinary treasures tucked away in the nooks and crannies of our neighbourhoods, from the secret sauce of the burger shop down the street to the heavenly aroma wafting from the corner bakery. Every bite tells a story, and every dollar spent is a vote of confidence for our small local businesses. Make sure you're getting in there and enjoying them. I know I love the small businesses of the Hunter. I clearly enjoy them too much, especially the food ones, as we can tell, but the wine, the beer, the gin, the distilleries, all of the great food—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The thoroughbreds!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The thoroughbreds, yes. The thoroughbreds are great. We have a big passion for thoroughbreds in the Hunter. We spend a lot of time losing money on them. Some even win. I know that I don't win much. Make sure you get out there and support every small business you can.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Services Australia</title>
          <page.no>234</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to call attention to the declining levels of customer service and the declining performance indicators at Services Australia, which, regrettably, is in the custody of the member for Maribyrnong, somebody who has a longstanding indifference and lack of interest in customer service. The fact is that this comes at a very bad time. Australians are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis. It is therefore vital that they receive from Centrelink and from Medicare the payments and the support to which they are entitled in an efficient and timely manner. But I'm sorry to say that precisely the opposite is happening. If you call Centrelink, you will be waiting longer than ever.</para>
<para>Let's take the disability, sickness and carers category as an example. If you call in that category, you will find that call hold times have risen from just over 20 minutes under the coalition to 28½ minutes under the care of the member for Maribyrnong. If you are fortunate enough to get through to somebody at Centrelink and you lodge an application for a payment to which you may be entitled, you will find that the sorry truth is that the processing time to deal with such an application has blown out quite remarkably. The average number of days to process an application for the age pension stood at 33 days under the coalition. It now stands at 61 days under the leadership of the member for Maribyrnong.</para>
<para>The simple fact is that many Australians are desperately looking for other ways to get Centrelink to deal with them in a timely fashion. Remarkably enough, one way that seems to be increasingly used is contacting the agency's official spokesperson, Mr Hank Jongen. During a Senate estimates hearing last year, it was revealed that some customers had successfully had their payment claims expedited and processed faster by expressing their concerns through the media and through popular social media platforms such as Reddit. There were case studies highlighted in which customers who communicated their frustrations with claims processing through social media or through the media would then be contacted by Services Australia and, coincidentally, their claims would be expedited and resolved quickly. This points to a troubled organisational culture at Services Australia and a lack of transparency.</para>
<para>The member for Maribyrnong has taken a number of actions which have made things worse. He dumped the specialised call centre operator Serco, and it is a reasonable inference that the call hold times have blown out dramatically because he has dispensed with experienced staff and this experienced outsource provider. I have no particular brief on this outsource provider or any other, but what I do raise is the member for Maribyrnong's ideological obsession with being opposed to the use of specialist external providers.</para>
<para>He has also fired around a thousand specialist IT staff. What does that mean? It means, unsurprisingly, that work to improve digital service delivery has ground to a halt. The myGov user audit, which examined these issues, made 10 recommendations. He responded a long time after the user audit was provided. In fact, his response was five months overdue and the response he produced was an empty box-ticking exercise, which, again, reminded us that the current government has zero interest in digital transformation.</para>
<para>The Australian Public Service Employee Census of 2023 found that Services Australia is an agency riddled with dysfunction, poor morale and hopeless communication. According to the Services Australia highlights report, this key agency has gone backwards on key performance measures, mirroring a similar decline in standards contained in the agency's annual report of 2022-23. The simple fact is that Services Australia is in disarray under what purports to be the leadership of the member for Maribyrnong. For example, under the question: 'Change is managed well in my agency,' 30 per cent of staff at Services Australia responded negatively. Of course, if the staff are disillusioned and disenchanted, that makes it very difficult for them to provide good service to Australians. Most recently, we've seen that the Health Delivery Modernisation Program, a multiyear fund overhauling Australia's legacy health payment systems, is in disarray. The coalition invested over $100 million in this program but it has been in red status since December 2022, even though it was in green status in July 2022. Services Australia is in a mess under the member for Maribyrnong.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>235</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Addressing cost-of-living pressures is the federal government's top priority. As a government, we have delivered and are delivering a range of measures to help ease cost-of-living pressures on household budgets. Already the government has delivered cheaper child care, helping reduce the cost of childcare services for 6,900 families living in Robertson; delivered two Medicare urgent care clinics on the Central Coast, making it easier for people to access urgent health care that is completely bulk-billed; tripled the bulk-billing incentive by investing $3.4 billion into Medicare, enabling an additional 10,000 people on the Central Coast to access a bulk-billed doctor; and delivered 300,000 fee-free TAFE positions, ensuring those wanting to skill up or learn new skills can do so. We have delivered cheaper medicines by cutting the cost of PBS medications, helping save over $1.4 million for the people living in Robertson. There is more work to do, and this government is getting on with identifying additional ways it can help reduce the cost of living for more Australians.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, the federal Labor government will also give every Australian taxpayer a tax cut. This will see 66,000 taxpayers in Robertson receive a tax cut equivalent to $1,580 on average across the electorate. This is the cost-of-living relief that will make a huge difference to thousands of families across the Central Coast region, and I'm glad that those in the Liberal and Nationals parties have resolved to support our legislation because they understand that this is good economic policy from the Australian Labor Party.</para>
<para>Another significant cost-of-living pressure affecting families living on the Central Coast, particularly those on the peninsula in the south, is the price of fuel. I continue to be a staunch critic of those big companies who operate on the Central Coast. Many are charging motorists in the region more for fuel than those in places further away such as Coffs Harbour or Dubbo. These places are hundreds of kilometres further away from shipping ports that receive fuel than the Central Coast is. However—and here's the part that doesn't make sense to me—our service stations sell this fuel for 20c to 30c more per litre compared with these places. Further to this, the discrepancy between fuel prices sold at any of the Central Coast service stations can vary substantially. The prices are always higher than in regions outside of the Central Coast. Fuel sold in Umina Beach can often be 10c to 30c more per litre than fuel sold in Wyong, further up north on the coast. Why is this the case?</para>
<para>I've written directly to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate this situation, and I received a very underwhelming response. In its response, the ACCC provided a bureaucratic explanation for why fuel on the Central Coast is routinely more expensive than in harder-to-reach places and why prices vary inside the region. They also mentioned the Central Coast is susceptible to fuel price cycles influenced by the Sydney market. If this were the case, why are oil companies selling fuel cheaper in Sydney than in places on the Central Coast? The answers to our queries have not been making any sense to me, and they certainly have not been making any sense to the motorists and my constituents living on the Central Coast.</para>
<para>Consequently, I've written to every major oil company operating on the Central Coast and requested an explanation. To date, only two companies have responded. In both responses, the companies have indicated that market forces are responsible for fuel prices on the Central Coast as well as international factors like the war between Ukraine and Russia and growing instability in the Middle East. But why is the Central Coast bearing the brunt of these factors? Why aren't other regions? Why is Sydney escaping the pressures that these events are having on our fuel prices?</para>
<para>These responses provided by the big oil companies leave my communities with more questions than they have answers to their concerns. I'm putting the big oil companies operating on the Central Coast on notice. Stop these nebulous responses and stop leaving our people behind. Sell your fuel on the Central Coast in line with other regions. I will continue to hold these big oil companies to account, and I will always fight for the people on the Central Coast and those constituents in my electorate of Robertson.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Natural Disasters: Response and Recovery Planning</title>
          <page.no>236</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's nearly two years since my community suffered one of the biggest disasters in Australia's history, and I want to give the House an update on how our recovery is going. I'd like to say that the recovery is going very well, but unfortunately I can't report that. In fact, I think it's going quite poorly and causing more trauma to my community.</para>
<para>There were two options when 2,000 houses were identified as basically being in danger. On top of that, we had businesses, the CBD and villages, as well as some of the houses within those villages, that were seen as being in danger. I'm talking here about Lismore, the mid-Richmond, Coraki, Woodburn, Broadwater and Wardell.</para>
<para>I think the first major mistake was in the choice of either withdrawing from the flood plain or committing to serious flood mitigation, giving the community some idea about what you'd be looking to take off a flood with that flood mitigation, but saying to people, 'If you're going to stay, it's going to take quite a few years to do the flood mitigation work.' The decision made by the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation was to withdraw from the flood plain. That meant that basically they were going to go in and buy back the 2,000 houses that had been identified. That was the plan. We gave them round 1 funding to do that, and they started the buy-back routine.</para>
<para>I thought that was never going to be successful simply because of the number of houses involved. There were over 2,000 houses, and it would have been unprecedented to move that many homes. There were also some logistical reasons for it not working. One was that it took too long to get the program up and running. Many hundreds of people sold their houses before the program got to the stage where they were eligible to apply for it. Because it became a 12-month program, before it was announced and offered to people they had gone back in and started to put their own money back into their homes.</para>
<para>The reconstruction corporation assumed that people in 80 per cent of the homes were going to take up this offer, that there'd be a hodgepodge of households left that would almost volunteer to move from the flood plain—even though they hadn't accepted the first round—and that there'd have to be some funding to mop up some businesses that were on the flood plain. We haven't got anywhere near that. Nothing looks like that. It's now been scaled back. Having spoken to some of the people responsible for this, I think we're now talking maybe 900 homes. So, at best, 900 homes out of the 2,000 will have moved. What you've got then is a chequerboard effect—one house has been moved but the one next to it hasn't. That doesn't achieve anything for the safety of our community. Remember, this has cost $700 million of taxpayers' money. You really have to question the value of that if it hasn't kept the community safe.</para>
<para>There's also the situation, with some of those homes, where people have accepted a buyback—it's a question of how many, but I know quite a number of them myself—and bought a house around the corner in the same flood affected area. Hypothetically, they might get $600,000 for their home, and they've bought a house around the corner for $300,000. You can't blame them for doing that, because it gives them $300,000 to fix up a home when obviously they couldn't fix up the one they had. But you've got the situation where they're getting $600,000 for a buyback and buying a house around the corner that is still on the flood plain. They're no safer. And the people who sold their house to someone else didn't qualify.</para>
<para>The whole thing has been a complete stuff-up. We're going to have to do an audit of it. At the end of these programs, where we've just spent $700 million, we're going to have to ask: What has been achieved? Have we done 700, 800 or 900 homes, maybe? That's not even half of what was identified as safe. How many of those people have repurchased on the flood plain, and what is the overall improvement in safety for people? I think it's going to be a very poor audit when we look at that.</para>
<para>There is also the Resilient Lands Program, which is offering people a place to move within the region. It's two years on, and just last week the first land that will be part of that process was identified. So we're talking four years between the event and when houses will be available for people to move into. That's too slow. Hardly anyone who was devastated by a flood would have waited four years to move in.</para>
<para>So unfortunately there's a lot more work to do. In the CSIRO report next year we need to look at flood mitigation to keep our community safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>237</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this inflationary environment, people are hurting. I'd like to pull the veil back as to what's actually going on in my patch. In Higgins, renters are leaving the electorate. I have entire families who are moving homes because they simply can't make the rent. I've got mortgage holders who purchased beautiful homes in beautiful tree-lined streets at a time when the RBA told them that interest rates would be flat for the foreseeable future, and they are now at their limit with respect to mortgage repayments.</para>
<para>I've also got a group of people who are sleeping in their cars in public spaces. This is happening not because they don't have jobs. They do have jobs; they just can't make the rent. And disturbingly, we are seeing a spike in domestic violence in our maternal and child health centre presentations. Women are presenting with features of coercive control and, if you join the dots, you would think that this may be due to pressure on household budgets and certainly financial stress. So if this is happening in Higgins, imagine how much worse it is elsewhere.</para>
<para>Inflation is public enemy No. 1, and Australia's not immune to the inflationary pressures that have been sweeping the world. Except in our case, inflation is now moderating. It was around six per cent when we came to government. It peaked at around eight per cent in December 2022. It's now currently trending at about four per cent. So it is coming down, but it is still much too high and people are hurting.</para>
<para>As a result we had to make the difficult choice to rejig the tax cuts. We did this because of persistent and sustained pressure on household budgets. People have run down their reserves and we had to make a decision. This was not a decision that was made lightly. It was done with a lot of consideration—I'm sure there were some pretty robust discussions around the cabinet table—but it is the right decision. It is the right decision because despite throwing a bunch of medicines at this problem, it is proving to be much stickier and much more stubborn than we anticipated.</para>
<para>And the medicine we threw at this included cheaper child care, free TAFE courses, urgent care clinics. We have an excellent bulk-billed urgent care clinic in Prahran, just up the road from where I used to work at the Alfred. The clinic offers bulk-billed care on a walk-in basis, no appointments needed. You can have your diagnostic tests, whether its X-rays or pathology, at the Alfred across the road. Your results are then given to you within a couple of days. With the electronic systems speaking to each other, it's absolutely seamless. When I visited, I found at least 20 patients a day are being diverted from the Alfred's emergency department to this urgent care clinic, so it's already easing the pressure on our busy emergency departments.</para>
<para>We also boosted bulk-billing. In fact, we're trying to arrest its collapse by tripling our bulk-billing incentive. We've found that we've actually increased bulk-billing by 2.1 per cent—that's 360,000 extra presentations that have been fully bulk-billed since we brought in this legislation. Not only that, but we're also trying to repair the safety net. We boosted Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent—the highest increase in 30 years—and I've helped constituents in my patch with this.</para>
<para>But the tax cuts are going to be a real game changer. Why? Because it is a broad based solution which is going to sweep over every single taxpayer, every one of the 13.6 million taxpayers. Everyone is going to get a tax cut. In Higgins that will equate to 85,000 taxpayers. In fact, three in four taxpayers will be getting a bigger tax cut under us compared to the previous Morrison regime.</para>
<para>Who are these people? These people include women. Ninety per cent of women are going to be getting a tax cut. That is a game changer, particularly at a time when productivity has been moribund for the last six years. And when we talk about productivity, what could be a bigger shot in the arm than injecting a whole bunch of skilled workers into the economy at a time when businesses are desperate for skilled workers? Those women are currently languishing at home, having made a decision to not increase their hours. We know from Treasury analysis that these tax cuts will in fact boost labour supply by a whopping 930,000 hours per week. That's double the old Morrison regime.</para>
<para>Young people are also the big winners in this. We have 1.5 million young people aged 18 to 24 and most of them—in fact, all of them—will be getting a tax cut of just over $1,000. This is the intergenerational dividend that we've been calling for and that we are now delivering. But there is more to do, and we are absolutely committed to delivering that for the Australian people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</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>238</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>238</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>238</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Getting back to what I was saying about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, as I mentioned earlier, sure, the coalition is supporting cutting the tax rate from 19c to 16c. We support a simpler, fairer tax system but this isn't fairer. It is just moving tax cuts that were allocated to people who have worked hard, got ahead and been caught by bracket creep. Our tax plan was addressing bracket creep by removing the 37c tax rate altogether. Unfortunately, that has been abandoned; tax is now still payable at 37c in the dollar once you get to $135,000.</para>
<para>Our simpler tax plan was to get rid of that tax bracket altogether until your earnings were above $200,000. Now, 37c in the dollar is paid up to $190,000. I got the Parliamentary Library to go through the changes for my electorate. Silently and without any attention being drawn to it—except for people like me, who have a low-income electorate and who had lots of people saying: 'How come my tax refund has shrunk by over $1,000? I put in all the same claims last year!'—this government didn't enforce the low- and middle-income tax offset at the last budget. So the tax changes now are just returning some of the tax offsets that were in the system up until then. For instance: the first tax benefit that people in my electorate get is once they're above the $18,200, when they will save $78 over the year. And it maxes out at the princely sum of $804, less tax, up until you get to $135,000 of income. In the system that we had, that would have been $1,052 and, if the former Treasurer's announcements in our last budget had been regulated, it would have been $1,500. Because they are moving tax cuts that were destined, after we reformed the earlier stages of the progressive tax scale, for people who've worked hard and are trying to get ahead, those earning above $135,000 will be $246 worse off. They'll be paying more tax—up to $200,000, they'll be paying $4,500 more tax than they would have.</para>
<para>The economy is making the cost of living higher because of inflation. We've got interest rates that are up. People with mortgages are finding they've got $10,000 or $20,000 more in payments. We have housing shortages left, right and centre. And why is that? It might have something to do with the 620,000 people that have arrived in the country in the last year. That level of migration is inflationary in itself. The UK, with a population 2½ times that of ours, had headlines that it was absorbing 600,000 people, and they thought that was a massive increase. But with 25 million people, we have the same amount! That shows you how out of control migration is. We have to be sensible; we know we have skills shortages and that migration fills some of that, but if our own people can't afford to get a house, either to rent or to own, we really have to put the brakes on.</para>
<para>The other thing is: why is inflation being so resistant in this country? It's basic economics. We are spending too much money without getting productivity. We're not getting any wealth creation or efficiency in producing the same amount of goods with less money, or producing a whole lot more with the same money. But we have seen around this country an explosion in public servant administrative roles which aren't producing economic benefit. I'm not saying they don't go to work and work hard, but they're not creating a good or a service that we're exporting. We're just hampering the economy with more public wages.</para>
<para>We have an NDIS that is totally out of control; it needs major reform. It is a sacred cow that everyone thought was going to cost $12 billion a year. I was following very closely in 2012, when Prime Minister Gillard announced it, and it got bipartisan support because the deal seemed quite reasonable. Having worked in disability for most of my professional career in medicine, because they overlap, I could see there needed to be a change in the system. But the way it was designed, with the agreement of the states, has not been able to change it because no-one in the states would let the Commonwealth change it. But it is not sustainable. The member for Macarthur will appreciate this: the payments for the Medicare system, which are for 25.5 million people, are less than what the NDIS costs with 600,000 people. We have seen wages for unskilled people go through the roof because you can get a job working in the NDIS and be earning $32 or $33 an hour without any certificate—you just have to go through probity testing, turn up and work for a company giving personal care and assistance, or accompanying for outings. Everyone in my electorate is talking about it; everyone is saying it's outrageous.</para>
<para>I talked to other members in this House, and they said, 'Yes, it is pretty outrageous.' Is that not inflationary—spending more than $35 billion? I'm not trying to be angry at the people who are receiving the service, but it's the way it has been set up. It's uncapped, we've got hundreds of thousands of kids now—with a projected 160,000 more coming on—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker Chester, it needs to be redefined. The minister responsible is talking about capping its growth at eight per cent. No, it has to be capped, and the definitions of who gets on it. The NDIA sets a lot of these costs—fixed equipment costs for catheters, colostomy bags, wheelchairs and disability aids. People with disability have said, 'How come my catheter now costs me three or four times what it was before the NDIS?' It's because there is so much money in the NDIS, and that's because it's uncapped. So all the suppliers are putting their rates up. Some of the ABN companies that have popped up have grown topsy-turvy, and it is not sustainable. So that is another inflationary thing where we are not getting value for money out of the spend. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who really need a big, expensive package. They are being limited because all these lower-level disability people are getting extraordinary packages.</para>
<para>All the philanthropic groups that used to run on a block grant have now had all their easy cases taken by these new pop-up disability service companies, which get all the low-hanging cases that are easy to provide and they get paid a motza. I've had a nurse leave nursing—an RN—because she can make $130,000, and she doesn't do night duty or weekend duty. I've had builders who've started an NDIS company. I've had teachers who've gone into NDIS companies. It's a gold rush, and the poor disability sufferers aren't getting the benefit. We really have to address this.</para>
<para>That's one of the reasons why we've got inflation in this country, and we wonder why we can't get people to work in hospitality and in other skilled and semi-skilled cases. It's because a lot of them think, 'Hey, why would I do that really hard job when I can get paid $12 more?' I've had nursing homes in my electorate with newly built wards for dementia, and they can't open them because their nursing staff ratios can't be filled. And they can't get regular assistance in nursing. That's because—guess what?—they can get $14 or $12 more working in the NDIS during business hours. I had an abattoir that brought workers over from the Pacific; within two months a group of 20 islanders had virtually vanished from the abattoir. The owner of the abattoir rang me up and said, 'We went through hell and high water to get these people in to keep our abattoir working and, I didn't know where they've gone.' They had gone to work in disability, because they could sleep overnight in disability housing for a significant amount more money than working in the job that they'd been brought into the country to work in.</para>
<para>Unless we really address inflation, these tax cuts will go nowhere. It's a sweet spot for a year or two, but we really need to get back and address the bracket-creep thing, because it's a big issue. It was so simple; there's no crime in working hard and paying more tax— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's good news, Deputy Speaker Chester, because on 1 July this year, 13.6 million Australians are going to get a tax cut. Every Australian worker, every Australian taxpayer, will get a tax cut—and the vast majority of them are going to get a bigger tax cut than they would have under this miserable mob over there. I've just listened to the member for Lyne talk for about 15 minutes, complaining that workers in his electorate are getting paid too much. He's complaining that, somehow, the only people who have aspiration in this country are people who earn more than $140,000 a year. And he was complaining that workers who look after people with disabilities and work in the care sector are getting paid too much. He'd like to see their wages reduced.</para>
<para>I can understand that that's the position of the member for Lyne, because that's the position of the coalition. The Labor government has a very different view.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It has a very different view, as the member for Macarthur reminds me. In speaking in favour of these tax cuts in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, I'll also speak against the amendment which was moved by the member for Hume.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Macarthur reminds me that the reason we're able to do this is because we've been managing the economy in a responsible fashion. For nine long years, the coalition promised to introduce a balanced budget. They had T-shirts and coffee cups printed promoting a balanced budget, but they never delivered one. Well, we've delivered one, and I can tell the House that the budget is in very, very good shape at the moment. And because it's in very good shape, we're able to deliver a better tax package and deliver better results for the overwhelming majority of Australians.</para>
<para>When it comes to managing the budget, we're also retiring debt. And for the love of all things sacred, haven't we needed to do that? Because when we came into government, we succeeded a government that gave us the most debt and the biggest deficit—in fact, not just the biggest deficit, the biggest two deficits—in our nation's history, and record debt approaching $1 trillion. I can inform the House that, contrary to the assertions made in the amendment moved by the member for Hume, we're retiring debt, and that we're retiring debt at a record rate: over 80 per cent of the new revenue that came through in the first two budgets delivered under the Albanese government has gone not into new spending but into retiring debt and paying down the debt of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott governments. Wages are growing. That offends the member for Lyne, as it offends the member for Hume and as it offends most of the members on the other side. But it doesn't offend us, because it's a deliberate strategy to get wages moving again. That's in contrast to those opposite, where the deliberate strategy—the design feature—of their economic plan was to suppress wages. They are moving again, and I, for one, am very pleased about that because there are two sides to the cost-of-living equation. They are: How much money have you got in your pocket? And how much have you got to expend on groceries, rent, mortgage, fuel and other things? Wages moving again is actually a good story. We're delighted that under our workplace relations reform we're making it easier for workers to bargain for a wage increase with their employer, enhancing productivity, but also ensuring that the lowest-paid workers in the country have got an award wage rise. It's a very good thing.</para>
<para>I'm surprised that the member for Lyne, like other members of the National Party, is opposed to it. The National Party represent the poorest electorates in the country, where they have the largest proportion of workers reliant on minimum award wages. It's extraordinary that a person could be elected to parliament but not go in to bat for the interests of the people that they represent.</para>
<para>Right across the board we're balancing the budget, retiring debt, getting wages moving again and ensuring that we're creating jobs. We want to ensure that, through our responsible budget management, we're able to bring those people up who are struggling and who need the support of the government. But the best thing that we can do as a government is ensure that we're creating the economic conditions to grow employment. I can tell you that there have been more jobs created under the first two years of the Albanese government than under any government in postwar history. It really is a tremendous record.</para>
<para>I said at the outset that 13.6 million people will get a tax cut. That's 13.6 million taxpayers. Whether you're in the highest tax bracket or the lowest tax bracket, you're going to get a tax cut. About 11.5 million Australians will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under those opposite. For the life of me, I can't see why they are so angry about what we're proposing to do. Average income earners will now be getting a tax cut of $29 a week.</para>
<para>I did see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition waving around a fistful of lobsters, saying that this was miserly. I've got to say that there's a touch of snobbery in that. I know that, in my electorate, in the member for Macarthur's electorate and in so many other electorates that we represent, if you put an extra $20 per week, let alone an extra $29 a week, in somebody's pocket—and that's real money—it makes a difference. I wouldn't be scornful of that and saying that it's not even worth it, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did. She had some quite excited things to say about our plan. I don't know whether it's still the position of the coalition, but she informed all Australians, when we announced our plans, that if they won government they'd roll it back, that they'd reverse those changes. Maybe it is their plan; maybe it isn't. It's up to the member for Farrer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to clarify the coalition's position on that.</para>
<para>It didn't take me too long to form a position on it. When I look at the impact it has on my own electorate, around 70,000 people in the electorate of Whitlam will receive a tax cut. The national average—and this is a good story—is that around 84½ to 85 per cent of Australian taxpayers are going to be better off under our plan. But in my own electorate 87 per cent of taxpayers will be better off.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Freelander</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ninety per cent in mine.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's 90 per cent in the member for Macarthur's electorate. That's extraordinary. I don't know if the figures work out about the same in your electorate as in mine, but in excess of $1,500 per annum will be the average tax cut for people that I represent in this parliament. I'm very pleased to be doing that. Of course, it's not game over. There's much more to be done in that area as well. It comes on top of the work that we've done around energy bill relief. It's extraordinary.</para>
<para>I saw the member for Hume, the bloke who wants to be Treasurer of this country, on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> on Sunday. That interview was more like a game of touch footy than a game of tackle. Even under those conditions the member for Hume said that if he were ever the Treasurer of the country his mission would be reducing cost-of-living pressures on Australians. Well, that struck me. I could have fallen off my beanbag at the time—and that takes a bit of doing! When he's had the opportunity over the last 18 months—just checking to see that you're awake!—to vote in favour of cost-of-living relief, he's done the opposite. He voted against energy bill relief. When he had the opportunity to deliver cheaper medicines for Australia, he voted against that, and he's part of a party which is promising to roll that back as well. So, yes, newsflash: under a government led by Peter Dutton, we'll have higher electricity bills, more expensive medicines and the potential of rolling back the tax cuts that we're debating in the House tonight. Fee-free TAFE, easier access to doctors, cheaper child care—all of these things are 100 per cent focused on the needs of middle Australians.</para>
<para>There are a couple of things I've got to take up. I've listened to the talking points in the contributions of members opposite. If all you knew about Australia, Australians and the Australian workforce was what you heard from coalition MPs, you could be forgiven for thinking that the only people in Australia with aspirations to get ahead are those who earn $140,000, $150,000 or more. I have to say that's deeply offensive to every nurse, schoolteacher, brickie, sparky and chippie. To the vast majority—84 or 85 per cent—of Australians who earn less than that, that's deeply offensive. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to get ahead. Each and every one of those people has aspirations to look after their families and provide a better life for them. For members of the coalition to suggest that the only people who have aspirations are people on big salaries is deeply offensive, and it rubs against the grain of most Australians.</para>
<para>The second furphy I want to take on is the issue of bracket creep. Again, those opposite seem to have this idea in mind that the only people in Australia who are susceptible to the impact of bracket creep are those who are earning over $150,000 a year. What they seem to forget is that there are three tax brackets below that of those earning $150,000. In fact, if you analyse the impact of bracket creep on low- and middle-income earners, you see that they are the ones who are hit the hardest. What our tax package does is provide the most relief to the people who are hit the hardest by bracket creep, and it does so through these measures, which will come into place from 1 July. Far from the baloney that we've heard from the members opposite—and I suspect we'll hear a bit more in a tick—it's just not true that the only people in Australia impacted by bracket creep are those earning over $150,000 a year.</para>
<para>Of course, there is one group of Australians who are overwhelmingly impacted by bracket creep and overwhelmingly advantaged by the package that will come into effect from 1 July: we call them women. They are overwhelmingly impacted and they will overwhelmingly benefit from the bracket creep relief that is provided in this package, including reducing the 19 per cent bracket to 16 per cent.</para>
<para>The other confounded nonsense that is the basis of this ridiculous argument is that it assumes that no Australian government for the next 10 years will do anything about bracket creep. That's the nonsense: no Australian government will do anything about bracket creep for the next 10 years. Of course, that hasn't been true for the last 10 years, and it won't be true for the next 10 years. But this is the sort of confected nonsense that you're left with when there is no rhyme or reason, no substance or rational argument, that you can bring to the debate, when all you can rely upon is confected nonsense and imaginary assumptions.</para>
<para>It's better for women, better for middle Australia, better for aspiration and more effective in dealing with the bracket creep that is occurring in the here and now. We acknowledged that we had to do something for low- and middle-income earners because, under us, wages are growing. Bracket creep wasn't a problem under those opposite, because wages weren't growing under them. Wages are growing under us, and that's a good thing. We want to see wage growth and productivity growth, and we want to ensure that Australians get a slice of the benefits that come with living in such a wonderful country.</para>
<para>People might be wondering, and I know that there are people in the House who are wondering how is this going down in my electorate. I'm happy to report to the House that it's going incredibly well. Rebecca from Burrawang contacted me to say: 'Just to let you know that I totally support the proposed changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. Fairer and sensible.' Kristin from Kanahooka said: 'We are so pleased that the stage 3 tax cuts are now to look after those in middle to lower ranges of income. It was the right thing to do as people struggle with increasing costs of living.' Rachel from Shellharbour said: 'I, and I think many others, understand why this decision was necessary. It's important for a government to remain nimble, to be the adults in the room and adapt to unforeseen circumstances they find themselves in and do what's best for the majority of people.' I couldn't have put it better than Rachel from Shellharbour. Barry from Bowral said, 'I fully endorse the proposed changes to these stage 3 tax cuts.' And Alan from Bowral said, with a similar sentiment, 'Congratulations to your government.' The majority—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My mother is looking down upon us from another place, but I'm sure she'd be very excited about what we're doing here as well! What I can say is this: quite simply, this has been endorsed by the majority of Australians. That's endorsed not only by the majority of Australians who vote Labor, or Liberal or in accordance with no particular party but endorsed and supported by the majority of Australians—which is why it should be endorsed by the majority of this House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is an important piece of legislation to speak on, and there are two fundamental questions that need to be asked when we speak on this legislation. I noticed that those opposite are focusing on one—the tax cuts and the changes, and I will get to those. They're conveniently ignoring the other question that the Australian people are asking, and that goes to trust and integrity: why has the Prime Minister broken his word yet again on a significant commitment that he made over 100 times? We just heard the assistant Treasurer talk about this package and how wonderful it is. It raises the question: if it was so wonderful, why didn't they take it to the last election? Or the one before that? And why did the Prime Minister promise 100 times not to change it and not to break his word? 'My word is my bond.' That's what we will look at.</para>
<para>I have to admit that I don't know the Prime Minister that well, I haven't had the opportunity to spend time talking to him in the House. But I do know someone who knows him quite well: the former <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> editor, now Labor media adviser, Katharine Murphy. She knows the Prime Minister very well, as we found out in the last few weeks. How did she describe this Prime Minister in late 2022? This is a direct quote from the Labor media adviser, Katharine Murphy, when she was the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> editor:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Power is his natural habitat, and he's spent a lifetime studying all its forms, covert and overt. In order of preference, Albanese is fascinated by power, politics, parliament, policy and process.</para></quote>
<para>In that couple of sentences, she has outlined why this decision was made. It was about power and it was about politics. It was about a prime minister who was losing the support of his backbench because he has been distracted for the last 18 months and hasn't been addressing the cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>And this is about the politics of it for this Prime Minister. Let's think back to the words of the ALP national secretary, Paul Erickson, in their party room, which someone was nice enough to leak out to us and we were able to see it in the media. I quote from Paul Erickson, and it's really important that we listen to his words: ' You must look like you're responding, first and foremost.' That was about the cost of living. He said, 'You must "look like"'. It was not, 'You must solve this problem,' it was, 'You must look like you are responding.' That's what we're seeing today, and in question time, from all of those opposite. They're talking about what they're looking like and what they're doing. We heard from many of those opposite before Christmas. Here is a quote from an MP on the Labor backbench who wasn't prepared to put their name to it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">People just don't see us doing anything on issues for them.</para></quote>
<para>There was a long list. The member for Bennelong, the member for Hunter, the member for Lyons and the member for Macarthur all spoke out publicly about this government being distracted and not focused on the cost of living post the Voice referendum. There were many other unnamed backbenchers that were making the same noises. That's what this is about. This Prime Minister broke his word to the Australian people. The question comes, and many in my community have asked me: 'I'm going to benefit. I'm happy. I need every dollar I can get, given everything is going up and up, but how do I trust this Prime Minister? What's he going to break his promise on next?'</para>
<para>But it's worse than that. It's worse than the fact that he broke his promise. You'd think it couldn't be, but it is. This is classic Labor politics. It's all about the headline. It's all about the spin. It's about the song and dance of what they're delivering. But let's understand what is being delivered by this government when it comes to cost-of-living relief. There is not an extra dollar for the Australian people today or all of February, March, April, May or June. The Australian people have to wait until 1 July to see any kind of relief from this government. When 1 July comes, what relief do they see from this government? Let's be clear: every dollar they can get is crucial, because this incompetent government that continues to make the wrong decisions is driving prices up for all Australians. They get $15 a week in five months. In the last week in my community, petrol was at $2.19 a litre, so $15 a week gets you seven litres of petrol. We don't have great public transport. We're out of the outer suburbs. You've got to drive everywhere. It doesn't get you very far. If it gets you from one side of the electorate to the other, you're very lucky.</para>
<para>It's quite interesting that last week the Treasurer talked about 'a day late and a dollar short'. I couldn't help but laugh, because last weekend that's exactly how someone in my community described this measure from this government. They're a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the cost of living. They've said 'cost of living' and 'middle Australia' more in the last week and a day in this House than they have in the 18 months before that, because they weren't focused on it. The Prime Minister himself at the Press Club admitted that circumstances have changed because his policies are failing. It is the incompetence of this government that is driving the cost of living up.</para>
<para>Not only are they making decisions that are driving energy up, inflation up and groceries up; they're also doing the old trick of taking with one hand and giving back with the other. In July and August of last year, many Australians were shocked, low- and middle-income earners in particular, when they got their tax return back. They were expecting about $1,500 or $1,600, but it wasn't there. That was because this government made a decision to let the low- and middle-income offset lapse. They took that money away from low- and middle-income Australians—$1,500 last year from 1 July—when Australians needed it. And they're now asking the Australian people to be grateful for the $804, the $15 a week, they're giving back after taking that $1,500. But the Australian people know how tough it is, that they need support, and that this government has abandoned them.</para>
<para>The CPI has increased by almost 10 per cent. If you're on the average salary, of $85,000, your purchasing power since Labor has come to government has dropped by $7,600, and this government says, 'Be thankful for $15 a week in five months time.' Food's gone up by more than nine per cent. Housing's gone up by over 12 per cent. Electricity has gone up by 23 per cent. Gas has gone up by 29 per cent. If you've got a home loan and a mortgage, you've experienced 12 interest rate rises under this government. Rents are at their highest since 2009. But this Prime Minister and this government are saying: 'Be thankful for $15 a week in five months time. Be thankful for that.'</para>
<para>But let's be clear: all of these increases are happening because we've got a weak Prime Minister who's not across the detail and is making decision after decision that is making it harder for the Australian public. He admitted that himself at the Press Club quite a few weeks ago. He's been distracted, and the Australian people are paying for it. As the Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock, said in November last year:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the remaining inflation challenge we are dealing with is increasingly homegrown and demand driven.</para></quote>
<para>She is also reported as indicating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While labour costs are a big part of the increase, huge increases in the cost of energy, rent, and insurance are all keeping inflation higher for longer. In the September inflation report, energy … prices increased more than 12% year-on-year and insurance premia increased more than 8% year-on-year.</para></quote>
<para>But be thankful for your $15-a-week increase in five months time. I don't think you could be more out of touch than this Prime Minister and this government.</para>
<para>It's easy to talk about the numbers and the statistics, but I want to spend a moment to share some of the stories from my community. From a constituent in Healesville: 'I just received my car insurance renewal, with an annual increase from $971 to $1,690. These increases are not random. My circle of friends are all complaining of general increases of 60, 70, 80 per cent. Outrageous in these tough times.' From a constituent in the Upper Yarra, who recently turned 18: 'The cost-of-living crisis is getting far too out of hand, and Australians need some relief. This is my first year working. I work for $21.50 an hour in a factory far, far away from my home. My family has always struggled financially, but all of us receive an income. And, despite that, money still doesn't work out. I'm tired of worrying about this stuff. It's an extra burden when I'm meant to be in the funnest stage of my life. And the same goes for all the other kids my age in the Yarra Valley.' That's what we need. We need decisions that will actually address this cost-of-living crisis. The $15 a week in five months time is absolutely better than nothing, because who knows how expensive it will be to live in Australia in another five months under this government?</para>
<para>We talk about trust—and we've already seen the Prime Minister break his word. That leads to the other big question the Australian people have: are they prepared, at the next election, to write a blank cheque to this Prime Minister for higher taxes? That's what a vote for Anthony Albanese and the Labor government at the next election would mean. You'd be giving him a blank cheque for higher taxes, because he's shown that he's prepared to break his word if circumstances change. This will embolden him to do it again. Once you lie once, it's so much easier to do it again—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once you mislead the public once—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>it's easier to mislead them again and again. That's the question: what's next—negative gearing? We've heard, 'We've got no plans at this stage.' We've heard that script before. Will it be capital gains? 'There are no plans for capital gains.'</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm nervous about this one, Member for Deakin. What about the family home? I stood in this spot last year in question time and asked the Prime Minister to rule out tax changes on the family home. It was worse than, 'No plans'. He didn't rule it out. He had three minutes to rule it out, to say, 'No, no plans,' and mislead the Australian people again. He wasn't prepared to do that. So, if he wouldn't even mislead us on the family home in question time, what's next? Franking credits? Superannuation? He's already broken his promise with the superannuation changes last year. Is there a death tax coming? Is there a tax on retirement? We don't know, but we know there are more taxes coming, because this government has to find money for its tax-and-spend agenda.</para>
<para>We've already seen the NDIS continue to go up and up, and the minister has said publicly that the reductions that they're looking for are a guide, a recommendation, and that it doesn't matter if we don't get to those. I know the Treasurer would agree with him, but I'm sure they can find some taxes to cover those increased expenses.</para>
<para>My community knows that this isn't the first and it won't be the last broken promise from this Prime Minister. When he was the shadow minister for infrastructure in 2019, he committed to a 10-year program to seal 150 kilometres of dirt road in my community. That program had bipartisan support for a 10-year program, and, in the first four years of that program, funded by the coalition, it was being delivered on time and on budget. It was saving lives. It was making it easier for residents, for businesses, for school students and for communities, getting rid of the days of the dust and the potholes in our community.</para>
<para>But this Prime Minister broke that promise as well. He pulled that funding. He pulled $100 million from my community to seal those roads so he could put it into Suburban Rail Loop, his own passion project with the then premier Daniel Andrews. It is a disgrace that he broke his promise on the tax cuts and that he's ripped that money out of my community.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The tax cuts delivered under this treasury laws amendment will provide welcome relief for Australians, particularly those with a mortgage, who have faced successive interest rate increases from the independent Reserve Bank. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 provides a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer from 1 July this year. The government has listened, it has consulted and it has acted on behalf of the Australian people. We've heard the message about the struggles of Australian households to deal with cost-of-living pressure.</para>
<para>Most importantly, we haven't sat on our heels and done nothing about it. We've acted. We acted to introduce and to reform the previous government's stage 3 tax cuts and introduce Labor's own tax reform package that will see 13½ million Australians better off, with a tax cut from 1 July. Under Labor's tax plan, three million more Australians will receive a tax cut this year than under the previous government's plan. One hundred per cent of taxpayers get a tax cut compared to 84 per cent under the previous government's stage 3 tax cuts. Ninety per cent of women, or 5.8 million women, across the country will receive a bigger tax cut under this government's plan compared to the previous. Ninety-seven per cent of childcare workers, disability workers and aged-care workers will be better off. Ninety-six per cent of nurses will be better off under Labor's plan compared to the coalition's and 98 per cent of teachers will be better off because of our plan that's being put in place with this bill.</para>
<para>That is a remarkable difference for the people that are at the core of the Australian workforce, from whom we've heard many stories and many anecdotes about the struggles that essential workers have had to make ends meet and about the fact that many schools, emergency services and childcare and disability providers can't find workers within their communities because those workers simply can't afford to live within those communities anymore due to the cost of living. Well, this government has heard that message, and we've acted. We've acted to put in place these tax cuts from 1 July.</para>
<para>This legislation will see, from 1 July, the tax bracket from $18,200 to $45,000, the 19 per cent rate, reduce to 16 per cent; the $45,000 to $135,000 bracket, the 32½ per cent tax rate, reduce to 30 per cent; the 37 per cent rate threshold will increase from $120,000 per annum to $135,000 per annum; and the 45 per cent rate threshold will increase from $180,000 to $190,000 per annum. We're also increasing the Medicare low-income threshold to provide more relief for those low-income Australians from the payment under the Medicare levy. The effect of this bill and of Labor's plan for Australians is predominantly to ease cost-of-living pressures and to provide that much-needed relief in people's pay packets so that they can make ends meet. We're returning bracket creep—and this is very important—and we're reducing the impact of inflation on Australians' incomes, and the effect that that has on the amount of tax they pay each year, by increasing those thresholds and reducing the rates of payment under those thresholds.</para>
<para>Most importantly, in an environment where the government's priority has been getting inflation, or the CPI, down, the advice of the treasury department is that Labor's proposal will not have a material effect on increasing inflation. That is crucially important. There is no point in providing Australian households with additional money if there is going to be a correlated increase in inflation that forces the Reserve Bank to leave interest rates higher for longer. Thankfully, the effect of these tax cuts through this legislation should not be inflationary and will not have a detrimental effect on the CPI into the future, and we are seeing that in the statistics that are produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics around the CPI. We welcome the recent reduction to 4.1 per cent of the rate of CPI on an annual basis. We know we're not out of the woods and that there is more work to do, but, thanks to this government's economic plan and economic policies, the cost of living and inflation is headed in the right direction—and that is down. That's welcome relief for Australians.</para>
<para>This comes with the other cost-of-living measures that have been implemented by the Albanese government to assist Australians during this difficult period of high inflation in the wake of the COVID pandemic, the supply chain crunches that we've seen throughout the country and the war in Ukraine. They've all had an effect on markets and inflation throughout the world, and Australia has not been immune. Almost two years ago now, when the Albanese government was elected, we recalled parliament during the Christmas recess and got on with the process of providing cost-of-living relief. We put caps on electricity prices. Importantly, in the recent CPI data, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recognised that the cost of household electricity would have been much greater had the government's price caps not been in place. That was a pure example from the independent Australian Bureau of Statistics of the government's policy of price caps working to make sure that cost increases were reduced.</para>
<para>We've introduced energy rebates, means tested for low- to middle-income households, to ensure that they can continue to keep the lights on and heat themselves during the winter, during the difficult period when wholesale electricity prices were increasing. Thanks to those policies, those wholesale prices are once again coming down and will start to flow into retail prices towards the middle of this year.</para>
<para>We've provided other relief through the healthcare system. Our cheaper medicines policy ensured that the co-payment was reduced, and 60-day dispensing ensured that people could receive a two-month supply of certain medications without having to go back to the GP. On many occasions people were having to pay a co-payment to receive their prescription. We've invested massively in Medicare, once again, to increase the rates of bulk-billing for seniors and juniors throughout the country by tripling the bulk-billing incentive, and it's paying dividends. In the most recent data published by the department of health, the rates of bulk-billing in Australia have increased by two per cent, including in the electorate of Kingsford Smith. Our cheaper childcare policy, which increases the childcare subsidy, and other policies associated with cost-of-living relief have begun to pay dividends. They are reducing the effect on household budgets and providing much-needed cost-of-living relief. But we know that there is more work to do, that we are not out of the woods.</para>
<para>When it comes to this plan, we know that people in Kingsford Smith will be much better off. A nurse working at the Prince of Wales Hospital will be much better off under Labor's plan. A shop assistant working at Mascot will be much better off under Labor's plan. A teacher working at a public school in Kensington will be much better off under Labor's plan. Those essential workers will get bigger tax cuts because of Labor's plan.</para>
<para>It's not the only reform that we're undertaking in the area of tax. This government has probably done more tax reform than any first-term government since the 1980s and the Hawke government. It's a substantial record of work that we've undertaken. Those other reforms include reform of the petroleum resource rent tax. The government wants to make sure that more Australians get the benefit of a fair return on the exploitation of resources that are owned by all Australians. The reforms to the PRRT introduce a fairer and more efficient system by introducing a cap on PRRT deductions that corporations can claim and strengthening the anti-tax-avoidance measures for the offshore resources sector.</para>
<para>We are establishing a scheme that ensures dignity in retirement is restored to the superannuation system in this country. By reducing the tax concessions for super funds with very large balances, we're making sure the system is fairer. From 1 July 2025, a 30 per cent concessional tax rate will be applied to future earnings on balances above $3 million. It affects a very small proportion of the population but ensures that superannuation meets the purpose for which it was established: to provide dignity in retirement for Australian workers, not to become a vehicle for wealth transfer and the avoidance of taxation on income.</para>
<para>There is also our multinational tax integrity package. There is nothing more frustrating for Australian workers than seeing in their payslip almost half of their hard-earned disappear to the ATO every week or fortnight and, at the same time, seeing multinational corporations in Australia, operating on these shores, use tricky accounting means to transfer income to other jurisdictions and avoid paying any tax here in Australia. There is nothing more frustrating for Australian workers than seeing those large multinational corporations transfer profits overseas and avoid tax here in Australia. The government have listened to that frustration and we have acted by changing the thin capitalisation rules; denying deductions for payments made to related parties in relation to intangible assets; introducing reporting requirements so Australians have a right to know how much multinational corporations operating in Australia pay in tax on our shores; and introducing greater integrity and transparency to our taxation system, in the process providing a much fairer system that Australians can have confidence in.</para>
<para>This government is undertaking substantial tax reform to ensure that our tax system is fairer and more efficient and, most importantly, encourages aspiration. The best way to encourage aspiration is to ensure that those hardworking Australians on low-to-middle incomes, who hope to earn bigger incomes into the future, to educate themselves and to climb that scale and climb the ladder in their workplace, get the fair tax cuts they deserve, rather than the minuscule tax cuts they would have received under the previous government's plan. That is what Labor's tax plan does. It provides tax cuts for all Australians that are much fairer and ensures that Australians get the much-needed relief they need to deal with cost-of-living pressures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment as circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(1) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy half the total value of the tax cuts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax free threshold in this cost of living crisis".</para></quote>
<para>Scott Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts would have delivered $9,000 to those earning over $200,000 and literally nothing to those earning $45,000 or less. The government's changes to stage 3 are an improvement, but they could go a lot further.</para>
<para>Let's not forget just how much this will cost this country. The projection is $313 billion over a decade. These cuts are due to come into effect in July 2024. They are still the most expensive and most inequitable tax cuts in Australia's history. If they were listed as expenditure, they would be one of the most expensive programs listed in the budget. They're still skewed towards higher income earners: a huge amount of money in this is still going to the people at very top. The wealthiest 20 per cent of society will get 50 per cent of the tax cuts. The poorest 20 per cent of society will get 0.4 per cent of the tax cuts. Even middle-income earners are getting short-changed, with politicians, CEOs and billionaires getting three times more in tax cuts than the average worker.</para>
<para>The Greens are the only ones in parliament to have consistently opposed the stage 3 tax cuts all the way through. I'm sure the Treasurer can attest just how many times I've asked him a question in question time about changing or abolishing the stage 3 tax cuts. We were unequivocal that this was tremendously bad public policy that would turbocharge inequality and widen the gender pay gap.</para>
<para>While the government cheers on these revised tax cuts—and they are an improvement—if we step back and look at them, they are still remarkably unfair and will result in poor public services, by blowing an incredibly huge hole in the budget. People who need aged-care services or disability services and those who rely on the public health system or the public school system are the biggest losers from these cuts.</para>
<para>It's high time we looked at tax reform in this country as a whole. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, shows clearly that we undercollect taxes on wealth and pollution and overly rely on personal income tax. Our so-called tax debates have become so dishonest because they're driven by business leaders and corporate lobbyists—people who brag about the destruction of carbon taxes and fossil fuel taxes to the detriment of Australia's social services. These lobby groups have far too much influence in parliament, writing laws for themselves and having the major parties wave them on through.</para>
<para>Basic economics says we should tax things we want less of and subsidise things we want more of. But, here in Australia, we seem to do it the other way around. We are spending over $11 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies, and we collect more revenue from HECS than we do from the petroleum resource rent tax. Students pay a fortune to study so the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. All of us pay a fortune to go to the dentist so that the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. Bulk-billing rates have collapsed so that the government can prop up the fossil fuel industry. This is about choices. If we want to transition away from coal and gas, we need to stop subsidising them and put that money into making people's lives easier. It's not complicated; it's just inconvenient for BHP and Santos.</para>
<para>Improving the stage 3 tax cuts is a start. We need to reduce inequality—inequality that has been rampantly increasing in Australia. If we're serious about having a fair society, about having a fair economy, about improving the lives of all Australians, about tackling climate change and about fixing the housing and cost-of-living crises, then it is time to admit that we can't have world-class services if we do not have a world-class tax system. It's the dishonest promise of countless politicians: getting Scandinavian social services at American tax rates.</para>
<para>Corporate superprofits are going completely unchecked, all while they dodge taxes and leave it to Australian workers to pick up the tab. Here are some examples: Qantas, $9.3 billion of income, no tax paid; casino giants Crown and the Star Entertainment Group, $2.25 billion and $1.5 billion in income respectively, no tax paid; Singapore Telecommunications, parent company of Optus, $8 billion of income, no tax paid. Meanwhile, just one nurse or teacher is paying more than all of these companies combined. Make it make sense.</para>
<para>As we face the impacts of climate change, it is only going to get harder to hold the economy and our society on a steady course. One of the major variables in how we shape our economy is how we choose to collect and spend tax revenue. It is something the people should have control over. Legislation should not be written of, by and for giant corporations.</para>
<para>A simple, efficient solution would be to collect more tax from the petroleum resource rent tax. The PRRT was introduced in 1987 and is supposed to operate as a means of collecting a fair share of petroleum profits on behalf of the Australian people. The PRRT is a tax on superprofits, sometimes called resource rents, made by multinational oil and gas companies operating in Australia. That's what it's designed to do, but, in reality, the PRRT has such extensive loopholes that oil and gas producers are able to minimise the tax or avoid paying it entirely. Australians are missing out on a fair share of revenue, while fossil fuel companies are making record profits and worsening the climate crisis. Proposed changes to the PRRT, which are supposedly designed to limit the extent to which gas and oil companies can reduce their liabilities, are so incremental that they were actually welcomed with open arms by the fossil fuel industry. The government seems hell-bent on tinkering around the edges of genuine problems rather than dealing with them in a meaningful way, for fear of antagonising donors.</para>
<para>Australia is the world's third-largest fuel exporter. We are behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia. We export less gas than the likes of Qatar, and they receive over 20 times the amount of tax revenue that we do. Or take Norway, which like us is a relatively small but developed economy with substantial natural resource extraction. In recent years, Australia's and Norway's oil and gas industries have generated similar amounts of revenue, but Norway's citizens have gotten significantly more out of it than we have. Norway's Ministry of Finance projected that tax revenue from oil and gas was to be a staggering A$127 billion in 2023 alone, or around A$23,500 per Norwegian citizen. Research from the Australia Institute shows that increasing the PRRT would raise billions of dollars in revenue that could be spent on essential public services and dealing with the cost of living and the impacts of climate crisis, which in itself is driven by Australia's massive fossil fuel export industry. Increasing the PRRT is necessary to ensure that Australian people get a real share of the windfall profits from our own natural resources.</para>
<para>Scrapping fossil fuel subsidies, actually taxing the fossil fuel industry fairly and closing loopholes that let so many wealthy individuals and companies avoid tax will strengthen our economy and our society. This is about making the right decision for everyone. Rather than having to imagine what we could achieve, we could just do it. Investing in our essential services will improve both our quality of life and our productivity. We could invest in public housing and public transport, driving down the cost of living. We could invest in fully free child care, driving far more people into the workforce than any tax cut could ever hope to. We could lift the pension and JobSeeker payments. The list goes on with what could be funded by fixing the PRRT, even with the $318 billion price tag of these stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
<para>Dental into Medicare, wiping student debt, making uni and TAFE free, and creating a universal childcare system—these are all possible if we start having a realistic conversation about our tax system. We live in a country where a nurse or teacher pays more in taxes than a billion-dollar multinational company. This is beyond a joke, and it's an insult. Everyday people are struggling to make ends meet, and more people than ever are living pay to pay. This is about choices. On one hand, the choice is to cut our people's health and education, their futures and a sustainable planet for the sole purpose of propping up billion-dollar companies and ensuring that one in three corporations in this country never have to pay a cent in taxes. On the other, we could look at the alternatives that already exist: making these giant corporations and the fossil fuel industry pay their fair share so that we can afford to have these nice things again. There is nothing impossible about that choice. Politicians just have to decide if they want to put people or corporations first.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Watson-Brown</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and what our new tax cuts will mean for the people that I represent in this place, the people of Cowan.</para>
<para>I may be biased, as I'm sure everybody here is biased towards their own community, but Cowan is a prime example of an electorate that best represents the people of Australia. The people of Cowan are hardworking; they go to work every day to provide for their families and for their loved ones, and many of them have come from around the world for a better future and to call Australia home. They are indeed aspirational Australians. I've heard that word 'aspirational' spoken a lot during this debate and I have listened carefully as those opposite described what 'aspiration' is. The member for Bowman, for example, described 'aspiration' and talked about aspiration in terms of people aspiring to buy an investment property. Well, let me tell the House a little bit about aspiration.</para>
<para>Aspiration is the migrant daughter of a bus driver, born in a country where she could only ever hope to be the daughter of a bus driver, standing in this place and delivering a speech as a minister in the federal government. But it's also the young man I met while doorknocking who had just finished school and wasn't quite sure what he wanted to do with his life and who didn't realise he could actually study a degree in counterterrorism at Edith Cowan University until I explained to him that I actually wrote the course and that it was a good option for him. Now, three years later, he is aspiring to work in the field of counterterrorism and law enforcement. Aspiration is also the single mum in casual work who aspires to save enough money to fix that leaky roof. It's the young couple expecting their first child and budgeting for the cost of early childhood education so that they can both return to work and manage the cost of living. It's the early childhood education and care worker, it's the nurse, it's the police officer and it's the tradie, all of whom will get a tax cut under our better way—under our Labor tax reforms.</para>
<para>Like all the members here, I don't claim to be anything special when I say that I go out there and listen to my constituents. I know that's something that each and every one of us do; we undertake those activities as part of the privilege of being representatives of our communities in this place. I listen to my constituents when I meet them regularly at my meet-your-member events, or when I have 'open offices' or community events, or even when I'm just walking through my local shopping centre. I'm sure many in this place will be very familiar with the fact that it takes three hours to buy a bottle of milk at your local shopping centre or when visiting your local café! One thing I often hear from them is how difficult it is with the cost-of-living pressures right now. But I must also say that since being elected into this place in 2016, I have often stood in my seat and spoken about the pressures on people in some of the poorer suburbs in my electorate and how that's impacting them.</para>
<para>There's absolutely no denying that household budgets are under the pump. There's a genuine sense of stress and anxiety every time people look at the bills or line up at the checkout counter. Just go to your local shops, stand back and observe. I don't normally buy bread, but the last time I was there I was buying a loaf of bread for my brother-in-law—who only eats white bread!—and I noticed people looking into their purses and their wallets, counting the coins to be able to afford a loaf of bread.</para>
<para>It's pretty tough out there, and I know from listening to members on all sides that everyone is acutely aware of just how tough the people that they represent are doing it. But the difference is that we're doing something about it. We went to the election with a promise to deliver cost-of-living relief, and the Albanese government is doing exactly that. From tripling the bulk-billing incentive and cutting the cost of prescription medicines to providing energy bill relief and making early childhood education and care more affordable—in fact, 11 per cent more affordable than it was before we came to office—at every turn we're doing everything that we can to deliver that cost-of-living relief to the people of Australia.</para>
<para>At my meet your member events, people have told me that we need to do more for taxpayers, and this message has been echoed very strongly in communities across the country. It's crystal clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut and, as good governments do, we've listened. It's pretty despairing to hear those opposite rabbit on about broken promises, but what they cannot deny, what they cannot come in here and say, is that those tax cuts aren't a better way, aren't delivering cost-of-living relief for the people that they represent and aren't going to mean more money in the pockets of the people they represent. Listen carefully to what they say, because not a single one of them can come in here and deny that fact.</para>
<para>Good government isn't about shying away from tough decisions. It isn't about staying the course just to look after your own political interests when there is a better way ahead of you. It's about doing the right thing for the right reasons and, importantly, at the right time. It's about putting people ahead of politics, and that is exactly what we're doing.</para>
<para>From 1 July, we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut, which will deliver more help for those working families in Cowan and every electorate represented here and will put cash back into people's pockets at a time when they need it most. It's a huge thing for the people of Cowan because we are set to be the biggest beneficiaries of Labor's tax cuts in Western Australia. There are about 83,000 taxpayers in Cowan, and they're now going to get an average tax cut of $1,451. That means that that single mum can fix that leaky roof. It means that that young couple preparing to have a baby can put something aside for when their baby is born. It means that that young man who undertook studies and aspires to work in law enforcement and counterterrorism can buy the books that he needs to complete his final year at university.</para>
<para>We're already getting extremely positive feedback from across my community in Cowan. Constituents are ringing my office and telling us what that extra $1,450 means to them. They can pay their insurance bill, fill up their car, put food on the table and pay their mortgage. They're also telling us that they're proud that the Prime Minister and this government is sticking up for people in need rather than sticking to a tax policy from five years ago.</para>
<para>What makes me even more incredibly proud is what these tax cuts will mean for women across the country. It doesn't need to be said that women work hard right across Australia, and we want to ensure that they also get to keep more of their hard-earned money. Our tax plan will see Australian women taxpayers receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July. That's an extra $707, on average, compared to the previous government's plan.</para>
<para>Under our plan, huge numbers of early childhood educators, disability workers and aged-care workers will also benefit from our tax cuts. It isn't circumstantial. It's not just by accident that this happened. It's by design. Just as those opposite, by design, had that the centrepiece of their economic plan was to keep wages low, our design is to give people back more of what they earn. Our design is to get wages moving. Our design is to give people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and our government has applied a clear gender-impact lens to the changes that we're proposing, to measure the significant benefit that these tax cuts will have for women.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to Emma, an aged-care worker and a proud United Workers Union delegate. She was telling me how excited she was to be getting back $1,700 in her pay packet from the tax cuts. I also spoke to Caro, who I mentioned last week in question time. She's an early childhood educator who's been in the industry for 45 years. I tip my hat to anyone who's been in early childhood education for 45 years. Don't get me wrong: the highlight of my day, every day, is visiting early childhood education centres, but after 45 minutes I am exhausted. So hats off to Caro for doing it for 45 years. She has absolutely devoted her life to education and she was able to tell me what it means to her—as a childcare worker, a female worker, a hardworking woman—to get these tax cuts. Hearing from Caro and Emma was a humbling reminder of the reason why we form Labor governments: it's to ensure that we deliver for all Australians, especially those who need it most, to ensure that nobody is left behind. That's what these tax cuts do; as the Prime Minister has said and the Treasurer has said, they don't leave anyone behind. The original stage 3 tax cuts were leaving behind some of the most hardworking people in Australia who are doing it the toughest, many of them in electorates around the country just like Cowan.</para>
<para>Our changes, our better way, our tax reforms, ensure that every working person in Australia, every taxpayer, gets a tax cut. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is delivering real cost-of-living relief to families in the community of Cowan and in every community across the country. Over the course of today, as we did last week, we'll hear many contributions on this policy reform. But, as I said earlier, not a single person can come in here and say that these tax cuts won't benefit the people in their electorate—that the people in their electorate won't get a tax cut or that anybody in their electorate will be left out. And, as that's the case, that's a pretty sure sign that we're doing the right thing by all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Make no mistake: the revised version of these tax cuts still widens the inequality gap. The top 20 per cent of income earners will get 50 per cent of the benefit of these tax cuts; the bottom 20 per cent will get just 0.4 per cent, not even a whole per cent. Brad Banducci, the CEO of Woolworths, is on a tidy $11.7 million salary. He's one of the highest paid CEOs in the country, and he's still taking home a $4½ thousand tax cut. He won't even notice the difference. There's $4½ thousand for everyone earning over $200,000 a year. That includes every politician here and every billionaire in Australia. It's a total of $84 billion, for the top tier of earners, that could instead be used for free dental care, building public homes and fully funding our schools so parents and teachers don't have to plug the gap. These are things that would actually help all Australians, but, no, of course Brad Banducci deserves that $4½ thousand tax cut. Woolworths made almost $2 billion in profit last year, charging record high prices and ripping off the farmers who supply them, and they can also afford to pay their CEO over $10 million. Prices of essentials like cheese have doubled in some cases. They can get away with this because of Australia's entrenched supermarket duopoly preventing new entries into the market, and Labor still chooses to give Brad Banducci a $4½ thousand tax cut. His counterpart, Rob Scott at Wesfarmers, which owns Coles, on a measly $8 million, is also of course getting a $4½ thousand tax cut. And the government has the nerve to call this 'cost-of-living relief'. That's a joke.</para>
<para>Who else is getting a $4½ thousand tax cut? Australia's top three billionaires raked in a jaw-dropping $1.5 million an hour over the past three years. That's $1.5 million an hour. We're in the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades. Three people pocket 27 times more than the median annual Australian income every hour. Labor is allowing billionaires to amass wealth at a mind-boggling rate. They get $1.5 million richer every hour. Meanwhile, one in eight Australians are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent or afford to go to the doctor. Australia has 141 billionaires. Just three of them have made a staggering combined total of over $65 billion since 2020. The University of Sydney reckons it costs just over $250,000 to build a single social housing dwelling. With $65 billion, we could provide nearly 260,000 homes, ending the waitlist for social housing about three times over. What does the government do instead? Pat themselves on the back for their so-called progressive changes to the stage 3 tax cuts—changes that overwhelmingly benefit the likes of Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. Over 50 per cent of the benefits flow right back into their pockets.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister is handing out favours to his corporate mates, with money that should be benefiting everyday Australians. The Labor government have clearly washed their hands of everyday people to pander to the whims of their donors, like Santos. There are many destructive corporations stalking the halls of federal parliament here, but I think, if you wanted to pick the epitome of evil corporations that control our government, Santos would be right up there. Santos—who donated $111,000 to Labor and $59,000 to the Liberal and National parties last year and who has donated almost $1.5 million to the major parties in the last decade. Santos—who has its personnel embedded in the major parties. Queensland Labor senator Anthony Chisholm was a strategist for Santos until he was elected in 2016. Santos—also a regular lobbyist in the Queensland parliament and federal parliament. Santos—who, despite being a climate-wrecking gas corporation, continues to have new gas mines approved. Tanya Plibersek approved a massive expansion of Santos gas wells in Queensland just last year.</para>
<para>There's been a lot of talk about tax lately, and rightly so, but frankly the biggest issue with tax in this country is companies like Santos ripping us off. In the financial year 2021-22, Santos paid only $15,876 in tax. That's less tax than the average Australian worker. And what was Santos's income that year? It was $5.8 billion. Despite making billions each year over the last decade or so, Santos has paid hardly a cent in tax that whole time. Santos claims it's because it's not making a profit. I'm sorry, but I think Australians are too smart to buy that nonsense. Either you're lying or you're very bad at running your business. But perhaps the answer is simple: Santos seems to own the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties, so it can do what it wants. It rips out our gas, ships it overseas and makes a killing for its wealthy shareholders, and we all pay more for our gas bill. Global warming gets worse. Santos pays no tax. Our schools, hospitals and public housing are all underfunded. What a rort!</para>
<para>If the government were serious about tax reform, they'd also be looking at negative gearing and capital gains tax. Labor and the Liberal and National parties have made it easier to buy your second home or your fifth home than your first. Investors do well; everyday people get screwed. Basically, how it works is like this: Labor and the Liberal and National parties have given huge tax incentives to people who are buying an investment property. This means more people want to buy houses, and it massively drives up the price of housing for everyone. Everyday people buying their first home have to compete with increasingly wealthy investors, but they don't have the existing capital or the tax concessions to compete with them.</para>
<para>What are these tax cuts that Labor and the Liberal and National Parties are handing to investors? The first is negative gearing. That means an investor can claim all of the expenses associated with an investment property as tax deductions from their income. That includes interest payments, maintenance, insurance, body corporate fees and council rates. For those in the top tax bracket in particular, paying 45 per cent on income over 180,000, this is actually a huge saving. Of course, first-home buyers have to cop all those expenses—they don't get to claim them on their tax. This affects how much they can afford to borrow. So instead of this property being some family's first home, it actually becomes a tax write-off for a wealthy investor—sounds bad, doesn't it? But the rort doesn't stop there. There's this thing called capital gains tax. It's what you pay when you make a profit from buying and then selling an asset. Normally, you'd have to pay tax on this profit, just like any other income. But most investors can claim the capital gains tax discount, which reduces CGT by a whopping 50 per cent. That means you pay less tax on asset inflation than you do on wages. That's absurd.</para>
<para>First home buyers don't benefit from this—they haven't sold a home before. As house prices rise because of these government tax breaks, buying houses just to sell to other investors with substantially discounted tax becomes a reason to buy in the first place. Instead of this property being some family's first home, it becomes a speculative commodity for a wealthy investor. Here's an idea: instead of subsidising property investors and making it easy for them to outcompete first home buyers, put that money into affordable and public homes for people who need a place to live. It's truly astounding to hear so many Labor MPs talk about how these tax cut changes leave no one behind. The Prime Minister even said this in his speech to the Press Club. Apparently, people who don't earn enough income to reach the tax-free threshold don't count. Many of these people are doing it toughest right now, and they won't see a cent from these changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an opportunity to stand before this House and to support a motion that will deliver real tangible benefits to my electorate of Swan. When I was elected, I made a commitment to make a real and tangible difference to my community and my constituents. My team and I are passionate about supporting the electorate, and my electorate represents Australia. It is a microcosm of the nation. It has diverse interests, hardworking families and people aspiring to get ahead in life, to provide stability and security for their households and their families, to provide a good education for their children, and to make sure that they get health care when they need it. Their priorities are my priorities, and my priorities are the priorities of the Albanese Labor government—that is, to make sure that people have more support and access to services when they need it.</para>
<para>I was very proud to hear that WA will be the first state to have fully funded schools by 2026. It's inspiring to be a part of a government with this vision and a government that has the courage to implement it. We are also expanding bulk-billing and opening urgent-care clinics. When you need a doctor, you should need only your Medicare card, not your credit card. It's all part of the theme to create a better, fairer Australia. That's exactly what the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is a part of—creating this vision. We are fully aware of the pressures that many Australians have been facing. Cost-of-living pressures have placed burdens on many people and their families. They have placed a heavy burden on middle Australia. We know this and, unlike the opposition, we do not ignore the facts; we do not ignore the feedback we have been receiving from the community. We face it head on, we are listening, we are hearing you and we are acting, and that's the job of government.</para>
<para>Next week in my electorate, I will be hosting a one-stop shop for people that are doing it tough right now. We'll be holding a helping households hub to help people with their household finances. We'll be bringing federal, state and local government together to inform people of the policies that are relevant to them, and bringing in external service agencies that can provide advice and support when they need it. This is an idea that—I'm going to say it—we've stolen from the member for Reid, because the truth is that good ideas should be spread throughout the nation. We will be looking at legal advice, financial counselling and support, and a navigating Services Australia session. Within a day, we've had nearly two dozen registrations, and I hope that we get even more because I want to reach as many people as possible.</para>
<para>We are not consumed by individual crusades against the vulnerable, unlike what we saw under the previous government. We only need to look back at robodebt to understand what the Liberal Party thinks about people doing it tough. Instead of reaching out and saying, 'Okay, what can we do; what can we change,' they punished people for being vulnerable. You can't get more of a polar opposite. The Liberals put the blindfold on and attacked, whereas we as Labor turned up the volume, we listened and we responded.</para>
<para>The opposition doesn't like our proposed tax changes. What does the opposition want? Do they want wages to be lower? Do they want inflation to be higher? The answer appears to be yes. They want tax cuts to benefit the few, not the many, and they're at odds with themselves. One minute, the member for Hume is calling Labor's tax cuts a form of Marxism, and then, on the same day, he turns around and says that he'll be supporting them.</para>
<para>This isn't about politics; it's about people. And that's why I stand here wholeheartedly supporting these tax cut measures—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>it's nice to see that people are listening to this speech!—because what it means is that on 1 July this year every taxpayer will benefit. It's a plan designed to alleviate financial burdens and provide relief to individuals across the nation. I know that there's a little bit of jealousy, like, 'Why wasn't this my idea?' The truth is that we saw that the economics changed and what we did was listen to sound advice. We had a frank and fearless Public Service, and we had a government that was listening and acting. We devised a more inclusive approach to deliver tax cuts to a broader spectrum of our society, not just the privileged few. We had been talking about cost-of-living pressures in this place and that we needed to do more. We're at this moment in time where we are indeed going to do more. The measures come in addition to the previously announced $23 billion in cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>As I said, I am passionate about fostering a strong and prosperous community in Swan, and I am passionate about a government that makes a real difference. This bill will make a difference to thousands of people in Swan. It will make a difference to their cost of living. In Swan alone, 94,000 hardworking individuals will receive a tax cut. It means an average benefit of $1,600 per person. Even better, because of Labor, 77,000 taxpayers in Swan will enjoy a larger tax cut compared to under the plan proposed by the Morrison government. In Western Australia, 1.2 million people will fare better under our tax plan, and 1.5 million hardworking taxpayers will see a reduction in their tax burden from July onwards.</para>
<para>Soon it will be International Women's Day, and the theme of International Women's Day in 2024 is economic empowerment. The Minister for Women has done some amazing work in the development of policy in this area, and it's even more exciting to see that our cost-of-living tax cuts plan supports the needs of women not just with kind words but with real economic empowerment. In Western Australia, 700,000 working women are set to receive a tax cut, and 600,000 of those are getting a bigger tax cut thanks to Labor. This represents a significant stride towards gender equality, with 90 per cent of all Western Australian women enjoying a larger tax cut compared to before.</para>
<para>I support these changes because they spell out tangible benefits for Australians. They mean that 77,000 individuals in Swan will be better off. Eighty-one per cent of Western Australians will experience improved financial circumstances. It's a commitment to fiscal responsibility and compassion. It's putting cost-of-living pressures at the forefront of government policy. It's recognising that the biggest concern for many Australians is cost-of-living pressures. This isn't about political expediency; it's about making the right choice for the people.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts are a testament to our dedication to the welfare of all Australians. We believe in fairness, inclusivity, and compassion - and these are the principles that guide our policies.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As politicians, we often find ourselves living our life—our professional life, at least—dealing in absolutes. No matter the side of politics, we set ourself up for it time and time again when we attack a policy point while holding ourselves to a position that may become untenable down the track or by making a promise that's full of authenticity and the best intention at the time but becomes, for a number of reasons, problematic later down the track when it comes time to fulfil the promise. It is genuinely hard not to do it at times, as I think our constituencies expect to feel reassured and providing a 'maybe' or 'it depends' response doesn't really fill them with confidence. It leaves us as elected representatives vulnerable to attacks by our opponents or in the media.</para>
<para>But, as I've said previously, I don't want people to accept that they just believe politicians to lie, and broken promises are hard for our constituents to swallow, no matter the outcome. It is a slippery slope that does cast a shadow on what this government might promise next. If you promise 100 times to keep a policy and then you change it, it's expected that our communities will think any future policy could change after the 101st, 110th, or 150th promise to keep it. It's not okay to play with the truth, even if you like the outcome. It simply leads to a further erosion of trust and confidence in governments.</para>
<para>So it's here tonight that we find ourselves debating Labor's tax cuts, which the coalition will not stand in the way of. Just a few weeks ago, I asked when Labor would begin fulfilling its election mantra not to leave any Australians behind. It is 18 months since being elected, so it's pleasing that this legislation will support individuals and families in need, and I wouldn't block any measure that would help my electorate of Bass. While it's truthful that more constituents in my electorate will benefit from these proposed changes than they would have under the previous iteration, it's still a drop in the bucket for my community as cost-of-living pressures increase. Housing, healthcare affordability, education expenses, child care—these are all daily factors putting pressure on households.</para>
<para>Over the past 18 months, real net disposable income per person has collapsed, down 8.6 per cent. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of just under $8,000, primarily driven by rising mortgage payments, falling real wages and increasing taxes. So, again, although I welcome relief, an average earner would receive just $804 more under Labor's policy, or $15.46 a week. This is less than 1 per cent of their annual wage and returns just 10 cents for avenue dollar they have lost to cost-of-living pressures under Labor's first 18 months in office.</para>
<para>A recent survey by the <inline font-style="italic">Mercury</inline> newspaper indicated that almost all Tasmanians were feeling the pressure as daily expenses continue to rise. Groceries were a major factor, with many cutting back on activities outside of the home to meet growing costs, and others admitted to using savings to keep up with the costs. CEO of the Tasmanian Council of Social Service Adrienne Picone said:.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Tasmanian families are increasingly forced to play a cruel game of 'what must I go without this week,' trying to stretch a meagre income to cover the essentials, when the reality is it is simply not possible in the current climate</para></quote>
<para>No Tasmanian should be forced into a situation where they're forgoing healthcare in order to put food on the table, yet this is occurring on a daily basis across the state.</para>
<para>Ms Picone's statement highlights another area where the government is falling short, looking to provide additional and necessary assistance to low-income households who don't benefit from any tax cut but are deeply feeling the pinch of just trying to get by. As a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Ending Poverty, I've held a number of events with my co-chair, the member for Canberra, as we explore the impact of poverty and how parliament can meaningfully address this. Just last week, we hosted a briefing with the Brotherhood of St Laurence on further practical steps governments of all persuasions could take. But it's hearing from those with lived experience that stays with you.</para>
<para>When I'm out in the community, cost-of-living pressures sit just behind housing as the No. 1 issue people raise with me, particularly, as Ms Picone points out, there are an increasingly large number of people who are choosing between paying their rent or their mortgage and having food on the table. Food insecurity is a major issue. The 2023 <inline font-style="italic">Foodbank </inline><inline font-style="italic">hunger report</inline> stated that 84,000 Tasmanian households faced food insecurity last year—18,000 more than in the year prior. These are our neighbours, parents and children we pass at the school gate, the couple we say hello to on our morning walk or the young person making our coffee. From the discussions I've had on the ground with local organisations including the Benevolent Society, the Salvation Army and City Mission, there's a significant increase in middle-income earners needing their services, as they're forced to sacrifice their food budget to meet their increased mortgage or rent payments. These conversations are supported by hard statistics, with around 33 per cent of food-insecure households in Tasmania holding a mortgage.</para>
<para>Additionally, the 2023 Mapping Social Cohesion study—a joint project between the Australian National University and the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, with more than 7½ thousand participants—found that almost half of those surveyed believe that economic issues are the most important set of problems our country faces today, followed by housing affordability and shortages. Forty-one per cent of participants describe themselves as either poor, struggling to pay their bills, or just getting by—up four per cent from the year prior. Dr James O'Donnell, who led the study, has spoken of the impact that financial stress is having on our communities:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With more Australians under financial pressure in 2023, it's perhaps not a surprise that our sense of belonging and connectedness to each other are also lower this year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With more people worried about economic inequality, we're less trusting of government, more worried about the future and less connected to Australian values and society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is an important call to action for governments and the community to consider policies and programs that give everyone the opportunity to contribute to society to the fullest.</para></quote>
<para>So, while these tax cuts will go some way to providing relief, with a surplus in the billions, I'm asking the federal government what else they can be doing to seriously tackle the challenges we're facing. Where the government is claiming success in delivering cheaper health care and child care, I'm not seeing the proof in northern Tasmania. We have an older population with higher rates of chronic disease and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, and still we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. From July to September last year, the rate dropped to 71 per cent—3.5 per cent lower than the national average. Whilst these numbers are before the triple bulk-billing incentive came into effect, on the ground I'm not seeing evidence of this trickling down to patients. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing problem for both political parties, no matter who has been in government. It's one that I worked hard in addressing while the coalition was in government. I appreciate that there's not a silver bullet, but that we must put the current government on notice that more has to be done for the sustainability of practices and the health of our communities.</para>
<para>I met a number of times on this issue with Ben Dodds, President of the Rural Doctors Association of Tasmania, and I want to raise some comments that he made recently. What we've seen over a long period of time is the degradation in the Medicare rebate that has been available for patients, and there are many GPs who don't want to be in a position where they need to be charging a gap. Dr Dodds also acknowledged that, while GPs would often bulk-bill a patient who is in financial difficulty, it was not sustainable in the long term, and he said that the current Medicare rebates were still not enough to keep many rural and regional general practices going. I also know and understand from my long-term engagement with professionals in the health community that, again, it's not just the cost of going to the doctor that keeps patients at bay; as with child care, it's an accessibility issue, with many practices struggling with the recruitment and retention of doctors, and not for lack of trying.</para>
<para>There are a number of reasons behind this, including the classification of some areas in my electorate under the Modified Monash Model, which does affect the amount of the incentives they can receive, with some of areas of my electorate receiving the same classification as Hobart, providing further challenges when competing in a tight talent pool. I advocated for changes to the MMM when the coalition was in government and I'm continuing this fight. Plainly put, if we don't stop tinkering at the edges over proper reform it is only a matter of time before more practices close across my electorate. I'm available and willing to work with the government, or with anyone, to ensure that this does not happen. We must stop putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.</para>
<para>And then there is the issue of child care. While there are claims from the federal government that they have made child care cheaper—again, something I would dispute based on feedback from families in my electorate—there's a bigger area of accessibility. All the talking points on cheaper child care land nowhere if many parents are unable to access it. I'd like to read an email I received just before Christmas that sums up the experiences of too many families in my electorate: 'Over the past seven months I've been actively seeking suitable day-care options for my little one, who is set to start in February. Unfortunately, the waiting lists for these facilities are proving to be excessively long, making it challenging for parents like me to secure a spot for our children. This situation has left me feeling disheartened. Additionally, I want to emphasise that the current difficulties in accessing timely day-care services may force families like mine to make difficult decisions such as one parent having to stop working. The potential loss of income could be a significant financial blow for us and I imagine for many other families in our community. I'm also concerned about how families with lower levels of income, or single parents, are managing this situation. The challenges they face are likely even more daunting.'</para>
<para>The government was elected on a mandate to deliver greater trust, more accountability and transparency, but what we have seen so far is the usual spin and talking points rather than the substance that the public expects. You shouldn't be telling people they are better off and they should be grateful for it. What we should be asking our communities is: do they feel better off now than they did 18 months ago? The test isn't what they say or even what they do; it's the result.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sixty-five thousand dollars is a figure worth remembering. It's a figure that all of us in this place should know. It's the amount the median Australian worker earned in 2022. Half of all workers earned more than this; half earned less than this. From a salary perspective, this is middle Australia, and until recently that middle earner was going to receive a tax cut of about $500 a year. However, the Albanese Labor government's changes mean that worker will now get a bigger tax cut. Almost three times that original amount, they'll now get a cut of $1,304. Everyone in this place knows that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue for our communities. It's true in my electorate of Reid, too. It's a diverse electorate, culturally, linguistically and economically. There are about 100,000 workers in my electorate. We're one of the larger working populations across the country. Every one of those workers will now get a tax cut, and four out of every five of those taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut thanks to the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that has been focused on addressing cost-of-living pressures. We've walked the tightrope between taking the heat out of the inflation challenge and providing help to those who need it, as well as providing the reform the country needs to build a stronger future. On child care, thanks to the minister here today, we've helped parents through our cheaper childcare policy, which has helped provide an average reduction in out-of-pocket childcare expenses of about 11 per cent. On aged care, we reformed the sector, implementing the recommendations from the royal commission while making sure we provided aged-care workers a 15 per cent pay rise. We've successfully argued for an increase in the minimum wage. That's the challenge for all Labor governments—to build for the future, to leave nobody behind and to provide the conditions for workers and businesses to flourish. That's what the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts will do.</para>
<para>But what are the opposition doing? Well, it has been quite a journey. First, they were repealing it. Then they were opposing it. Then they were reviewing it. Then they were backing it. Now they seem to have settled on a position of having their cake and eating it too—on the one hand they say that they will support these changes, but on the other hand they say that these changes aren't enough. That would be a coherent argument if they hadn't opposed every other intervention to take pressure off families. It would be a fair argument if they hadn't opposed the childcare changes, if they hadn't opposed our intervention into energy markets to provide energy price relief, and if they hadn't spent the previous decade suppressing wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic policy.</para>
<para>On this side of the House we have taken a very different course. We want workers to earn more because that's the best way to manage cost-of-living pressures. We want workers to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. The average full-time aged-care worker on around $70,000 a year will now take home around $1,400, rather than the $625 under the original stage 3 tax cuts. A software engineer on about $115,000 a year will now receive a tax cut of $2,554 thanks to these changes. This will mean more money in the pockets of local residents in the electorate that I get to represent. It will help them pay for groceries, mortgages and bills.</para>
<para>These changes are great for Australian women. Nine in 10 working women will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's new tax plan. Ninety-seven per cent of childcare workers, disability workers, and aged-care workers will be better off, 96 per cent of nurses will be better off and 98 per cent of teachers will be better off. These changes have been well received in my electorate. A resident from Croydon wrote the following: 'I congratulate the Albanese government for the recent decision to change the stage 3 tax cuts. The new proposal is rational, given the change in domestic and international circumstances since the original proposal.' A resident from Liberty Grove said, 'Well done for not getting stuck with a promise from the past instead of making the best decision for our future.' A resident from Abbotsford emailed this message: 'Congratulations. I'm thrilled that your government has had the courage and integrity to change the stage 3 tax cuts in spite of the political risks this may pose.' This was the politically difficult decision to make, but we made it because it was the right thing to do. These tax cuts are better for all Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the honourable member for Nicholls.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker, it's a wonderful electorate and you're welcome any time.</para>
<para>The way I see it, there three issues. One is integrity in politics, and I think we need to quarantine that and discuss it in and of itself. The next issue is tax reform. The third is the cost-of-living crisis, who has created it and exacerbated it, and what options there are to deal with it at its root cause. On integrity in politics, the Prime Minister had broken his promise, and he promised Australians they could trust him to keep his promise because, as he said, 'My word is my bond.' If the Prime Minister can mislead Australian so blatantly on this issue, can anyone ever believe anything he's going to say again? When we have our lead-up to the next election, what's his word worth it if it is no longer his bond? He didn't need to break this promise; he chose to.</para>
<para>It's really disappointed to see the debate in this place around tax reform. I think the late Bob Hawke would be appalled at what he is seeing. I don't think Paul Keating would be impressed either, and certainly John Howard and Peter Costello wouldn't be impressed, because those were people who focused on tax reform at its core and as a mechanism to improve the Australian economy, increase productivity and create better living standards overall for people—not the sort of tacky redistribution we're seeing here. Keating was very focused on reforming the economy overall, with more productivity and a focus on growth. And Howard did change his position on the GST, but he had the courage to take that position to an election and let the people decide. I think that was a courageous move. People in the end decided that they did want some form of consumption tax, because the ministers could then explain what it was all about, and the voters voted for it.</para>
<para>What do we want from our tax system? We want fairness. We want to reward workers and force government to cut its cloth, and that hasn't been happening for a number of decades. Both sides are to blame, quite frankly, for that. We really need governments that are focused on efficiency. They could look at the private sector for ways to do that. We want incentive. We want to encourage aspiration. We want to be in the global pool of talent and make sure that the message we're putting out there is that Australia is a place where you can come and get rewarded for the extra work you do—for doing that extra shift, for getting that extra certificate, for getting your apprenticeship, for going to university and trying to find a way to move into those higher income brackets—without having the bracket creep steal the money away from you as you work harder to get it. We really want productivity, and that's to encourage business activity, profitability and employment.</para>
<para>I notice that the government is saying, 'Well, when circumstances change, we must change with them.' That claim can be expressed in many ways. That means you can bend to any whim, promises don't mean anything, and our commitment is our commitment until it isn't our commitment anymore. I believe this is a political response from the government, not a cost-of-living response. The cost-of-living issues have been with us for a while. Admittedly, they have been getting worse and worse since mid-2022. I've seen that in my electorate of Nicholls. The government seems to have been incredibly distracted by the cost-of-living crisis and, from what I can see, to have only woken up to it over the summer of 2023-24. The government has been distracted by a number of issues over the past year and a bit.</para>
<para>There was an opportunity to advantage low and middle income earners, and it could have been done last year. This is something that's been completely missed in the debate, in my view. The low and middle income tax offset was put in place by the coalition to help people on low and middle incomes, hence the name. It was a response to some challenges that were happening during the pandemic, and it was a temporary response for what we hoped would be a temporary problem. That's what responsible governments do. The Albanese government could have extended that if they wanted. They could have limited it to a desired income threshold. But the government allowed it to lapse, so low and middle income families, with the cost-of-living pressures ramping up, got a rude shock at tax time last year when they went to get their tax returns: they discovered they were $1,500 out of pocket.</para>
<para>Even with additional tax relief under this legislation, a farmer or factory worker in my electorate earning $70,000 will still be worse off than they were when this government took office, because they were getting the low and middle income tax offset. I sit here in question time and I listen to all these ministers get up and talk about their portfolios and say, 'Such and such is getting $800 of tax back that they wouldn't have gotten under the coalition.' It's simply not true, because they were getting $1,500 extra under the low and middle income tax offset when the coalition was in government. There is every likelihood that, had the coalition been re-elected, that might have been extended—if the cost-of-living crisis were as bad; I believe it wouldn't have been as bad under the coalition policies.</para>
<para>As I said, I don't believe this is about tax reform or fairness or the future of Australia's economy. I think it's about political expediency and it's populism over pragmatism.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Gillespie</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Dunkley tax cuts.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, some people are calling them the Dunkley tax cuts, which shows the short-termism of some of the thinking. As my five seconds wind down, I hope to continue tomorrow, Mr Speaker, but I will cede to you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 22:00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>256</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>256</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="">Monday, 12 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;">Mr Llew O'Brien</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>258</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ryan Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>258</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the northern part of my electorate of Ryan, in suburbs ranging from Upper Kedron through to Mitchelton a number of new developments are happening. On Settlement Road alone there will be 550 new dwellings on the coming years. That's over a thousand new cars on the road, so we're going to see the traffic get worse. It's absurd that Sanford Road, the main arterial road in the area, doesn't have a frequent bus service. For example, if you live in the southern part of Mitchelton and want to make it into the city centre at peak hour, your only option for a frequent public transport services to walk 30 minutes to the nearest train station and then take a 20-minute train ride into the city. The drive would take you only 30 minutes even with traffic. And our bureaucrats wonder why people don't catch public transport!</para>
<para>Over 500 people have recently signed my petition to get the Queensland state government to turn the 390 bus into a high-frequency service that goes all the way along Sanford Road to Ferny Grove and Upper Kedron. My team and I will be pushing to make it a reality. It's a simple choice: let huge, profit-hungry developers dictate all the decisions about how our city develops or create a city where everyday residents' need are put first. Labor and the LNP have chosen developers profits. The Greens choose community need. In Brisbane, Labor and the LNP recently voted to slash developer charges by 75 per cent, That's hundreds of millions more for developers and less public transport, public parkland and community facilities for the rest of us. Labor and the LNP have overridden neighbourhood plans to allow massive new apartment towers, some on flood plains, without sufficient local infrastructure. When roads are clogged, schools are overcrowded and apartments are flooded, it's residents who suffer. The big developers are laughing all the way to the bank.</para>
<para>There's an alternative: a city where everyone gets what they need to live a good life; high-frequency public transport networks so you can leave your car at home; everyone within shady walking distance of a great school, library, public pool, public park and local shops; and high-quality, sustainably built public and affordable homes. This is possible; we just need to push back against big developers profiteering. Make them pay their fair share to fund this transformation and don't approve developments unless you're also rolling out the infrastructure people will need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coalition</title>
          <page.no>258</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm getting in a little bit early to share the love for Valentine's Day today.</para>
<para>Labor is red, the Liberals are blue,</para>
<para>Teal and Green are colours too.</para>
<para>The Greens vote 'no' to housing and tax cuts,</para>
<para>Pathetic excuses full of 'ifs' and 'buts',</para>
<para>While Liberals secretly opposed WA's GST—</para>
<para>The member for Dickson it sure seems to be.</para>
<para>The opposition leader always says no,</para>
<para>And now the member for Cook has to go.</para>
<para>While <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> streams on ABC iView,</para>
<para>The Liberals tell us who hates who.</para>
<para>A wasted decade—climate, integrity and more—</para>
<para>Even though PM Morrison had a secret portfolio or four.</para>
<para>Too many drinks from a 'back in black' mug,</para>
<para>You'll fall over a pot plant in need of a hug.</para>
<para>Will this frontbencher survive? I won't take a punt,</para>
<para>But there are many Nationals who want to get to the front.</para>
<para>Now, the opposition leader is sometimes too smug,</para>
<para>While Malcolm Turnbull simply says thug.</para>
<para>And now stage three we have to repair;</para>
<para>The Liberals said no but then voted yeah.</para>
<para>Just playing politics with no care for taxpayers—</para>
<para>Not the teachers, the truckies, the nurses or bricklayers.</para>
<para>Maybe economics is not their strong suit;</para>
<para>They think a trillion of debt was an achievement, a hoot.</para>
<para>'Pay more tax' is the coalition way.</para>
<para>Cost of living relief? They still say nay.</para>
<para>They stand back and criticise every important decision</para>
<para>While offering nothing but fear and division.</para>
<para>The Albanese government introduces 244 bills.</para>
<para>While the opposition say 'no' just for thrills.</para>
<para>'No' to cheaper energy and closing loopholes too.</para>
<para>What about cheaper medicines? 'No, that'll never do.'</para>
<para>Labor built Medicare, and now it turns 40.</para>
<para>Australia says 'thank you' to Hawkey.</para>
<para>Strengthening Medicare—Labor's aspiration, of course.</para>
<para>While Mr Dutton spearheaded a Medicare privatisation task force.</para>
<para>Voted the worst health minister in 35 years.</para>
<para>Another <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> PM is the worst of our fears.</para>
<para>But, for Valentine's Day, to the people of Perth.</para>
<para>I love representing you in the best country on earth.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Public Transport</title>
          <page.no>259</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Mornington Peninsula deserves better public transport, particularly its rail network. The Mornington Peninsula's population increased by almost 25,000 people over the decade between 2011 and 2021. The number of visitors to our great part of Victoria continues to climb each year. In fact, 6.4 million day-trippers visited the peninsula between March 2022 and March 2023. With this kind of growth, and as a local government area still confoundingly classified as metropolitan Melbourne, we are served by below-average public transport. Bus rides are infrequent and lengthy, and our passenger rail line is serviced by the only diesel train across the entire Melbourne metropolitan network.</para>
<para>The peninsula needs upgraded rail network to better connect it to the employment and education opportunities and the services outside our not-so-metropolitan region. Greg Hunt and Chris Crewther, the then members for Flinders and Dunkley respectively, secured $225 million to contribute towards the extension of the metro line from Frankston to Baxter. At the time it seemed there was a united ticket on the need for this critical infrastructure investment in my area. At that time, the Prime Minister, when he was the shadow infrastructure minister, stood up in 2018 promising to deliver the electrification of the line faster. He said in his press release:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Labor Will Deliver Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point Line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…    …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently thousands of Dunkley and Peninsula residents drive and park at Frankston, Kananook or Seaford stations because the Metro line service ends at Frankston.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options.</para></quote>
<para>Local people went to the ballot box in 2019 with this promise in their mind. But, elected, once again that promise was nowhere to be seen, before it was axed altogether and the money was snatched away from the peninsula as part of last year's 200-day infrastructure review.</para>
<para>Thankfully, the coalition cares about this magnificent part of Australia. Before we returned to Canberra this year, the coalition committed to connect the Mornington Peninsula to better public transport infrastructure. I recently joined the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, senators Bridget McKenzie and Jane Hume, and the exceptional Liberal candidate for Dunkley, Nathan Conroy, to announce a federal coalition government would provide $900 million for the electrification of the metro rail line from Frankston to Baxter. This would connect the Frankston Hospital and Monash University to an efficient rail service, bettering health and education accessibility for our region. A further stop at Langwarrin and an upgraded station at Baxter, with options for park and ride, will remove cars from the road, reducing traffic, helping ease congestion and giving my constituents just a little of what they deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lee, Ms Belinda, Rossiter, Mr Graeme</title>
          <page.no>260</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The potential diagnosis of breast cancer is terrifying at any time of life, but this situation can be a particular shock for younger Australians. Belinda Lee, a resident of my electorate, found myself in this very situation last year, when she needed an ultrasound to rule out breast cancer. Not only is the diagnosis of breast cancer itself a stressful prospect; excess costs that can sometimes be associated with diagnosis and treatment also put pressure on many Australians.</para>
<para>Facing the possibility of cancer, it would have been understandable for Belinda to take this time for herself. But, instead, she put the needs of others first and set out to raise money for the National Breast Cancer Foundation. To raise this money, Belinda is climbing 50 of the over 100 peaks in and around Canberra. So far, Belinda has reached the top of 45 hills and mountains, and aims to finish her project in March this year when she summits Mount Kosciuszko. Belinda is a fantastic example of the spirit of generosity and selflessness that encompasses many members of our community in Bean. I look forward to following Belinda's fundraising efforts and wish her all the best for the last of the climbs she has ahead of her.</para>
<para>On 30 December last year, my electorate of Bean lost a true gentleman. Graeme Rossiter made an outstanding contribution across many fields. He was a long-term Canberran, having studied at the old Dickson high school and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, now known as the University of Canberra. For many years, he worked as a public servant in the federal Department of Health, rising to senior positions. I came to know Graeme well in his capacity as a giant of community tennis in the ACT. Graeme first joined the Weston Creek Tennis Club back in 1982. He was president or vice president of the club for an extraordinary 25 years of service. With his leadership, his commitment, his passion and his vision, the Weston Creek Tennis Club grew to become one of the most successful and inclusive community clubs in the ACT. I enjoyed getting to know Graeme and found him to be a generous and inclusive community leader. When he stepped down as president in mid-December to focus on his health, he left behind an impressive and continuing legacy. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Graeme's family; his wife, Maureen; sons, Mark, Andrew, Paul and Scott; and all who mourn the loss of this deeply good man.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Menzies Electorate: Parish of St Haralambos, Doncaster and Templestowe</title>
          <page.no>260</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We sat here last week, and I was delighted to go home to my electorate for a number of events. One of them is a particularly important event in the Menzies calendar and for the Greek community in our electorate. The Greek Orthodox Parish of St Haralambos Doncaster and Templestowe is in my electorate. It is a focal point for the Greek community. It is named after Saint Haralambos, and 10 February is the Feast Day of Saint Haralambos. This is the church's key day, and it was an honour to join the priests of the church, the volunteers and the community there on the weekend. The parish priests are the Very Reverend Father Elias Kentrotis and Father Menelaos. They serve our community, they serve their parish, and I'm very grateful for what they do and the community leaders that they are. I was joined also by Matthew Guy, the member for Bulleen; Michelle Kleinert from Manningham Council; and Carli Lange, the mayor of Manningham Council.</para>
<para>I would like to say a few things about Saint Haralambos. We often acknowledge these saints days but don't actually look into who they are and what they did. Saint Haralambos was a priest in the city of Magnesia in Asia Minor. He was killed in about 198 AD. At the time, the emperor of the Roman Empire had appointed Lucius to govern Asia Minor, and Christians were persecuted throughout the period and throughout the region. When Lucius discovered that Saint Haralambos—he wasn't a saint at the time—had openly taught the Christian religion, he sought to have him punished, tortured and killed. He commanded that Haralambos was to be sacrificed to the gods unless he forsook Christ, which he didn't do. So he was tortured, and throughout that torture he refused to deny his beliefs. At one stage he was stripped of his clothing and his flesh was ripped with an iron claw. He withstood this torture with courage; he still didn't yield. One of the dukes became enraged, took the iron claw and began to aggressively rip into his flesh, and even then he didn't yield. The accounts have that the duke who was conducting this torture had a distortion to his face and then begged for Saint Haralambos to pray for him, which he did. He forgave those who were torturing him. It's a great lesson in forgiveness, even in the most brutal and torturous circumstances.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the Feast Day of Saint Haralambos. I thank everyone who put that beautiful festival on with the most amazing food. It's a festival I was really proud to be a part of.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bruce Electorate: Cultural Diversity</title>
          <page.no>261</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's actually a lovely springboard into what I was going to say. Bruce, my community, just a little to the south of the Member for Menzies, covering large chunks of the Greater Dandenong and Casey councils, is one of the most culturally diverse places on earth—not just ancestry, ethnicity, country of birth or languages spoken at home, but religion and faith groups. The faith make-up in Bruce is different to most communities around Australia; it's broad and it's relatively evenly spread. Western Catholicism makes up about 20 per cent. Close to 15 per cent these days are people of Islamic faith—Sunni, Shia and many other Islamic traditions. But then there's a very even spread of Buddhism; Hinduism, a fast-growing religion; Anglican; Greek orthodox; and a spread of Sikhism, Serbian, Ukrainian, Lutheran, Mormons, Uniting Church; my family, I guess; as well as the Coptics. I did award the Coptics so far the best food at a church fete award, which has caused a little bit of a competition, and it's a competition that I'm happy to see and participate in. There are of course the Baha'is and many other smaller Christian sects. There are 30 per cent of people with no faith.</para>
<para>This diversity is a strength, but it also means that we need to invest in social cohesion—in deliberate efforts to foster interfaith understanding, dialogue and community harmony. I was delighted to recently host the Bruce interfaith forum, with over 50 religious and faith community leaders, a rich diversity and spread of the community, with the mayor of Greater Dandenong; interfaith groups in Dandenong and Casey; Senator Deb O'Neill from New South Wales, who attended to help moderate; state MPs Belinda Wilson and Lee Tarlamis; and my very dear friend Roz Blades AM, who was on council for the best part of 30 years, many times mayor, and active in the interfaith group as a person of Jewish faith.</para>
<para>It was a terrific discussion, sharing current issues and experiences and identifying areas where governments and faith leaders can work together. Religious worker visas came up. It's an issue that the former government made changes to. It's still not right. We need to have another look at it. We discussed social issues, poverty, addiction and family violence. A good priest in many ways has some parallels with a good local MP. People come to you with every kind of problem imaginable and expect you to solve it somehow or do something with it. There was also discussion of cultural and community facilities, especially old churches with heritage buildings but also newly established communities that don't have the financial resources yet to set up their community structures, be they places of worship, centres and so on.</para>
<para>Finally, it was also a chance to give an update on Labor's commitment to introduce new federal laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion, which we will do in this term. The ALRC's report will soon be released to inform, then, laws—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any constituency statements?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bonner Youth Advisory Council</title>
          <page.no>261</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today's students are tomorrow's teachers, doctors, carpenters and politicians. As we continue to grow older, it is our shared responsibility to raise quality members of society who will work hard and contribute, and might I say Bonner is a treasure trove of curious minds and dedicated students. I would like to thank the 13 Bonner students in years 10, 11 and 12 who committed to my Bonner Youth Advisory Council, BYAC, in 2023. I've been so impressed by their passion and hard work, and have no doubt that each of them will achieve great things in their future. Congratulations to Abigail and Blanca from Citypointe Christian College; Bailey and Ollie from Iona College; Aimi, Georgia, Sharna and Xavier from Mansfield State High School; Zayden from Queensland Academies Creative Industries; Alice from Redeemer Lutheran College; and Araminta, Heer and Ishita, who are all from Rochedale State High School in my electorate.</para>
<para>Throughout the year we heard from leaders in our community. Last year I was able to partner with You Are Not Alone, the Queensland Koala Society and Ocean Crusaders to speak with BYAC at our meetings. Throughout our workshops, students from different schools collaborated on research projects aligned with their personal interests. Last year we had four groups, who investigated the topics of mental health, the cost of living, the impact of technology on young people, and the environment. Each group worked together to identify specific issues within their topic and proposed problem-solving strategies. At the end of January, the group submitted their reports, and I would like to share with my parliamentary colleagues some of the interesting findings from BYAC.</para>
<para>The group who investigated mental health found that some young people may be unable to distinguish between online connections and genuine, meaningful relationships in person. The group on the cost of living found a worthwhile solution would be teaching students about financial independence and money, and this feedback was particularly interesting to me, as I continue to fight for my motion to make financial literacy a compulsory part of our national curriculum. The students who reported on the impact of technology found that education on cyberbullying should be compulsory in all schools, including what cyberbullying is, what to do if you are being cyberbullied, and how to prevent and report cyberbullying. When it came to the environment, the team found the establishment of a youth advisory council for environmental planning would be useful, particularly to consult on any trail bike tracks and jumps in Brisbane. Nominations for the 2024 Bonner Youth Advisory Council are filling rapidly but have not yet closed. I encourage any parents to apply to BYAC on behalf of their keen child, and I look forward to meeting you all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>262</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone is getting a tax cut in Hasluck, but they won't have to spend it on access to urgent medical care. That's because the Albanese Labor government has fulfilled its pre-election commitment by opening 58 urgent care clinics across the country, including in Midland in my great electorate of Hasluck. Equitable access to a GP and health care is a core tenet of Labor values, and Medicare is one of the crowning achievements of past Labor governments. It should not matter what postcode you live in or how much money you have in your bank, all Australians deserve to have access to the same health care. In the month in which Medicare turns 40 years old, it is a timely reminder that it is the cornerstone of our health system, one that all Australians should be proud of and one that should never be taken for granted.</para>
<para>A decade of Liberal government meant we experienced a freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, a freeze on the indexation of the Medicare rebate, a reduction in pathology and diagnostic imaging bulk-billing incentives, plus reviews into ways to strip back Medicare and even privatise parts of the system. In contrast, since coming to government in 2022, we have made the biggest investment ever in Medicare. Locals in my electorate are starting to see the difference the commitment to strengthening Medicare is having on their lives.</para>
<para>Bulk-billing has increased across every state and territory in Australia, with more than 180,000 additional trips to the GP being bulk-billed every month across the country, saving Australians millions. This includes more than 1,000 extra bulk-billed appointments in Hasluck over the last couple of months of 2023. That's more than a thousand people in my electorate presenting for medical care who may not have otherwise presented had our government not tripled the bulk-billing incentive and opened the Midland urgent care clinic at North Street Medical Centre. This points to the Midland urgent care clinic being a great success. This is why I will continue to fight for even more clinics in our community, in Ellenbrook and beyond.</para>
<para>Our commitment to health and easing the burden on household budgets extends beyond Medicare. We have implemented the largest cost cut to PBS prescription in the scheme's history. Reducing the maximum cost of a PBS prescription from $42.50 to $30 means Western Australians have saved $23 million across 2.1 million cheaper scripts. Locals in my electorate of Hasluck have shared in almost $1.9 million in savings over 170,000 scripts.</para>
<para>Let me leave you with a statistic that blew me away. Before 1984 and the introduction of Medicare, medical debt was the leading cause of bankruptcy. But, thanks to Labor and the introduction of Medicare, medical debts are no longer even measured. Let's keep it that way.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cyclone Jasper</title>
          <page.no>262</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to acknowledge the recent aftermath of Cyclone Jasper, a natural disaster that struck with ferocity unmatched in recent memory. This unprecedented event was tracked from its inception as a tropical low system, commanding headlines and drawing national media attention to our shores. Journalists were speculating on outcomes, painting pictures of cyclonic Armageddon, while the reality on the ground told a very different story. While the cyclone itself didn't cause any structural damage, it was the rain that quickly followed afterwards that was the real challenge. Media outlets prematurely declared that the worst was over. A front page from the <inline font-style="italic">Cairns </inline><inline font-style="italic">Post</inline> declared the worst was over and that the Far North was 'out of harm's way as Cyclone Jasper crosses the coast'. This was so misleading. What followed was a rain bomb of unimaginable proportions, causing devastation across Cairns and beyond. Communities at Yorkeys Knob, Machans Beach, Holloways Beach and further north of the Daintree in Wujal, Bargara and others suffered significant flooding. Many places were isolated, and are still isolated, by total inundation. In the wake of the disaster, it became evident that technology cannot replace local knowledge. My concerns regarding the Bureau of Meteorology's centralisation have been confirmed. The lack of ground presence in regions like Far North Queensland has had dire consequences for accurate forecasting. As we move forward, I will continue to advocate for the diversification of the BOM's workforce back into our regional communities.</para>
<para>The resilience of our people has been tested, but our spirits remain unbroken. Heroes emerged from the tragedy: individuals like Dan Cairns, Alec Dunn and helicopter pilot Magoo, who all risked their lives to save others. The community hubs of Machans Beach and Holloways Beach have been beacons of hope. Volunteers like Mary, Wendy, Jade, Michelle, Pauline, Pat, Renee, Rennae and Stephanie have given so much back to the struggling communities. However our recovery is hindered by insurance challenges. The application of the 48-hour rule by insurance companies separating cyclone damage from subsequent flooding is an injustice that must be immediately addressed. It is imperative that we align our international standards, extending the period to 168 hours to ensure the comprehensive cover of our affected communities. Insurance companies are doing their absolute best to avoid their responsibility to their clients. It is a disgrace that is actively underway in Far North Queensland.</para>
<para>I'd commend the Queensland Reconstruction Authority CEO Jake Ellwood and Deputy State Recovery Coordinator Mike Wassing for their response. Their forthcoming recommendations will be crucial in preparing for future events. We must learn and adapt, and ensure the protection and resilience of our communities against the inevitable challenges ahead.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whitlam Electorate: Youth</title>
          <page.no>263</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the last 14 years I've been holding an annual youth summit in my electorate. It's a great way to have a direct dialogue with the young people who don't yet get to vote but who have lots of strong and well-informed opinions. I acknowledge the students, parents and teachers who facilitated my most recent roundtable. It included students from Dapto and Albion Park, Warilla High School, St Joseph's Catholic, Shellharbour Anglican College, Illawarra Sports High School, Moss Vale High, Bowral High, Southern Highlands Christian School, Oxley College, Chevalier College and St Paul's International College.</para>
<para>They told me a range of different things. They all want safer and more accessible mental health services, particularly services aimed at young people. Public school students told me that they want to have access to the same sorts of education facilities that they see when they drive past the private schools in my area. The fantastic kids from Bowral High School raised concerns about the prevalence of vaping and the lack of education and information about the health consequences. At Warilla High School, the students told me about their strong belief that every Australian, no matter what their income, deserves a roof over their head and about the importance of access to housing in our local area. At Moss Vale High School, they shared their passion about climate change and their ideas about how they could make a difference locally and the things they want to see governments acting on.</para>
<para>These young student leaders are so passionate about equality and a fair go. To be quite frank they actually share a lot of the same ideals that drove me into public life. They have my full support, and I can tell you the future is very bright and will be in good hands when these young Australians graduate. I want all young Australians to know that this government is passionate about their interests, their concerns and their opportunities into the future. We're providing more training places and more Commonwealth teacher scholarships—over 5,000—to encourage more Australians into the teaching profession. Fee-free TAFE is making a huge difference to kids accessing vocational education and training in my area. We've recently jointly funded a new housing facility in Warilla with the New South Wales government in partnership with Southern Youth and Family Services. We're acting on climate change locally as well as nationally. We've got new community batteries being installed in Dapto and Warrawong. We're having a community consultation about the advantages and benefits of offshore wind and the need to have more wind energy as part of our renewable energy projects.</para>
<para>I really enjoyed the conversation, and I look forward to doing it again in the very near future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>263</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>263</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>Domestic and intimate partner violence is a national crisis. Whilst impacting all genders, the casualties are overwhelmingly women. Sixty-four women were allegedly killed as a result of domestic violence in Australia in 2023. That means that, on average, one woman per week is murdered by her current or former partner. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are three times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women, 11 times more likely to die due to assault and 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of that violence. Despite successive governments' well-meaning efforts, little progress has been made in 30 years.</para>
<para>When I submitted this motion last week, as of 4 February, six women had already allegedly been murdered by their male partner in Australia. As of 10 February, that number is now eight. In the year 2021-22, 5,606 women were hospitalised due to family and domestic violence—an average of 15 women per day. If people were being killed by any other means at this rate in this country, it would spark national outrage and be deemed a crisis and an emergency. We have seen government react in such a way to a recent High Court ruling on immigration detention, to needles in strawberries and to one-punch attacks. We see state and federal governments act with urgency when they feel that the situation requires it. Domestic and intimate partner violence is such a crisis. We need a crisis response: action, mobilisation of resources and urgent legislation.</para>
<para>When another woman becomes a domestic violence statistic, we witness sympathy in this place and hand-wringing but not much more. Mere condolences won't suffice. We need tangible action. In Warringah, the Northern Beaches Women's Shelter is currently turning away approximately 25 women a month because they're full. They need more affordable housing and more transitional and emergency accommodation. Women and Children First, in northern Sydney, are funded to help 208 women a year. Last year they helped 836. There are fewer than 350 police domestic violence reports, yet the services are telling us more than double that number are seeking help. Our bureaucratic systems are not set up to protect women. A few weeks ago, I relayed these resourcing issues directly to the state Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Jodie Harrison. I wrote to the Prime Minister just last week, seeking to discuss this national catastrophe and ask him to take more urgent action.</para>
<para>Today, through this motion, I call on the Albanese government to urgently convene a crisis National Cabinet meeting of federal, state and territory ministers to ensure that the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children is bringing about the required action. That is because this plan spans a 10-year period, and we simply cannot wait till 2032 to realise whether or not it is working. We must have clear KPIs, clear progress, change and increased action when required. Policies to prevent violence against women and children across Australia must be assessed against clear metrics of whether or not they are working. Time is of the essence.</para>
<para>I call on the government to commission a review of all state criminal sentencing provisions and the use of character references for domestic violence and gender based abuse so that we can ensure they are fit for purpose in holding perpetrators of violence against women to account. In the judicial system, our sentencing laws are meant to be a deterrent. They are clearly not a deterrent at the moment, given the current rate of offending. We cannot have any more of the 'good bloke defence'. You know the one. It's the one that says: 'He's really just a normal guy. He's really a nice guy. I don't quite understand how this happened.' Enough with the 'good bloke defence'!</para>
<para>We need to increase the capacity of specialist services to assist women fleeing domestic violence to stay alive: crisis support, appropriate accommodation, leave advice, advocacy and income support. In New South Wales, the Staying Home Leaving Violence program is a proven way to assist women, yet it is not funded and delivered across all local government areas.</para>
<para>There are many concrete actions the government can take. I call on the Albanese government to continue to act with urgency on the crisis of domestic violence.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is, and I reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Warringah. Last week at the UN International Women's Day parliamentary breakfast, the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One death from family violence is one too many. One death a week is an epidemic.</para></quote>
<para>This scourge must end, and the Albanese government is committed to our goal of ending violence against women and children, and we want to do so in one generation.</para>
<para>Despite the truly horrifying figure referenced by the Prime Minister, and the fact that, in the year 2021-22, an average of 15 women per day were hospitalised due to family violence, violence against Australian women and children is not inevitable. We are working to combat this horrendous statistic. In October 2022, in partnership with the state and territory governments, we released the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. A key part of this national strategy is addressing the underlying factors that drive violence against women and children. The goal is to prevent violence before it occurs and to intervene early and prevent escalation, and, when it does happen, to respond appropriately and in a trauma-informed way, putting the victim-survivors at the centre of the recovery and healing process. This approach has led to $2.3 billion of funding for programs that focus on consent, respectful relationships and sexual violence prevention, including $100 million over five years for the crucial work of Our Watch, the leading body for the primary prevention of violence against women and children in Australia.</para>
<para>The name 'Our Watch' is instructive, because making this large social and cultural change is not just the work of the government, or of women or men or children. It is the work of all of us. So I agreed with Prime Minister Albanese when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Men have to be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and our attitudes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To educate our sons, to talk to our mates.</para></quote>
<para>It is worth reflecting on the progress made by the Albanese government in addressing violence against women and children. In the first year since the launch of that national plan, we've driven state and territory agreement on implementation. In addition to establishing this framework for success, we've focused on frontline supports and made practical improvements that make a real difference, such as providing financial support for women seeking to escape domestic violence. These women can access the escaping violence payment via trusted community partners—and I know the ones in my electorate do a great job. We've streamlined the application process, reducing the time it takes to receive assistance. We've also increased the amount of financial support that a temporary visa holder experiencing violence can access, from $3,000 up to $5,000.</para>
<para>State and territory organisations that support women experiencing violence have benefited from an additional $159 million, to deliver their vital frontline services. As the member for Warringah pointed out, we do need to increase this even more, unfortunately. But it's worth noting that that funding was due to cease on 30 June under the Morrison government. The work these organisations are doing has also been bolstered by the Albanese government, addressing workplace shortages. As a result, we're steadily growing the number of frontline workers in this important community sector.</para>
<para>Another initiative with immediate positive impact for women dealing with violence is the ability to access 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave from their workplaces, irrespective of whether they're permanent or casual. It's also now easier for women to contact 1800RESPECT, so that anyone experiencing family or sexual violence can receive specialist support services, such as counselling, via text message. The Albanese government is also investing in crisis and temporary accommodation for women and children, via the Housing Australia Future Fund, and delivering 720 new safe places for First Nations and CALD women and children.</para>
<para>These measurable and practical supports directly benefit victim-survivors and are underpinned by ongoing, extensive systemic work. The Albanese government is strengthening the way the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault. An important Australian law reform inquiry is currently underway, and I look forward to Attorney-General Dreyfus's response. It's being supported by a lived-experience expert advisory group, and we deeply respect and honour their voices. Labor is committed to strengthening and harmonising sexual assault and consent laws and to improving outcomes and experiences for victim-survivors in the justice system.</para>
<para>Family violence affects women of every age, every cultural background, every level of education and in every career, in vastly different communities across the country. Yet, while 91 per cent of Australians recognise that violence against women is a problem in our country, only 47 per cent think that it's a problem in the streets where they live. We need to change these attitudes and put a spotlight on domestic and family violence.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Warringah. Domestic and intimate partner violence in Australia is a national crisis. Every year nearly 8,000 women return to dangerous environments after fleeing violence, because they have nowhere else to go, while another 9,000 become homeless. Crisis-response services are overburdened, and emergency shelters are overflowing. These are just the stories we know of—stories of people who have found a way to leave—with the reality being there are thousands more trapped in violence silently. The words of one North Sydney mother who lost everything after fleeing her violent partner with her three young children push me every day to do better in this place. I share them now in the hope that it will push others. She simply said: 'Surely you can do something at a national policy level. I can't be the only one going through this. It's just too big.'</para>
<para>The truth is she's right. Something must be done at the national policy level, yet, like her, I can't help but question the urgency in which we are responding to this crisis as a parliament. We know we can move with speed when we feel there is a crisis that needs to be addressed. We saw this late last year when this government rushed through laws to deal with immigration detainees in what it perceived to be an immigration crisis. I ask this government today: how many more women need to die before we respond to Australia's domestic violence crisis with the same urgency?</para>
<para>To our shame, programs that have been proven to be effective in offering greater protection and more stability for children are not being rolled out nationwide, with the Staying Home Leaving Violence program being just one example. This program, originally piloted 12 years ago, fundamentally flips the experience of victim and perpetrator, in that it re-empowers the victim to stay in the primary residence. As our current system stands, in the immediate aftermath of violence it is the victim who is largely punished. They routinely lose their home. Their financial circumstances are routinely poor. The children are often uprooted. Yet the perpetrator stays where the violence occurred. The Staying Home Leaving Violence program flips that dynamic and forces the perpetrator out. The program, therefore, stops women from becoming homeless. Shockingly, in the state where it was conceived, New South Wales, it only operates in 91 of 128 local government areas. None of those areas are in Sydney's North Shore. The federal government has an opportunity in the upcoming budget to end this, to stop this inequity, by committing to funding proven domestic violence services right across our country.</para>
<para>We not only have a moral responsibility to take this crisis seriously but also have a responsibility under international human rights laws, with a failure to act seeing us blatantly flout basic human rights like the right to life, liberty and security; the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing; the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment; and the right to not be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, marital or relationship status or pregnancy. Australian women and families are depending on us to ensure these rights are protected. I want to acknowledge the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children</inline> and the respective action plans that are currently in place, as well as the large number of ministers, commissioners and advocates working towards change. But we do not have a generation to stop this; we must address it now. Change is not coming fast enough, and, as the leading federal body in this discussion, we must be focused on enabling everyone to work better together.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this important motion forward, and I echo her calls to convene a National Cabinet crisis meeting of federal, state and territory ministers to ensure everyone understands the role they are playing in addressing this crisis. As a federal parliament, we can do three things: we can lead, we can coordinate, and we can provide stimulus, be that financial, human or intellectual capital. It is past time that all of those things were brought to this crisis. I have to say it's particularly shocking during this past week, where we have seen evidence of billions of dollars invested in maintaining an offshore detention centre system which supposedly is in place to protect our community, that those billions of dollars could be far better spent if they were directed to the onshore services that we need to support women and children escaping domestic violence. We choose what we prioritise as a parliament, and it's time we chose to tackle this crisis. Women and children right across the country have nowhere else to turn. It's time we turned to them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Warringah for moving this important motion. Family and domestic violence is a national crisis. Day after day, the horrific accounts continue. The women and children injured or killed by people—usually men—closest to them: the men they should have been able to trust. Sometimes these stories shock us enough that they make the front pages and our social media feeds for a few days. Sometimes they prompt a moment of collective uncomfortableness where we make comments like, 'He seemed like such a guy,' or, 'They were just a normal family,' but more often this violence happens without any attention, in houses and communities across our country. For too long we have all looked away, and I am pleased to say that this is not the approach of our government. We are determined to end this national tragedy, to do the work to address the underlying causes of this violence, to support early intervention and to help women and children to leave unsafe situations.</para>
<para>It is fair to say that, when our government came to office, we did have to reset this work. I think tonight's <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> is going to give us a reminder of how the previous prime minister, the member for Cook, really did struggle to understand issues affecting women in this country. I won't run through it all—we can watch it for ourselves tonight—but, of course, there was the time he told women they were lucky they weren't living somewhere they could be marching to parliament and asking for women to be safe. I note in tonight's <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline> the member for Cook seems to have tried to explain his track record by saying, 'Suburban dads can be a bit clumsy when it comes to language.'</para>
<para>So there was a lot of work to be done, and our government has got on with it. In 2023 our government released the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, which has the goal of ending violence against women and children in one generation. Through the plan, we are addressing the underlying drivers of gender based violence to prevent it before it occurs. We're supporting early intervention and prevention. We're responding appropriately when violence is used and ensuring that victim-survivors are supported in their recovery and healing, putting them at the centre of this work. We have backed up with this plan with tangible investments. We've invested $2.3 billion to support the implementation of the national plan. This does include the first action plan, a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plant and plan—it is so important that we are addressing that issue in itself and not just as part of the broader issue—and six ambitious targets. We have taken immediate steps to support those impacted by family and domestic violence. We have changed the escaping violence payment to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes victim-survivors to access support. We're providing $159 million to fund the states and territories to deliver frontline services and get more frontline workers where they're needed. We've legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals. As I said, we're rolling out new frontline and community sector workers to support victim survivors and ensure they get the support they need when they need it.</para>
<para>Our government is also directing funding to address the drivers of violence, and this is crucial. This is where we will need to get real change, not just in this parliament, not just in what governments do but in our community. We're providing $100 million over five years to Our Watch to support their critical work. We've launched the consent policy framework to ensure young people are receiving consistent messaging about consent. We're working to address the unacceptably high rates of sexual assaults on university campuses. We want the next generations not to have this experience, not to see statistics at the levels that we currently do. We've got to change this across our society, amongst young people, amongst all of our communities.</para>
<para>Another critical component of our plan is ensuring that women and children have a roof over their heads. Through the Housing Australia Future Fund, our government has created a channel of $1.6 billion from the fund's returns to be directed towards social and affordable housing for women and children escaping domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. The fund will also provide $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for those fleeing violence. We know, without a stable roof over their heads, it is so hard for women and children to get back on track and get their lives back together.</para>
<para>This work our government is doing—and what I've outlined is only part of it—does reflect the need for a continuing and wide-ranging national effort to end domestic and family violence. We do know that with all this work we are not seeing it. There is much more to do, but I am confident we are on the right path, and we are committed to getting it done.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>267</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>267</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>It is with great pleasure that I move this motion today to highlight the federal Labor government's commitment to building a better and fairer education system from early education right through to university and TAFE. It is evident from the work that has already been undertaken by our government that we want all Australians to receive the highest quality education from when they are children right through to when they are adults. We in the federal Labor government understand the importance of what a good education can provide: that is, solid foundations that can set you up for a fulfilling and productive life. These visions are what all Labor governments strive for for Australia and its people: a quality education, well-paying jobs and a high quality of living. We are the party that always delivers better funding for education, better pay and conditions for teachers and staff and better outcomes. We leave a legacy, whereas those opposite leave people behind.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that is implementing outstanding reforms in the early childhood education and care sector. We know that children thrive when they have access to early childhood education. It sets children up for further learning in primary school and success throughout their lives.</para>
<para>The government's cheaper child care reforms are making a huge difference for families in my community on the Central Coast. Around 6,900 families are now better off because of the changes that we have made to child care. That is more families able to send their children to child care and more children benefitting from these quality services. The government is also working to strengthen early childhood education and care in additional areas. It has tasked the Productivity Commission with facilitating an inquiry to investigate further opportunities to build an affordable and accessible, high-quality and universal early learning system. I look forward to the commission's final recommendations.</para>
<para>Just recently I heard directly from providers, educators and families about the issues affecting child care on the Central Coast at an early childhood education and care forum in Umina Beach that my office hosted. The forum was insightful, with robust discussions about the challenges and complexities of early childhood education and care in the region. Moreover, the forum was an excellent opportunity for participants to familiarise themselves with the ECEC draft report, which is now available for feedback. I look forward to continuing to work closely with local providers, educators and families to help improve the sector.</para>
<para>The federal Labor government is investing in the schools of tomorrow. One form of this investment is the $275.2 million schools upgrade fund. I'm pleased to report to the chamber today that this investment is helping schools purchase equipment, upgrade classrooms and improve outcomes right across the nation. In Robertson, $165,000 has been distributed to six local schools so far, each school receiving $25,000. These schools have been able to purchase items like laptops, iPads and other ICT equipment to help improve learning and learning outcomes. Several schools have also been able to use this funding to upgrade classrooms, refurbish learning spaces and build shade structures.</para>
<para>After a wasted decade under a former Liberal government, this government is taking education seriously again and investing in Australia's future. To increase the level of tertiary education available on the Central Coast, the federal government is working with the University of Newcastle to build a new campus right in the heart of Gosford. I'm super excited to see the future of the University of Newcastle Gosford campus come to fruition. The federal Labor government is investing $18 million towards this $63 million project. This project is truly a game changer for Gosford city, which, when completed, will offer greater tertiary education options for people living across the Central Coast, especially in the health disciplines. It will also mean people living on the coast will have greater opportunities than to have to travel to Sydney or Newcastle to undertake a degree or further study.</para>
<para>This federal Labor government will continue to invest in our nation's education system to make it better and to make it fairer, because this is a government that wants to see all Australians reach their full potential.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Robertson for this really important motion. Education changes lives, from early childhood education and primary school all the way through to university and vocational education. But we know that people living in regional Australia have much lower educational outcomes than our city cousins. A Grattan Institute report released today found that one in three Australian students are not reading proficiently, but that increases to half of all students in regional Australia. This is deeply distressing. This is shocking information. As a regional Independent, I want to see this change. I want to see young regional Australians given the same opportunities as those young people in the cities. Across regional, rural and remote Australia, it is educators who make this happen. Early childhood educators and teachers are the key to our education system, guiding our children and young people through some of the most important years of their lives.</para>
<para>But our educator workforce is in trouble. We don't have nearly enough early childhood educators and teachers in this country. Parents are forced to wait months and sometimes even years on childcare waitlists. Schools are advertising teacher roles and receiving no applications. In my electorate of Indi, principals tell me they simply cannot hire enough teachers. There are not enough graduate teachers, and those that do graduate are not coming to rural, regional and remote Australia. The teachers who complete their training and join the sector aren't staying long enough, and these shortages risk setting the regional education gap back a whole generation.</para>
<para>I'm encouraged to see the government's Commonwealth teaching scholarships will provide additional payments and student debt relief to aspiring teachers willing to work in remote areas. But it's not clear to me whether these initiatives will benefit inner-regional areas like my electorate, where the shortages are dire. In child care, the situation is no better. A recent survey by the United Workers Union found that 90 per cent of childcare centres need more staff and that more than half are down three or more staff. More than a third of Australians live in a childcare desert, where there are simply more children than available childcare places or where there are simply no places at all. Across Australia, and nowhere more so than regional Australia, our childcare system is struggling. I've visited childcare centres right across my electorate, and they all tell me the same story: they struggle to recruit, train and retain enough staff to meet the demand of their communities.</para>
<para>I commend the government for reducing the cost of child care, but cheaper child care doesn't help parents forced to wait more than a year on waitlists. It doesn't help mums forced to drive an hour to neighbouring towns just to access child care. That means more money spent on fuel and less time working at a time when families are already doing it tough. When families can't access affordable child care, it's usually the mother who stays home. This means less opportunity to work part time or full time, to run a small business or to contribute to the local community. And it reinforces the gender pay gap and makes it harder for women to balance parenthood and work.</para>
<para>Without finding practical solutions to these challenges, we stop parents from working, hold our children back from achieving their full potential and slow the economic development of the regions. Regional Australia needs solutions now. I want to see more incentives for graduating teachers to move to the regions. I've also supported adding teaching to the approved worklist for visas, allowing qualified teachers to help plug gaps in the teaching workforce while we build a sustainable workforce for the future.</para>
<para>On child care, I'm watching closely to see how the government responds to two recent reports by the ACCC and the Productivity Commission. Firstly, I would say the government should accept the recommendation of the Productivity Commission to allow all families to access up to three days of subsidised child care a week regardless of how many hours they've worked. Secondly, the government must do more to improve career and qualification pathways for early childhood education, and we need to fix the pay that childcare educators receive. They need to be paid more. Fixing workforce shortages is critical to setting Australia on a path towards universal child care. As the Productivity Commissioner has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Without addressing the educator and teacher challenges we can't do anything.</para></quote>
<para>This statement was in relation to early childhood education and care, but it could be said of teaching at all levels. Both the Productivity Commission and the ACCC are telling us what we already know: our childcare system and our schools need help. The status quo is holding back regional Australian, and the government must respond and respond fast.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for Lalor, I'm incredibly proud to represent one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. Not just are we growing quickly; it is a global community that I represent now. In the city of Wyndham, people come from over 100 countries to build a house, create a family and have their children educated. That's why I thank the member for Robertson for bringing this motion to the chamber today. It is in the gamut of education, from early education and child care through school education and TAFEs and the VET sector and higher education, that this government has gotten to work quickly. I want to acknowledge Minister Clare, Minister Aly and Minister O'Connor for their incredible work since taking government and their attention to detail across all of our education sectors.</para>
<para>Due to the cheaper child care we have introduced, 1.2 million Australians are paying less for child care. In fact, we have seen a reduction of 11 per cent. This means that more women are accessing early education and child care for their youngsters and more women are working. In an electorate where 100 babies or more are born a week to mums who live in my electorate, I am really proud of this commitment and proud to see this being enacted across the country.</para>
<para>That takes me to school education, which is absolutely critical. As a former educator and teacher of 27 years and a principal for the last eight years in the state sector in Victoria, I am incredibly proud of the way Minister Clare has tackled the first 20 months of being in government, getting down to addressing some of those critical areas. First and foremost is the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, which was set up to address two areas, both the quality of our teachers and the quality of teacher training and the teacher shortage. In an electorate like mine, that's causing enormous stress to principals, teachers and families. We are now in our second year of schools reporting to me that they are struggling with the teacher shortage not just in terms of subject areas but generally in terms of the number of teachers that they require. I am proud to be a member for Lalor who advocates on their behalf at both the state and federal levels.</para>
<para>In Lalor, there are 21,000 primary school students this year. There are 13,300 secondary school students this year. Education is about partnership. It's a partnership between state and federal governments. I am proud to say that the Victorian state Labor government has in the last 12 months opened seven new schools in the city of Wyndham. Fifty per cent of all new schools across Victoria were opened in the growth area that I represent.</para>
<para>I am proud of the way those schools are being presented. They are absolutely ready to roll on the first day, with a gymnasium, a library, beautiful classrooms and administration areas for staff. Gone are the days in our growth corridor when a school opened with four portables and a toilet block. Now children and families walk into a brand-new school that's fit for purpose.</para>
<para>The teacher shortage is something that I am working on every day. It's something that we will need to keep working on. But I'm proud of the things we as a government have done to date. I'm proud of the support we have received from other ministers around visas for overseas teachers to arrive in my community and take up teaching posts. I see that every time I walk into a school. I am proud, too, of the support being given to graduate teachers or those going into teaching with a scholarship of up to $40,000. I'm also really proud of what's happening in the national partnership agreement. I'm proud of the WA agreement, where Western Australian schools will all meet the SRS. I'm hoping that that extends across the other states, and I'm sure that Minister Clare is working on that every day.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to quickly mention that on Friday in my electorate I attended Total Window Concepts, where 80 of their workforce received a cert III in blinds, awnings, security screens and grills. This was delivered by a reputable RTO and supported by ITHEA, the Institute of Tertiary and Higher Education Australia, and the Frontline Group. Congratulations to those 80 apprentices for the completion of that certificate III.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Robertson for his motion as, like him, I also want to see a better and fairer education system from early education right through to university. But, while the government has been espousing cheaper child care, one of the biggest challenges families in my electorate is that of accessibility. I'd like to read an email I received just before Christmas, one that sums up the experiences of too many families in my electorate. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the past 7 months, I have been actively seeking suitable day care options for my little one, who is set to start in February …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately, the waiting lists for these facilities are proving to be excessively long, making it challenging for parents like me to secure a spot for our children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This situation has left me feeling disheartened …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Additionally, I want to emphasize that the current difficulties in accessing timely day care services may force families like mine to make difficult decisions, such as one parent having to stop working.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This potential loss of income could be a significant financial blow for us and, I imagine, for many other families in our community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am also concerned about how families with lower levels of income or single parents are managing this situation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The challenges they face are likely even more daunting.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, I note that meaningfully tackling the issues that sit around early learning education and care is difficult, and this is a particularly challenging policy egg to unscramble. But let's not pretend that by making it cheaper it magically fixes the myriad problems that have sat around this policy area for at least the past two decades. I believe all parties have the best intentions, but we have to do away with tinkering at the edges and embrace bold structural reform that might deliver on an equity of opportunity.</para>
<para>Tasmanian public school students returned for term 1 last week, ready for another full year of learning. Anecdotally I'm hearing of unprecedented teacher shortages across both public and independent schools, where demand is far outstripping supply. I remember hearing from one local school in my electorate last year who tried and failed to find a relief teacher after calling 24 different teachers. I acknowledge the efforts that the federal government has taken to address the shortage through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, which was agreed to by all state education ministers at the end of 2022, and I understand that progress reports will become available this year. I'll be interested to see how this plan is working on the ground in Tasmania, particularly in my Northern Tasmanian electorate.</para>
<para>We know that truly making our education system fairer and better comes down to full funding, an issue that I have advocated, joining the Australian Education Union late last year and calling on the federal government to commit to filling the 10 per cent funding gap in my state. I will be addressing this in response to the member for Pearce's private member's bill later this evening.</para>
<para>Lastly, I want to briefly cover the priority actions raised by the member for Robertson regarding the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline><inline font-style="italic">Universities Accord</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic">interim report</inline>. I commend the government's measure for demand driven places for First Nations students from metropolitan areas, as it's a step towards addressing the higher education accessibility gap for Indigenous Australians. But, as someone who grew up in a regional and rural area and now represents that electorate, I know that there's more work to be done to ensure that students in these areas have the same educational opportunities to attain higher education if they want to. According to the ABC, in May 2021, 48.6 per cent of people aged 25 to 34 years in major cities had a bachelor's degree or above, compared to 26.9 per cent in inner regional areas, 21.1 per cent in outer regional areas and approximately 16.6 per cent in remote and very remote areas.</para>
<para>I understand the reasoning behind the regional study hubs, but I do have some concerns. These are shared by those in my community—by a group of committed and engaged members who have been involved with the university for many years, who, while in support of many of the measures outlined in the interim report, raise reasonable and relevant concerns regarding the hubs, particularly how hubs will be defined and implemented in a way that won't be detrimental to what's already offered by the University of Tasmania.</para>
<para>There is unease about the possibility that larger universities may be able to set up so-called hubs in areas of Tasmania and qualify for regional loading benefits without offering any of the necessary wraparound support services or engagement opportunities offered by institutions like UTAS. I urge the minister to engage with local stakeholders and address these concerns.</para>
<para>I'll always fight for the best interests of Northern Tasmania, and I don't want to see any measure implemented that would disadvantage students in my region or our single higher education institution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>271</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>271</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of the member for Moncrieff, I move:</para>
<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>
<para>Labor ministers have been deliberately using misleading data about Australia's childcare workforce, in media statements and in the parliament. When confronted, instead of accepting responsibility, they pathetically tried to blame Hansard for missing a dash.</para>
<para>For months this government has been saying that the 123,000 educators and childcare workers in the training pipeline are the result of Labor's policies since May 2022. Secret documents now reveal that the data actually only includes enrolments from 24 months of coalition government skills and education policies. It's not the result of Labor's fee-free TAFE policies at all. They have actually been highlighting the pipeline of successful training established under the coalition, including the Job Trainer program, which used both TAFE and industry led registered training organisations. What's worse is that the documents reveal they knew they were misleading Australians and the parliament, and they did that anyway.</para>
<para>The documents reveal official advice from the Department of Education was provided to the ministers as they developed a media release to highlight their childcare policies in October 2023. The advice explicitly warns the minister not to use the data in the way that they have been using it. Labor ministers have been taking the credit for coalition enrolments and trying to pass it off as the result of their policies. Several Labor ministers are caught up in this deception, and at least two, Minister Aly and Minister Watt, have clearly misled the parliament. Today I call on Minister Aly and Minister Watt to come into the parliament and correct their statements. There are clear rules that should be enforced about misleading the parliament, and I ask that these ministers follow them.</para>
<para>I understand why Labor ministers want to use data from coalition government skills and education policies. We handed the Albanese government a skills and training system not just trending up but powering ahead on the back of record investments guaranteed by a strong economy. Our policies invested over $13 billion in skills over the past two years of our government alone. We didn't just clean up Labor's mess; we made the most significant reforms to Aussie skills in over a decade. Our policy settings got apprenticeship numbers up to record levels. We did all of this while saving a generation of Australian workers from the biggest hit to our workforce since the Great Depression.</para>
<para>I will remind the chamber of the record of the Labor Party. When last in government, everything they touched on skills went bad. Apprenticeship numbers took a nosedive. When Labor last left office, apprentice and trainee numbers were in freefall, with the number in training collapsing by 22 per cent. Labor's VET FEE-HELP disaster saw the reputation of the Australian skills system hit rock bottom, as tens of thousands of Australians were loaded up with debt for doing courses that would never land them a job.</para>
<para>The scheme established by the Labor government in 2008 and expanded in 2012 was plagued by systemwide rorting, with some training providers exploiting loose rules and charging students substantial debts for training they never undertook or benefited from. It also targeted people with disabilities and substance abuse issues, public housing residents, those from non-English-speaking backgrounds and others with offers of free laptops and other incentives, and the taxpayer is still picking up the tab for this enormous public policy failure, which is now over $3.5 billion. Who presided over all of this? It was none other than the now-returned Minister for Skills and Training, the member for Gorton.</para>
<para>We've also discovered that new data from NCVER demonstrates that Labor are at it again, with the Albanese government overseeing a wholesale collapse in the number of apprentices and trainees in every single state and almost every electorate across the nation. After just one year of Labor, there are 50,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in training today than when Labor took office. That is a loss of one in 10. The data, which has also been broken down by electorate, shows that, in the final year of the coalition government, in-training numbers increased in every electorate bar one while, under the first year of Labor's skills policies, the number of apprentices and trainees dropped in every electorate except four. I see that the member for Robertson may be speaking on this motion. His electorate on the Central Coast has taken a six per cent hit to apprentices and trainees in one year of Labor. In the final year of the Liberal government, numbers went up 24 per cent. The member for Chisholm may be speaking on this motion. Her electorate in Melbourne is one of the worst hit. In just one year of Labor, Chisholm lost one in five apprentices and trainees. During the last year under the Liberal government, numbers went up 70 per cent.</para>
<para>Labor came to power promising it would solve the skills shortages, but in fact this government has misled the parliament and the Australian people with factually incorrect information, and skills and training, which are so important for our economy, are sliding backwards.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Stevens</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Clearly, on the issues of skills, there are some sensitivities from those opposite. I'd feel pretty sensitive too if a decade of neglect were exposed by the current government, which I am really delighted to be a part of. I know how well we're doing in the skills sector because I actually speak to people in my electorate who are enrolled in the skills system. I know that, through fee-free TAFE—a Labor initiative—we are addressing the skills shortage with an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE places just this year. Of course last year we absolutely exceeded our targets.</para>
<para>Let's talk about early childhood education and the work that our early childhood education sector carers do. I spend time listening to our educators. In fact I recently hosted a roundtable in my electorate with Minister Aly and listened to educators, parents and people in the community who really want to see the sector do well. What we heard was that our government is making historic strides in ensuring that educators and families are getting access to the kind of high-class, well-supported system that we all deserve in this country. We know how important the early years are and how important the skilled and compassionate educators are in ensuring that we're setting up our youngest community members for the future. In my own electorate we have nearly 220 education centres and 1,100 early childhood educators. When we came into government, we had the biggest skills shortages in 60 years. Despite what those opposite might want to tell people, we know that that's the case and we know that we've been making strides. Our Jobs and Skills Summit was one of the very earliest events that our government held. Of course we heard there that enhancing the early childhood system would be good not just for children, which of course it is, and not just for the economy, which of course it is, but for workforce participation of women. I'm really delighted to say that we've been globally recognised as making enormous strides in closing the gender pay gap and doing more around gender equity, partly due to the increased workforce participation of women in the economy.</para>
<para>We as a government are making it easier for Australians to gain the skills they need for a rewarding career in early childhood education. I've had the great privilege in my working life, both before entering this place and since, of working with and meeting with early childhood educators, including through the United Workers Union. They are such passionate workers. They care so much about the children, the families and the communities they serve, and they are the best advocates for people pursuing a career in early childhood education and training. In fact, since we've come to government, our early childhood education and care sector has grown by more than 20,000 workers. We know that this is vital for ensuring that we see improvements in women's workforce participation and that we ensure that children are able to benefit from structured education in those early years. And, of course, this is good for the economy, too.</para>
<para>We know that there's more to do. We are, after all, trying to recover from a decade of neglect by the previous government. Our government knows that supporting a pipeline of workers is critical to addressing shortages in this sector but also, of course, in many other sectors that were neglected by that previous government. We, as a government, understand the importance of getting wages moving, particularly in low-paid, female-dominated sectors like early childhood education and care.</para>
<para>We also need to do everything we can to properly value and recognise the profession, to ensure that we not only attract but retain the workers that are already in the sector. That's why our government has prioritised working with early childhood education providers and workers, to develop and deliver practical solutions to retain staff. I have mentioned the fee-free TAFE positions that we've provided, with increased wages. And, of course, workers are going to be better off under the tax cuts that our government is initiating. So, after nearly a decade of neglect and inaction from the previous government, I'm so proud to be part of a government that takes children, families and workers in the early childhood education sector seriously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a motion about misleading the parliament, so I might make remarks relevant to the actual motion, for a change, for a bit of excitement in the chamber here! But I'll start by firstly acknowledging and paying tribute to all those people who work in the childcare sector and the care sector more broadly. We're very lucky to have such dedicated people working in the sector—and also, indeed, some who volunteer in the sector. I know that any local member would have had similar experiences, of visiting many of the childcare centres in our electorates. We're very grateful for the work that's done there, particularly over some very difficult and challenging years with COVID. The childcare sector, like so many others, really did make an enormous contribution, through sacrifice, to support the varied and necessary responses to that challenging time. So my praise and best wishes and thanks to all those who work in the childcare sector.</para>
<para>I was a member of the previous government, and we were very proud to do so much to assist and invest in the sector and to train for the workforce needs in the sector. That's why I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to reflect on the record of our government in that space.</para>
<para>This indeed is a motion that, in some ways, thanks the ministers in the new government for the inadvertent praise they've heaped upon the previous government. They've accidentally forgotten to accurately link certain achievements to the performance of the previous government, and—accidentally, no doubt!—claimed it all for themselves.</para>
<para>But the good news is: we can now correct the record, because we've got some very clear clarification through the important freedom-of-information processes that we have access to, where we've managed to get some unequivocal evidence from the Department of Education on just what the situation is when it comes to the record and legacy of the previous government, regarding training for important educators, teachers and carers in this sector. Documents produced by the Department of Education under FOI, which were provided to ministers in the new government, made some very good points about what was happening when it came to training in the sector. As public servants in the education department advised ministers, through the FOI documents we obtained, there's a figure of 123,000 training places, which is used by ministers in the new government. Helpfully, the education department has made it very clear that that figure relates to the year 2021 as to higher education data and 2022 as to VET data. That's 123,000. The ministers in the new government were good enough to spruik that excellent outcome, of 123,000, and praised that figure in a number of press releases and even in the parliament—even on the record in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, subject to all of the necessary requirements of not misleading the House, as we know. While we appreciate the comments from ministers about that figure, they've accidentally neglected to point out that that figure is thanks to the performance of the previous government, and it happened in the Senate—which I won't dwell on, because we're not interested in that chamber here in the Federation Chamber, but we are interested in the people's house, the House of Representatives. A little concerning was Minister Aly's answer to a question on 18 October, where she talked about informing the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… that since the Albanese Labor government came to office there are over 14,000 new educators in the sector and 123,000 in training pathways …</para></quote>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> reflects that she indicated that was since the Albanese Labor government came to office. Unfortunately, we find in these document that have been released to the opposition that an email to the minister's office from the department very clearly stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Framing this aggregate figure as 'Since May 2022'—</para></quote>
<para>when the Albanese government came to government—</para>
<quote><para class="block">is not accurate.</para></quote>
<para>That's from the dispassionate, independent Public Service. I am sure we have no doubt that they're right. I'm sure no-one would dispute advice from the Public Service. So this is very concerning. We'd like to see the minister reflect on what was advised to her office and what she has advised the House and decide whether or not the record needs to be corrected. We certainly raise it through this motion. I commend my good friend the member for Moncrieff and thank the deputy leader for her comments and urge the minister and this parliament to reflect on that and look for opportunities to correct the record.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about early childhood education. Early learning educators do a vital job, making it possible for millions of other Australians to do their jobs too and supporting young children's early learning and development. Yet when we came to government we inherited a skills crisis in the early childhood education sector and many other sectors as well. In fact, we inherited the biggest skills shortage in 60 years. This how the Liberals and Nationals treated the TAFE and VET sectors.</para>
<para>This government has completely different approach. We are making it easier for Australians to gain the skills they need for a rewarding career in early childhood education. Through our fee-free TAFE policy we are addressing the skills shortage with an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE places being rolled out from the start of this year, expanding on the success that we have already seen from the investment last year. I know that here in Canberra we have seen that taken up by many, many people at CIT. Because of this government's policy, we saw 14,304 fee-free enrolments in early childhood education and care cases from 1 January 2023 to 30 September 2023. Since coming to government Australia's early childhood education and care sector has grown by more than 20,000 workers. There are also a further 123,000 additional educators and teachers in the training pipeline. The Albanese government knows that supporting a pipeline of workers is critical to addressing the shortages in the sector left by those opposite.</para>
<para>Our government also understands that supporting the early childhood workforce includes not just praising the workforce but also providing a fair wage. Getting wages moving, particularly in low-paid, female-dominated sectors such as early childhood education and care, is a prominent feature of our economic policies. In partnership with stakeholders, we have already helped deliver a 4.6 per cent award increase in 2022 and a 5.75 per cent award increase in 2023 for 113,000 early childhood educators.</para>
<para>Our government is also working with the sector to develop and deliver practical solutions to retain staff while continuing to develop and strengthen recruitment and training pathways. We have already funded university places for early education teachers as well as fee-free TAFE. We are also accelerating implementation of the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy to address workforce challenges in the short to long term.</para>
<para>Our government is also supporting the sector's workforce in the fight against inflation by giving every worker a tax cut. Under Labor's tax cut, early childhood educators and teachers will also be better off when compared to the previous government's plan. An early childhood educator at the start of their career earning $46,000 a year will now receive an $829 tax cut and an early childhood teacher earning $69,000 a year will receive a $1,404 tax cut.</para>
<para>It is important to recognise that a supported, valued workforce is critical to making early childhood education and care more accessible and affordable to Australian families. That's why we invested $72.4 million to support the skills and training of a quality and sustainable early childhood education and care sector. The funding helps staff to access professional development and complete the practical section of their study.</para>
<para>Our package will also help build skills and strengthen the supply of qualified early childhood education and care workers. This important investment will support the quality and highly trained early childhood education and care workforce through improved access to professional development opportunities, making it easier for educators to upskill and progress in their careers. The package includes targeted support to retrain staff and support skills development for educators, including those in regional and remote communities and First Nations early education staff and services. This vital investment will ensure high-quality early childhood educators remain in the sector, with clear opportunities for career advancement.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to supporting this sector by properly skilling its workforce, guaranteeing secure jobs and providing a positive place for our children in their earliest years to ensure the best start in life. It is only a Labor government that can be trusted to support our early childhood education and care sector. Clearly, while recognition is so important, it takes more than that. It takes investment in training opportunities and career pathways for these critical workers in our community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that child care is an issue that is significant for many families. As this motion rightly points out, and as the member for Canberra did quote, the 123,000 early childhood educators and teachers were in the pipeline thanks to the Morrison coalition government. It's great to see some bipartisan support. Those opposite are recognising the great work of the former government in those 123,000 people.</para>
<para>I hear from local constituents about that challenges that their families and young families are having in the Dandenong Ranges, in Yarra Valley and all across Casey in getting access to child care. It's particularly important when we talk about long day care. Long day care is crucial in a community like mine because many mothers and fathers, many families, have to drop their children off early. They have over an hour's commute if they work in the CBD. They need to have the ability to drop them off early and pick them up late. If they don't have that opportunity, then they're not able to work in the CBD. It limits their options. So it's crucial that we create more places. It's economics 101. If there's more supply it brings prices down. In 18 months of this government they have not invested one extra dollar into increasing the supply of childcare places.</para>
<para>I'm looking forward to having the shadow minister for early childhood education, Angie Bell, out to Casey next Monday. We'll be visiting early childhood centres, talking to them and understanding first-hand their challenges and what we can do to help them. I've been engaging with the community on this issue since elected. I want to thank Belinda from Mums of the Hills, which is a great organisation representing many families and mothers across Casey and across our community. I was talking to her late last year about this very issue She sent me an article from the ABC which identified this startling figure for our community: there are between 15.43 and 15.87 children competing for every one childcare place in our community. That's putting pressure on families not just to be able to get a spot but also with the price they're paying, despite what this government says.</para>
<para>One family in my community has gone from paying $162 per day to $175 per day. They're $8 a day worse off after the increase in the subsidy last year. Another family has had a $13 a day increase, from $129 to $142 a day. Let's put that into context. Many on the other side have spent the last week talking about the stage 3 tax cut changes that they've made. What they don't talk about is that the change will deliver $15 a week from 1 July. Conveniently, they also don't talk about the $1,500 a year they ripped away from low- and middle-income earners last year when they let the offset lapse. For a family where it's gone up $13 a day, this government's crowing about $15 a week, and under this government every dollar is crucial. It just shows how out of touch the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Labor government are that they think $15 a week in five months is the solution to the cost-of-living crisis for young families in my community.</para>
<para>They talk about this claim of the 1,400 educators and the 123,000 in training, happy to take credit for the work of the former coalition government, because at its core that's the reality of the Albanese Labor government. It's all about spin. It's all about optics. It's all about running lines again and again, misleading, whether it is the trillion dollars of debt, which ABC Fact Check proved was a lie. It's claiming the work of the former government.</para>
<para>But there is something that this Prime Minister, who has been in this House since 1996, needs to understand. It doesn't matter what we say in this House; it matters what we do for families getting child care, for cost-of-living relief. You can talk about $15 a week in five months time. It helps no-one in my community today. It doesn't help them in March, April, May or June. They need relief today, and this Prime Minister insults them by patting himself on the back, talking about ABC documentaries in question time, thinking that every problem in the world is solved because he misled the Australian people over 100 times. I condemn this Prime Minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The federal Labor government is working hard to ensure Australia's education system is one of the best in the world. Since our election in May 2022, our significant reforms are making outstanding improvements in the early childhood education and care sector. Our government is getting on with the job of governing and building a better future for all Australians and not just some, as was so often the case under the former Liberal and National government. Our government understands that, after a decade of lost opportunities, under those opposite, we have been left with a skills shortage crisis. Those opposite were asleep at the wheel and, when they were working, they were working against each other, as we've all seen in the ABC series <inline font-style="italic">Nemesis</inline>. What a shameful period in Australia's political history: no vision and no legacy.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a federal Labor government that is now addressing this skills shortage. This year we will again provide up to 300,000 fee-free TAFE positions, including for those Australians wanting to pursue a career in the early childhood education and care sector. Early learning teachers and educators do a vital job making it possible for millions of other Australians to do theirs and also supporting children's early learning and development. Our government is making it easier for Australians to gain the skills they need for a rewarding career in early childhood education, and we are seeing this through our governments fee-free TAFE courses. Already we can see that this policy is working to increase the training of educators across Australia. From early 2023 to September 2023, our government recorded that 14,304 Australians had enrolled in early childhood education and care courses—a fantastic result that our government will continue to build upon in the weeks, months and definitely years ahead.</para>
<para>Further, this government recognises that, to attract more Australians to train and become educators, we need to remunerate them properly. That is why we are getting wages moving again, particularly in low-paid sectors of the economy. This federal Labor government is working with the early childhood education sector to deliver practical solutions to retain staff while continuing to develop and strengthen recruitment and training pathways. Already we have delivered a 4.6 per cent award increase in 2022 and a 5.75 per cent award increase in 2023, with more being done to improve the pay and conditions of educators in 2024.</para>
<para>Here's another way we are helping educators: Labor's tax cuts. I'm pleased to advise the chamber that early childhood educators will be better off following labour's tax cuts that will come into effect from 1 July this year. Are childhood educator earning $46,000 a year will now receive an $829 tax cut. And early childhood teacher earning $69,000 will receive a $1,404 tax cut. This is great news for educators and early childhood teachers, who have been overlooked and underappreciated for too long by those in the Liberal and National parties.</para>
<para>Recently I had the pleasure of hosting an early childhood education and care forum in my home electorate of Robertson. It was a brilliant opportunity for providers, educators, teachers and families to speak with me about what our government can continue to do to build upon the reforms we have already implemented within this sector. I would like to provide a special shout-out to local Central Coast residents Jess Coulson, Mandy Millan and Samantha Mann, who have already been advocating on behalf of thousands of families across the Central Coast for improvements in the early childhood education and care sector. These three women have been pivotal in setting up our early childhood education and care forum to discuss these challenges and issues that are affecting the sector more broadly.</para>
<para>This is not the end of our government's work. The federal Labor government will continue to address these issues affecting the early childhood education and care sector now and into the future across every electorate—including Casey! I say to the opposition: you had a decade to address the issues that are developing within this sector right now, and you chose to do nothing. The opposition chose to do nothing, and now we are left to deal with this significant neglect. To those opposite: stop criticising the positive reforms we are making and start working with this government to build a better future for all.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>276</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>Last week, the second half of the Albanese Labor government's 'closing loopholes' bill passed the Senate. Right now, it's back before the House and being debated as we speak; in fact, we may be called to a division at any moment! This important reform is the next step in the Albanese Labor government's plan to bolster and protect the pay and condition of Australian workers. If passed, when passed, the bill will provide minimum standards for gig workers, reforms to the road transport industry and a better deal for casual workers who want to become permanent.</para>
<para>I ask: when called upon to vote on this important legislation, this legislation so critical to the interests, health, safety and remuneration of Australian workers, what will the Liberals do? Based on their track record, I suspect we know which way they'll go. At every opportunity it appears the Liberals will oppose legislation that protects Australian workers. The Liberals opposed closing the labour hire loophole, instead siding with companies like Qantas who have used the loophole to undercut pay agreements and steal from workers, including from thousands of families in my community. Despite their opposition, that's a loophole that Labor has now closed. The Liberals opposed the criminalisation of wage theft, deciding that while it's a criminal offence for a worker to steal from the till it's no problem for an employer to steal from a worker's pay packet. Despite their opposition, Labor criminalised wage theft.</para>
<para>The Liberals opposed getting wages moving again not just once but 36 times in this term of parliament alone. It's no secret that wage suppression was part of their economic plan for a decade in government, and clearly it remains a part of their economic philosophy in opposition that workers don't deserve their fair share of the economic pie. Despite the Liberals' ideological opposition to higher wages, the Albanese Labor government has overseen record wage growth. Wages are growing at four per cent—the highest they've been in 15 years—and we've seen two consecutive quarters of real wage growth; I'm happy to take the member for Casey through what that looks like at some later point, if he requires! This is not just some sort of economic good fortune; it is the product of the hard work of the Australian people, and the policy settings from the Albanese Labor government and our plan to get wages moving again.</para>
<para>We've restored balance at the bargaining table with our 'secure jobs, better pay' laws. We've backed and secured substantial increases to the minimum wage. We've successively advocated for record increases to award wages. We've backed and funded a 15 per cent pay rise for our aged-care workers. All this, alongside the changes implemented in the first half of our 'closing loopholes' bill, has resulted in higher wages and better conditions for Australian workers.</para>
<para>So, as we approach another vote on supporting Australian workers, I am hoping that the Liberals have turned over a new leaf in 2024 and let their relentless contempt for working people fall behind them. Look at Labor's tax cuts, for example. It appears now that, despite all the incompetent bluster and a vicious commitment to rolling them back, the Liberals will now support Labor's tax cuts, even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the pulpit.</para>
<para>I can't help but wonder: will they bring their new-found support for the Albanese Labor government's agenda to the second half of the closing loopholes bill, or will they revert to their default position of denying Australian workers a fair go? That's what the closing loopholes legislation is all about—ensuring that Australians have safe and secure work irrespective of who they are or which industry they work in. It's about standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees and giving them the right to convert their employment if they want to. It's about empowering the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for gig workers and ensuring that they aren't subjected to worse standards of pay and conditions just because they work in the gig economy. It's about establishing minimum standards in the road safety industry and doing what we can to prevent anymore unnecessary deaths on our roads.</para>
<para>Tragically, 235 people died on our roads just last year in transport related accidents as the impact of cost cutting and unrealistic deadlines proved deadly. I want to commend the efforts of the Transport Workers Union and the dedication of employers and industry associations who came together to support this legislation in shared recognition of a need for a safer and more viable road transport industry. I hope that their example, the coming together of somewhat unlikely allies, can be a lesson for the Liberals opposite when considering this legislation on its merits.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a seconder?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Chesters</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd hate to be seen as seconding the motion, but I'm happy to speak to it! The member for Hawke is a good man, and I think he has good intentions. But, sadly, we're in the game of politics, where consequences are what we're judged on, not our intentions. Ultimately, in this bill, Labor has chosen to exercise its right to disconnect from reality and, simply, from the workforce by pushing a narrative that I believe is driven along ideological bounds that will ultimately hurt workers.</para>
<para>I'm going to talk to an exact example of that. This legislation has caused a lot of concern amongst particularly small and medium businesses who are trying to understand what this means for them. They already exist in a very complex IR framework and, on every change that's required, they seek guidance. I'll give an example of starting out in a small business. My father was a concreter. He knew how to do his work. What he didn't know was IR legislation. For him to navigate these changes required external help. That's fine. But when you don't engage with that bottom level, the people who are starting out and really trying to make their way, you get problems like this.</para>
<para>We had an IR forum. I had wonderful support. We had speakers from the Master Builders Association, the National Farmers Federation and the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association come and speak to local business owners in Groom. We held it at Gold Park. I'm happy to disclose that that is the ground of my wonderful football team, the Rangers Rugby Union Club. We held it there. They have a convention centre at the back. To run the meeting, they had to engage one of their casual employees to come out and staff the bar, a young man called Jason. Jason was homeless in his early years and had some of the problems that you find amongst homeless people, particularly getting his way back into employment. Thanks to the good people at Bates services they got him on the employment bandwagon. He wasn't attractive to employers in a full-time capacity, but they were willing to give him a go as a casual to start his way out. Here's a young man who has absolutely pulled himself up by his bootlaces. He's done everything he can. He got himself into employment. If you ask about his first pay cheque, the smile on his face is something that you just know what it is. It is aspiration coming through.</para>
<para>Anyway, Jason's there, manning the bar, serving drinks to people as the IR conversation is going on. As the conversation is going on, both he and the manager of the bar are sitting there, and you can see their faces getting more and more ashen as we discuss what this means for Australian workers. At the end of the evening, once we went through the legislation and what it meant for casuals, the bar manager came over and said: 'Garth, I've got a problem. Under this legislation Jason loses his job. I can't afford to employ him full time. I do not make enough money in this bar to keep everyone else running and to employ him full time. He comes along on a regular basis, on a Wednesday evening, and runs the convention centre. He chooses Wednesday evening because he's studying the other evenings to try and get ahead in life.' This ridiculous legislation will strip this young man of his career—his employment at that place.</para>
<para>There was a time when Labor was in touch with labourers; that's long gone. There was a time when they were in touch with the working class; that is long gone. This is the sort of legislation that is just another nail in the coffin of ambitious young men and women across Australia—people like Jason, who didn't have the greatest start in life. He's not going to be working for the high end of town, which this legislation won't change. The big banks, Qantas—get all the photos with Mr Albanese and Mr Joyce, if you want to throw that into the conversation—those guys don't care. They've already got IR lawyers. They can navigate another 300 pages of legislation. Little pubs and little places like this can't. When faced with the question, 'Do I keep this guy on, or do I not?', they don't have a choice. Jason will lose his job because of this legislation.</para>
<para>The fundamental misunderstanding by this Labor Party is to think that every casual will have a 100 per cent conversion rate to full-time employment. They won't. You're costing people their jobs. You're costing people their aspirations. If you just went out and listened to people, and ran a proper consultation process, you would have heard this and we wouldn't be having the absolute shemozzle that we're seeing on IR from this government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise knowing that the bells will ring at any moment on the second half of the closing loopholes legislation. It is good to be standing here, knowing that in this part of the House, and in the chamber, we are debating industrial relations. And we need to, because, as the previous speaker for the opposition just demonstrated, there's a lot of education that we need to do in relation to the bill that passed the parliament in the last sittings. Deputy Speaker, I'm the chair and you're the deputy chair of the Employment, Education and Training Committee, and we've already been advised, through that role, that the Fair Work Ombudsman will start the education process for employers to understand what their obligations are under the new law that has since been adopted.</para>
<para>The industry associations representing hospitality workers, like the AHA, do not share the same fears as the previous speaker because they understand that the new requirement under the casual conversion clause is, if the person is regularly doing the same hours, consistently has the same roster, then there is an opportunity for that worker to convert to those hours. It's not about creating a full-time job if that full-time job doesn't exist. It's about saying that you cannot continue to roll somebody over as a casual, with those opportunities to dismiss when you like, if they continually do the same roster. It's strengthening the casual conversion clause that already exists.</para>
<para>It's not fair for members to come into the House and spread misinformation. It's just not fair. We need to make sure that we're working off the facts and that, when we're talking to small businesses in our community, they understand what their obligations are. They should talk to their industry association. They should talk to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Before dismissing anybody, find out what your obligations are and what these new laws mean.</para>
<para>What I really respect about what the parliament did at the end of last year, before we took the break, was the legislation that we adopted that stopped labour hire companies being used to underpay workers. Far too often in this country, when I've gone out to workplaces, whether they be in the mining industry or in manufacturing, you meet people who've consistently been doing the same job as the person next to them—they have the same job title, they have the same experience and they're doing the same job—yet one is being paid less than the other. That's because they're hired by a labour hire company. It's just not fair. The minimum standards in that particular workplace, if you work for labour hire, are those in the award—or those in an enterprise agreement, if one has been struck with that particular employer. The minimum standards for the worker, in many cases, are those in the enterprise agreement that has been struck, that has been built up over years to a certain level of conditions. So labour hire—and this was completely legal—was being used as a way to underpay those workers.</para>
<para>What the closing the loopholes legislation did was to change that to say: 'For the same workers doing the same job with the same relevant experience, site rates must apply.' This is good legislation. This is about closing a loophole and restoring fairness and integrity. It encourages employers to look at those labour hire workers and work out who they want to bring onto their books.</para>
<para>Introducing a new criminal offence for industrial manslaughter is important. This is about changing culture on our worksites and making employers, in the most grievous of situations, accountable. We've seen it used already in Victoria, for the owner of the truck company who allowed his driver to drive far too many shifts in a row, for far too many hours, which led to the tragic killing of those police officers on the Monash Freeway. This legislation is about saying to employers and companies: 'You have a responsibility to make sure that your workers are working safely and fairly.'</para>
<para>We're protecting workers who are subject to family and domestic violence from discrimination in the workplace. Again, we're making sure that we're lifting standards and supporting women to not lose their job when they're going through this tough moment in their lives. We've expanded the functions of the former Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica—again, an important reform that passed the parliament back in December.</para>
<para>These changes strengthen our industrial relations laws. They will help employers and employees in their workplaces. These changes make our workplaces safer. They close the loopholes and give workers and employers the opportunity to work more closely together.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pity that the member for Hawke has decided to leave the chamber in the debate on this motion; it probably says a little bit about the credit that he gives it—and he was given it by a minister, no doubt. But he did talk about real wage statistics, and he talked about the last two quarters. What he didn't talk about was the fact that real wages have gone backwards in every quarter, on an annual basis, since Labor came to government. That includes the biggest collapse in real wages on record, in the December 2022 quarter. He didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want to talk about the fact that, over the past 18 months, real net disposable income per person fell by 8.6 per cent. For an average income earner, this is a decline in take-home pay of just under $8,000. Primarily, it has been driven by rising mortgage payments, falling real wages and increasing taxes.</para>
<para>The other thing he didn't want to talk about, but was happy to throw barbs at the opposition on, was wage theft and voting against wages. I'll give him his due: he wasn't in the parliament at the time. But he's been involved in politics for a long time and is very influential, I hear, in the ALP in Victoria. He didn't talk about how Labor voted against legislating a wage-theft provision on 23 February 2021. He didn't talk about the fact that we could have had legislation in operation today for workers, if Labor had voted for it in 2021. Conveniently, he misses that in history. It was described by one Labor source, in the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> on 3 February 2021, as 'collateral damage'. So it says a bit about those opposite that they're happy to get up here and talk about wage theft, but their actions in 2021 said another thing. This motion from the member for Hawke, in many ways, sums up the challenges with Labor's—</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:29 to 12:48</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The challenge with this legislation and this motion is that there's no mention or discussion of productivity. Everyone wants higher wages—it's good for the community, it's good for society, and it's good for business. But to avoid inflation from wage growth, it has to be coupled with productivity gains. As Richard Holden, the University of New South Wales's professor of economics, recently said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have a big productivity problem in Australia. And that makes current wage increases inflationary … But @Tony_Burke sure isn't being careful about IR policy and inflation.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will refer to members by their proper title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's the quote. The minister sure isn't being careful, to paraphrase Richard Holden. It's a direct quote. We've seen, since the Albanese government came to power, a collapse of 6.1 per cent in labour productivity in the last 18 months. That's the challenge that we have. It's why we're seeing inflation so high for many reasons. You need to get that balance of higher wages coupled with productivity to ensure that prices don't go up. This legislation is just adding more complexity and cost, and it's making it harder for small business to deal with it.</para>
<para>As a small business owner in my community, Jack, recently wrote to me: 'This is 800 pages long. I don't have enough time or manpower to trawl through it all.' That's the reality. Every time we add more and more legislation in the IR space, it is small business owners that struggle to keep up with it. Big business is fine. They've got significant resources and IR departments to handle it. But we're asking husbands and wives and families with no expertise in IR to understand 800 pages of legislation. Now we learn that the risk is that, if they get it wrong, they can end up in jail. If they get the right to disconnect wrong, which was the legislation that Labor voted for last week, it can put them in jail. That's what happens when you rush legislation in the IR space: you make mistakes and it's the community, employees and employers that suffer.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an absolute pleasure to be upstairs in the Federation Chamber in between votes in the closing loopholes legislation in the House below us. It's interesting that the member for Casey said that he wanted people to get paid higher wages. It was nice to hear someone from the opposition benches suggesting they wanted higher wages, but I'd ask the member for Casey to back that with some of his actions. He has just left the floor of the House of Representatives where once again he voted to keep wages low by attempting to put this legislation, which is incredibly important, out into never-never land. That is on top of all of the other stalling tactics that have been used by the opposition since the first tranche of closing loopholes came into parliament. We have just heard that detail downstairs.</para>
<para>I want to thank the member for Hawke for bringing this on in private members business today because, of course, Labor wants to get wages moving—but not just that. The pendulum in industrial relations has swung way too far to the right and we have waited a decade to bring fairness back to the table. The best example of that is the section in the closing loopholes legislation that deals with labour hire and stopping labour hire being used to undercut agreements made between workers and their employers. This has been going on for a decade and has meant that we have had wages under cut. It has meant that people have lost ground in terms of their wages. This all becomes critically important in a cost-of-living crisis, of course. Labor has always stood for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and this legislation, the closing loopholes legislation, supports that.</para>
<para>I just want to touch on the right to disconnect aspects of this legislation and explain it to some of the people in this room if they do not understand. This was something that was brought to my attention previous to my time in this parliament when, as a principal, I had teachers come to me, to say, 'It's great that my team leader's working so hard but, seriously, my phone goes ping at 9.30 at night and it's a message from my team leader saying, 'Can we do something to address this?' The solution wasn't that difficult. You can set up your emails with a clock and a timer. So you can have the bright idea but it doesn't land in the inbox until 9.00 the next day if you get the settings right. These are things that employers can seek to fix. Some of the solutions are incredibly simple and incredibly easy.</para>
<para>Imagine if you are a teacher or a parent of a couple of kids and you're getting messages at 10 o'clock at night. You might already be in bed asleep at 10 o'clock at night. I know as a younger teacher with a young family I would have been asleep before 10 o'clock at night. These things are avoidable. It just needs care and attention to avoid them. This legislation means that people will understand that they do have the right to disconnect, that they are paid for work and, if people want to negotiate around that in specific purposes, then I'm sure employers will find a way to do that. I'm sure that you can set this up reasonably.</para>
<para>It is clear that the member for Dickson—the Leader of the Opposition—and the Liberals and Nationals have voted against this legislation every step of the way. They've voted against a fair deal for workers. They've voted against swinging that industrial relations law back to a fair place. They voted against legislation that would stop people undercutting wages. These are all things that we don't want to see, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis. But, as we know, they don't want to see anybody get a fair day's pay. They don't want to see people get a pay rise anymore than they want to see low and middle Australia get a tax cut. That's the bottom line here.</para>
<para>Those opposite will say no to everything to slow everything down, to push everything into the never-never, because they haven't figured out yet that, after 10 years, workers have had enough of that and they want a fair deal.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the member for Lalor up on a few of the points that she made. The member for Lalor actually belled the cat when she talked about team leaders calling teachers at 9.30 at night. Team leaders aren't the employers. Team leaders are not the principals. If, in fact, it does become illegal for a boss to call a worker after the said appointed hours, what happens when a team leader who is not the boss, who is not the employer, who is not the person paying the wages, does that? Do they go to jail? Is there a term of imprisonment? That's what the Greens would have us do and say, because the Greens have hardly ever—I don't know of too many Greens who have run small businesses. Yes, there would be some, granted. But this is dangerous territory which we are entering and which we are navigating, when employers, who pay the wages of employees, are not allowed to call them after hours.</para>
<para>What it's going to see is a reverse effect. The employer who is allowing the employee to work from home and to do all sorts of things, like have haircuts and that in the boss's time—all that will stop. We'll get very hard and fast rules about what people can do and when they can do it and how they can do it. This is dangerous territory—not thought through.</para>
<para>All the Manager of Opposition Business wanted was for this to lie on the table until the next sitting. That's all we were debating in the House of Representatives, because this is complex legislation. It is a bad bill. It is a terribly bad bill. It's impossibly complex and intricate. There is way too much uncertainty for those small businesses who, during COVID, struggled so much. Although we provided JobKeeper and the other arrangements that kept their doors open and kept people in jobs, this mob came to power and said, 'What have we got for a trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt?' It wasn't a trillion dollars; it was nowhere near that. What we did was we saved livelihoods and indeed we saved lives. That's what we did in the time of a global pandemic. Indeed, we were credited with being one of the very best in the world for the provisions we put in place to keep business doors open, to keep people safe and to keep people alive.</para>
<para>This bill adds huge costs to businesses. Businesses are already struggling. They're struggling because there is a cost-of-living crisis. They're struggling because there are inflationary pressures on everybody. Labor have the levers which they could pull to ease the situation, and yet they are not, unfortunately. Instead, it's just he who pays the piper calls the tune, and, unfortunately, the unions are calling the tune, and Labor, well, they're just going along with what the union paymasters say they need to do. As the member for Casey pointed out in his eloquent remarks, it does nothing for productivity. It doesn't increase productivity.</para>
<para>And I take exception to the member for Lalor's remarks that we on this side don't want people to be paid more. We do, but what we want is for people to be able to keep more of what they earn. At the moment, whilst wages might be slightly higher in certain sectors—aged care and others—people are taking home less because their disposable income has been far reduced by the policies and measures put forward by those opposite, who quite frankly don't give a tinker's cuss about businesses. It shows in this legislation. They don't care so long as the union members are getting what they need and what they want. This risks jobs because, if you are an employer, if you are a boss in a small business, you will think twice about putting on, particularly, that young person. You will think twice about putting on a person who doesn't want to go above and beyond.</para>
<para>It's all about balance. It's all very much a balance as to whether an employer is going too far by calling somebody after hours, and it works itself out. Bad bosses are quickly recognised and quickly identified, and they just don't cut it. This institutionalises conflict in our workplace. That's something that we want to avoid at all costs. Government says it's made concessions for businesses. I tell you what, the business community doesn't like it, and they will remember this at the next election. It weakens our economy. It reduces our effectiveness as a nation to be able to pay people the right amount of money, for people to take home more of what they earn and for the economy to grow.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>281</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McIntosh</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who were recognised at the recent Richmond Valley Australia Day awards. Citizen of the Year went to Lillian Colless for her selfless community spirit and energy. Abby Yourell received the Young Citizen of the Year award. She's a great swimmer. The Volunteer of the Year award went to Maree Donaldson for her volunteer broadcasting at Casino's Own Wireless. Elaina Underhill was named Young Volunteer of the Year for her fundraising for the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service. The Sportsperson of the Year award went to Anthony McAteer for his work for the Casino Cricket Club. Elle Hannigan received Young Sportsperson of the Year for her captain's role at the Casino Cougars rugby club. Thank you and congratulations to all those winners.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community recognised at the recent Clarence Valley Australia Day Awards. Citizen of the Year went to Aneika Kapeen for founding the Mudyala Aboriginal Corporation. Aidan Really received the Young Citizen of the Year award for his fundraising efforts. The Local Hero award was Sally Anne Rogers. The Westpac Rescue Helicopter Support Group—Grafton Volunteer Support Group won the Group Community Achievement award. Congratulations to all those award recipients.</para>
<para>I would like to congratulate and acknowledge all the members of my community who were recognised at the Lismore Australia Day Awards. Citizens of the Year went to Mieke Bell for 33 years of running the Lismore soup kitchen. U3A Northern Rivers Lismore received the Group Services in the Community award for their seniors focused classes. Junior Sportsperson of the Year went to Daisy Smith for her success in racing. Ned Cain received the Senior Sportsperson award following his victory at New South Wales Short Course Road Racing State Championships. The Environment award went to Shaen Springall and Douglas Blythe for their involvement in Goonellabah Tucki Creek Landcare Inc. Arts Northern Rivers was the recipient of the Arts and Culture award. The Individual Services in the Community award went to Rod Gibson. Congratulations to all these award recipients.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who were recognised at the Kyogle Australia Day Awards. I was a fortunate enough to be at these awards. The 2024 Kyogle Citizen of the Year went to Stephen Daragh. After spending many decades as a member of the Kyogle Apex Club and Lions Club, Steve continues to serve the community in his retirement. Carol Harris won Senior Citizen of the Year. Junior Sportsperson of the Year went to Jed Mulcahy for his talent across a number of sports. Lillian Rollings was awarded Senior Sportsperson of the Year. Harmon Sing received Senior Student of the Year. Young Citizen of the Year went to Angus Joyce for his accomplishments in volunteering and music. Congratulations to all those award winners.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who received Australia Day awards at Bonalbo. Peter Crockett was awarded Citizen of the Year for efforts in exterminating wild dogs. Liam Galvin received Young Citizen of the Year for his extraordinary help in the 2022 flood. The Achievement in Sports award went to Riley Crimmins for his success in the Australian Off-Road Championship. Tanya Sawarsin and Dianne Harrison from WIRES received the Community Organisation of the Year award. The Dog N' Bull Hotel was named Business of the Year. Yvonne Clay was given a special award posthumously for her work in the community. All of the west of the range RFS brigades, including Old Bonalbo, Bonalbo, Tabulam and Mallanganee, were given a special award for keeping their community safe during the recent bushfires. Congratulations to all those award winners.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who received Australia Day awards at the Woodenbong celebration. James Cook was awarded Citizen of the Year for his dedication to volunteering. The Senior Citizen of the Year award went to Jennifer Riley for her commitment to swimming. David Robertson received the Young Citizen of the Year award for his demonstration of excellence in school. The Sportsperson of the Year award was given to Liam Dau for his impressive horse-riding ability. The Woodenbong post office, under Ellen Parker's ownership, received the Business Service of the Year award. The Woodenbong Amateur Swimming Club was named the Community Organisation of the Year. The Environmental Organisation of the Year award went to the Woodenbong Land Managers. Congratulations to all those award winners.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the Ballina Young Citizen of the Year, Lucy Trease. Lucy was Alstonville High's 2023 school captain and was also recognised as a New South Wales Woman of the Year candidate in 2023 for her contributions as a coach, mentor and leader. Congratulations to her.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McIntosh</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a true privilege to receive an Australia Day honour, the pre-eminent award to recognise achievements and service to our community. These awards recognise people in our community who have consistently performed to the highest standards and made major contributions to Australia. Nominated by their peers, these awards celebrate a vast array of services and achievements that matter to us. We're so proud of each and every local person who has this honour bestowed on them, and I'm always delighted to have an opportunity to celebrate these local community champions who make the South Coast so special.</para>
<para>I want to take the time now to congratulate and thank all this year's local recipients for the work they do every day in our communities. The general division of the Order of Australia recognises Australians who have demonstrated outstanding service or exceptional achievement. Professor Deborah Parker AM received a Member of the Order of Australia award for significant service to community health, particularly through palliative and aged-care research. Richard Adams OAM received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community of Mogo. Valda Brunker OAM received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to netball and to the community.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives</inline>—</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:07 to 13:30</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Lorraine Mairinger OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for her unwavering service to the Kangaroo Valley community. Raymond Dorsett OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to hockey and to the community. Michael Fay OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to international relations and to education. Peter Fitze OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community through a range of organisations. The late Mary Kell OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to the community through a range of volunteer roles. Peter Moore OAM received the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to cricket and sports in New South Wales. Warwick Shanks OAM received the Medal for the Order of Australia for service to the community through a range of organisations. Margaret Sheedy OAM received the Medal for the Order of Australia for service to the community of the Shoalhaven region.</para>
<para>The meritorious awards recognise outstanding and distinguished service by public servants, members of the police force, fire, ambulance, corrections, intelligence or emergency services or in support of outstanding work with an Australian Antarctic expedition. On the South Coast, after so many years of seemingly never-ending natural disasters—not to mention the pandemic—these first responders are the true heroes of the South Coast community. It's a privilege to congratulate and thank Donna Brotherton ACM, who received the Australian Corrections Medal for service to the community of the Shoalhaven region. Chief Inspector Raymond Stynes APM received the Australian Police Medal for his service to the community of the Shoalhaven region.</para>
<para>The South Coast is also extremely proud of our military personnel. Home to HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Albatross</inline> and HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Creswell</inline>, the Defence Force is an incredibly important part of our community. The Order of Australia in the Military Division recognises the exceptional contributions made by individuals in our defence forces. Group Captain Dennis Davison AM received the Member of the Order of Australia in the military division for exceptional service in space capability development for Australia and its allies. Air Commodore Anthony Hindmarsh AM, CSC received the Member of the Order of Australia in the military division for his exceptional service in personnel capability management and organisational sustainment for the Royal Australian Air Force.</para>
<para>Finally, I would like to make special mention of Stanley Berriman from the Sussex Inlet RSL sub branch. I was recently honoured to present Stan with a 2024 national Australia Day achievement award for his exemplary commitment to ex-service veterans and the local community on behalf of the RSL New South Wales through ongoing service excellence as master of ceremonies for the Sussex Inlet RSL sub branch commemoration and presentation ceremonies.</para>
<para>It is such a long and esteemed field. I wish I had the time to celebrate their individual achievements in more detail. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, to all these amazing community members, and congratulations on this magnificent achievement. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and your impact on our local communities is undeniable. The South Coast is simply a better place for having you as part of our wonderful community. Once again, thank you and congratulations to all our 2024 Order of Australia and Australia Day honours recipients for your dedication and service to the South Coast.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:33 to 16 : 00</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>283</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>283</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the flooding, once again Cairns was completely cut off. The road north was blocked and, for a considerable period of time, the road south was blocked. There are two roads. One is the Kuranda Range Road, which is a winding, beautiful tourist road, highly unsuitable for any freight traffic whatsoever, and the other one is the Gillies Range Road, which is a winding mountain track—totally unsuitable. That means the whole of the Gulf Country and peninsula has no way to get any freight out, because the gulf is terribly shallow; we can't get big ships in there. We can't put a port there. If we go through Townsville, we're talking about a 2,000-kilometre round trip.</para>
<para>Chillagoe mineral province had 12,000 people a hundred years ago, and in the North West Minerals Province we had about 700 maybe. Now it's the other way around. We've got maybe 6,000, and Chillagoe's got nothing, because industrial mining requires huge freight loads. We simply can't open up the magnificent, giant Chillagoe mineral province. Three of the five biggest rivers in Australia are in that country behind Cairns, including the biggest river in Australia, the Mitchell River. It produces nothing at all, and it should be producing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Northern Hotel</title>
          <page.no>283</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no secret that I love a good feed and an occasional beer, and there's no better combo than enjoying them both together at a good pub. My electorate has no shortage of great watering holes worthy of a beer and a feed with mates or even with your family. The Great Northern Hotel in Teralba is one of those great pubs with a great feed. It's not only that it has the best cold beer and the meals are tasty; they are cheap—just like me! Let me tell you, the cheap meals certainly don't sacrifice quality. In fact, the Great Northern Hotel in Teralba was a finalist in the 2023 AHA NSW Awards for Excellence for Best Cheap Eat Meal. How cheap? How does $10 sound for lunch? You would struggle to buy the ingredients for that price.</para>
<para>They have quite a range of options, too, from delicious burgers, fish and chips to chilli loaded fries. For those who don't enjoy meat as much as I do, you can even score yourself a salad. So, if you are in or around the Teralba area and want a good feed at an even better price, get yourself to the Great Northern Hotel. Bring your mates. Bring your work colleagues. Bring your family. I can't think of a better day than to have a weekend lunch there with a good cold beer and a lovely cheap eat.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coal Industry</title>
          <page.no>284</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Previously I've ventilated in the parliament evidence of widespread fraud in the Australian export coal industry, involving testing laboratories, exporters and auditors. In essence, coal-quality reports have regularly been falsified to fraudulently meet contractual requirements, allowing inferior coal to be passed off as cleaner coal. That coal is then exported to unsuspecting countries. Now, this not hearsay. Indeed, the coal-testing laboratory ALS admitted that about half the quality certificates it issued had been 'manually amended without justification' for almost 13 years. That's a polite way of saying they faked the results. Indeed, documents in my possession do show substandard preliminary test results and then false contractually compliant results in final reports.</para>
<para>Alarmingly, the previous coalition government was aware of these allegations but buried them, and I'm concerned that the current government's response is also underwhelming. However, we can take some comfort from the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's consideration of the matter currently as it relates to consulting firm EY, and I applaud committee member Senator David Pocock for pursuing the matter just last week. To assist the House, I seek leave to table relevant material which has already been shared with senators and EY.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Eden Hills Scouts' Hall</title>
          <page.no>284</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to be able to inform the House that the long-awaited rebuild of the Eden Hills Scouts' hall and the adjacent Blackwood Rotary building has begun. The existing Eden Hills Scouts' hall was built 60 years ago and has had very good use in the intervening decades. But, when I first visited Eden Hills Scouts, Akela showed me their wooden floor with bright pink duct tape around holes and weaknesses in the floor, to alert the children not to jump or walk on those spots. Unbelievable! This was a well-loved and well-used building, well and truly past its use-by date and now posing a risk to its young users.</para>
<para>The scouts and their families have been fundraising for a decade and managed to raise $100,000 through barbecues and tree planting, and I am very proud to say that the federal government and the City of Mitcham have come together for the rest. The new facility will include a community hall, a meeting room, a commercial-grade kitchen and storage, and will also be home to the Rotary Club of Blackwood, which is currently occupying a 30-year-old tin shed adjacent to the hall. There are lots of very excited cubs and scouts and rovers, not to mention Rotary members and the local community, all anticipating new facilities, which we hope will be open in late July this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories</title>
          <page.no>284</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hind Rajab was six years old when she had to make an unimaginable call for help. She was trapped in a car with her dead relatives in Gaza city. 'I'm so scared,' she said on the phone. 'Please come.' The Red Crescent Society stayed on the phone with her for three hours as they implored Israeli authorities to grant them safe passage to rescue her. An ambulance raced to rescue Hind, but, when the paramedics arrived, they reported being targeted with laser lights from Israeli forces. Then there was gunfire, then silence. Twelve days later, Hind and the paramedics who'd tried to save her were found dead. How can this go on?</para>
<para>If you were to attend a funeral every day for every child that has been killed in Gaza since the Israeli government's invasion, it would take you over 33 years—33 years. With Israeli forces now beginning a ground invasion of Rafah—where over 1.4 million people have sought refuge because that's exactly where Israel's military told them they'd be safe—the deadliest days may still be yet to come.</para>
<para>There is no excuse that Labor can make for not doing everything in their power to pressure Israel's government to stop. Labor must stop supporting the invasion and sanction Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to help stop genocide. Labor must stop Australia's military exports to Israel. And, for the sake of basic humanity, Labor must restore the UNRWA funding that they suspended, to give the people in Gaza a chance.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>285</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At a time when Australian households have been under pressure, the Albanese government is delivering tax cuts in July for all Australian workers. We're delivering the full value of the stage 3 tax cuts but in a way that is fairer and better suited to the circumstances, with low- and middle-income taxpayers to get more in tax relief under our plan. In fact, a person on an average income of about $73,000—for example, a nurse at Freo hospital or a primary school teacher in Hammond Park or Treeby—will get twice as much tax relief under Labor's responsible and responsive tax cuts than under the short-sighted package that was locked in under the chaotic Morrison government.</para>
<para>Through our fair and sensible tax cuts, 84 per cent of all workers will get more relief, 90 per cent of all working women will get more relief and 96 per cent of workers between 18 and 24 years of age will get a bigger tax cut from our package. People should remember that the same coalition that produced a decade of waste and rorts, a decade of deficits and deliberately low wages, continues to argue for their package, which was worse for 84 per cent of all workers, worse for 90 per cent of women and worse for 96 per cent of young workers. We don't accept that. We didn't accept it. That's why we made the change to deliver the tax cuts in full, but in a way that is fairer and better—fairer and better in my electorate of Fremantle; fairer and better right around the country and for Australia as a whole.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: Grafton Girl Guides</title>
          <page.no>285</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate members of the Grafton Girl Guides, who are celebrating their 100th birthday on 26 February. Beginning in 1924, the Grafton Girl Guides comprised two units; by 1930, there were five units, 30 guides and a district commissioner who'd started a ranger company in Grafton. During these years, the guides saved up enough money to build the guide hall on Prince Street in Grafton and open it in 1935.</para>
<para>The current leaders and district management team have attended camps both nationally and internationally. There are a total of 30 active youth guides, 10 adult members and an active district management team spread across three units, still in the Prince Street guide hall.</para>
<para>I'd like to mention and thank the district management team, including Chair Heidi Newcombe, Secretary Judy Knox, Treasurer Lucy Gersekowski, and Cynthia Corcoran and Val Hayward, and, additionally, Junior Guides and Girl Guides Kirsty Child, Emily Skarrot, Montanna Teare, Amanda Collett, Rhiannon Saunders, Kymeeka McPhail-Thompson and Tyeanna Ellis. Congratulations and happy 100th birthday!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Johnson, Mr Junior</title>
          <page.no>285</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge and commend Junior Johnson, or the peninsula's answer to Santa Claus, for his dedication to raising funds to purchase presents for children during Christmas. Junior Johnson has been handing out presents to children during Christmas for over 10 years, each year handing out over 150 presents. To raise these funds, during the year, Junior will run a meat raffle at West Street, Umina Beach, which helps cover the cost of buying presents. Junior also raises money to buy Easter eggs. On Christmas Day every year, you can be certain to find Junior on West Street, handing out presents to children who might otherwise go without during the holiday period. If presents run out early and there are still children in need of a gift, Junior often throws in his own funds to ensure no child goes without. Junior says that he does this because nothing makes his Christmas like seeing kids so happy when they receive a present. It picks him up. Along with support from businesses across the peninsula, Junior Johnson says he will continue to donate presents to children until he can no longer.</para>
<para>To Junior: thank you so much for your generosity, your compassion and your community spirit. The peninsula and the Central Coast adore you, and we are all made better by having you in our Central Coast family.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fraud</title>
          <page.no>285</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia, listen to me. There is a scourge that is running across this country, and it is unabated. It is scamming. In my circle alone I have one very sensible couple who were scammed of $100,000 through giving information they thought they were giving to their bank. For another friend it was $40,000. These aren't people who are elderly or frail; they are people who have common sense. They are reasonable, they are hardworking and they're losing money right across this country. For heaven 's sake, Australia, listen. The government will do all it can to help you. The bank will do all it can to help you. But please, I beg you: do not give information about your bank to people over the phone. If it is your bank, they know all the information. If it is your local branch ringing, they know all your information. They don't need more. They don't need the number of your bank account. Please. This is everywhere, and it seems to be unsolvable and that the scammers are winning. From this day on, I want Australians to begin winning and stopping the scammers in their tracks.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>286</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a fantastic Saturday I had in my electorate of Aston. I was out at the Wantirna Mall for a mobile office. I enjoy being out talking with my constituents. I get to meet so many excellent people, like the wonderful couple from Bayswater, Desiree and Brian, with whom I had a great chat; and a lovely man, an ex-serviceman named Tony, who approached me and said: 'Thank you, Mary. I got your letter. Thanks so much for the help with getting me running for my electric wheelchair through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is so great to finally have a representative here in Aston who's willing to help people like me.'</para>
<para>This is not the first time I've heard this line from people in Aston. A vital part of this Albanese Labor government is positive change, not the negative attack lines that the opposition is offering, failing to help anyone. It may seem small on a nationwide scale, but it's supporting members of the community that need a little bit of extra assistance with getting that electric wheelchair, some guidance on 60-day dispensing or just someone to talk things through with and to find them organisations in the community who can help when times get tough. The Albanese Labor government is here and I'm here to help, because that's what being a good local member is all about.</para>
<para>Back to Saturday. I was able to finish off the morning, celebrating Lunar New Year with some yummy dim sims from the good people at the Dim Sim Project.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petrie Electorate: Crime</title>
          <page.no>286</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It will come as no surprise that Queensland is in the midst of a youth crime crisis. Sadly, I am being contacted every day by concerned people across my electorate, from Burpengary East to Aspley, who no longer feel safe—people like Andrew, from Kippa-Ring, who told me that his local shops are being hit with crime from youth crime offenders nearly every day. Geoff from Newport told me: 'The crime is terrible. Our street is being constantly targeted. We are desperate for it to stop.' Katrina who told me, 'It has been out of control far too long because there are no repercussions.' Just last week, after the murder of a 70-year-old grandmother in Brisbane by a 15-year-old, we saw the shocking footage of our incompetent premier, Steven Miles, laughing off questions in relation to youth crime and replying that his government has no plans to make any changes to address the crisis.</para>
<para>The truth is that the current youth crime epidemic in Queensland is a result of the Palaszczuk-Miles Labor government watering down the Queensland Youth Justice Act eight years ago. Every single day, innocent people are having their homes broken into, cars hijacked, businesses destroyed and, tragically, in too many cases, losing their lives, and yet Labor has no plans.</para>
<para>The people of Petrie and Queensland deserve better. Only David Crisafulli and an LNP government will take action on youth crime by rewriting the Queensland Youth Justice Act. They need to act. They need to act now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cross, Mr Manfred, AM</title>
          <page.no>286</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to remember Manfred Cross AM, who passed away on 30 January aged 94. Manfred was a true stalwart of the Labor Party, first elected to the House of Representatives in the seat of Brisbane in 1961 and then another eight times. During his time here he had a keen interest in Indigenous and foreign affairs. With great foresight, Manfred recognised the importance of the South Pacific nations to Australia and committed to researching their needs and histories as many of them obtained independence during the 1960s.</para>
<para>He was active in the Labor Party in Queensland, playing the role of negotiator during the party split of the 1950s, and travelled around the state attending very rowdy meetings and negotiating local deals. In the 1970s, he was a driving force in efforts to reform the Labor Party in Queensland. After being appointed as the interim Queensland branch secretary in early 1980, Manfred helped guide the reform process, modernising the party and laying the foundations for the Goss and Beattie governments. That is where I first met Manfred and his awesome wife, Barbara—at the Bardon Rainworth branch in the 1990s. Manfred was appointed a member of the Order of Australia in 1992 in recognition of his service to the Australian parliament.</para>
<para>Manfred is remembered as patient, modest, respectful, dignified and incredibly smart but capable of delivering stern advice. He was a voracious reader and passionate historian. He was a great mentor to me and the branch president, my good friend Tim Hansen. Manfred is survived by his wife, Barbara, his son, Ashley, his daughter, Tanya, and their family. Vale Manfred Cross.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gillespie Electorate</title>
          <page.no>286</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to congratulate 16-year-old Dylan Kincaid of the Forster Surf Life Saving Club on his three wins at the country surf lifesaving championship at Warilla Barrack Point on the South Coast. Dylan won gold in the under-17s sprint and under-17 flags and he, impressively, won the open sprint as well. Dylan understandably now has his eyes set on the state championship to be held in Queenscliff in mid-March. After that, he will head up to Queensland to the Sunshine Coast for the national championships. I wish all the best to Dylan for his fast future.</para>
<para>Congratulations also go to the Taree Little Athletics Club for producing a record-breaking performance at the Little Athletics regional championship, held in Tamworth. Of the 64 Taree athletes who competed in more than 200 events, the club returned home with five regional records and a medal haul of 29 gold, 22 silver and 29 bronze. Twenty-five of these athletes have qualified for the March state championships in Sydney, and almost 50 personal bests were achieved. I extend my sincere congratulations to them. What a wonderful club.</para>
<para>Lastly, I would like to wish a happy 95th birthday to the Dungog CWA. For 95 years, the women of Dungog and surrounds have been tirelessly advocating for and supporting the lives of regional and rural Australians. Well done to all members, past and present, on this incredible milestone. I wish you all the best for the next 95 years. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Day of Women and Girls in Science</title>
          <page.no>287</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday was the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the amazing women and girls leading the way in science within my electorate of Chisholm. I'm so fortunate that, in addition to being the home of the Monash and Deakin universities, my electorate is also the home of some outstanding and nation-leading science organisations, such as the CSIRO, and the Australian Synchrotron.</para>
<para>Chisholm is home to thousands of women and girls who live in my electorate and who are either employed in science at places like the Monash Technology Precinct or are currently studying science at one of our world-class universities. We know that gender diversity in science fosters innovation, creativity and breakthrough discoveries, yet women and girls continue to face barriers such as gender bias, unequal opportunities and societal stereotypes. It's so important that Australia as a nation supports our women and girls in following their passion for science. I am proud to represent a Labor government that will always seek to elevate them, and I'm proud to represent so many outstanding scientists in my electorate of Chisholm.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capricornia Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>287</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I shed light on a pressing matter affecting the resilient residents of Central Queensland, particularly those bravely facing the battle against cancer. It pains me to share that, despite the readiness of a PET/CT scanner for installation at Rockhampton Hospital, residents within the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service catchment area are required to endure the six-hour round journey to Mackay or Bundaberg for crucial PET/CT scans. Yet a solution is within reach, as the CQ radiology PET/CT machine has been ordered, ready for installation. This development could potentially alleviate the heavy burden on patients, sparing them the need to travel great distances for these essential scans.</para>
<para>I share with you my frustration at the apparent inaction of Queensland Health to approve this vital piece of medical equipment. This delay not only strains other hospitals providing imaging services but also places an increased financial burden on patients forced to travel to other cities. Equally concerning is the toll it takes on the physical and emotional wellbeing of those fighting cancer.</para>
<para>The residents of Central Queensland deserve better. It is disheartening that, even with the member for Keppel being Labor's Assistant Minister for Health and Regional Health Infrastructure, there has been silence in advocating for the approval of this vital PET/CT machine. Time and time again our region's left behind by Labor and we are forced to drag them kicking and screaming to provide essential services for our community. Swift action must be taken to ensure that essential health services are no longer delayed and denied. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fraser Electorate: Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>287</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the past month I've been celebrating Lunar New Year in all corners of my electorate. Over the past weekends, the main streets of St Albans, Footscray and Sunshine have been bustling with people enjoying the celebrations, music, rides, family activities and, of course, delicious Vietnamese food. On Friday night at Quang Minh Buddhist Temple I joined a throng of tens of thousands to ring in the year of the Dragon, an auspicious symbol of strength and good fortune. Quang Minh temple is the largest Vietnamese Buddhist temple in Melbourne's west, under the guidance of the Venerable Thich Phuoc Tan. It is an important social base, a place for people to come together and enjoy their Vietnamese culture and heritage, and also for those from the broader community. The temple also operates a number of important charitable programs, including free meals on Sundays, which many hundreds of people take advantage of every weekend. And the fun isn't over yet. This weekend I'll be attending my electorate's final festival, in Footscray, hosted by the Victorian chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia.</para>
<para>A tremendous amount of effort has gone into organising all of these festivals, so I thank St Albans Business Group Association, the Footscray Asian Business Association, the Sunshine Business Association and VCA-Vic for all of their work—and, of course, the countless volunteers and performers and the Maribyrnong and Brimbank councils. To all who celebrate, I wish you a happy Lunar New Year filled with happiness prosperity. Chuc mung nam moi.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Cholangiocarcinoma Day</title>
          <page.no>288</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thursday is World Cholangiocarcinoma Day. Cholangiocarcinoma is not a word you often hear. It's a rare and aggressive form of cancer that attacks the bile duct. Because it's a silent cancer, it's mostly not detected until the late stages. It's survival rate is only between three and eight per cent. Mostly, life expectancy is six to 12 months. The advocates for treatments, funding and awareness are mainly patients and their families. The patient led foundation has the philosophy of 'empower the patient, increased survival; empower the patient's community, create more survivors'. There are new treatments, including exploratory work with viruses, which are extending lives and creating hope.</para>
<para>In my own electorate I want to pay tribute to and honour the advocacy of Karen O'Hagen Humphries. Karen was first diagnosed in 2021 and last month sadly experienced a relapse. She's adamant, 'This is not my time,' and she says she has much work to do—and I know she does, as do the medical professionals who are doing everything they can to support Karen. Karen's been instrumental in creating a campaign called Light Australia Green, with 70 buildings and structures nationwide being coloured green as a means of creating awareness. In my own community, Hornsby Shire Council are lighting the Hornsby fountain and Hornsby mall. I want to acknowledge Councillor Sallianne McClelland in making this happen.</para>
<para>I want to pay tribute to everyone involved in the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and wish them every success with their work. I'm cheering on our great local Karen O'Hagen Humphries. Your community is behind you, and we wish you all the best.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>288</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For small businesses, fluctuating energy prices can be a real challenge, driving up costs. That's why I'm excited about the second round of the Albanese Labor government's energy efficiency grants scheme for small and medium-sized businesses. These grants offer between $10,000 and $25,000 for upgrading to energy-efficient equipment. This could mean replacing old air conditioners with more efficient models or switching to heat pumps instead of gas boilers. These are simple measures that will cut down on energy bills and reduce emissions. It builds on the first round of these grants, which helped more than 670 businesses invest in energy-saving upgrades.</para>
<para>One of those recipients was Beifang Foods in Silverwater in my electorate. Beifang Foods has developed a thriving business processing, packing and distributing frozen meat products across Australia. Anyone here who likes eating hotpot or malatang would probably have had some sliced meats from Beifang Foods. They received a grant of $25,000 to help upgrade their refrigeration system, reducing power bills and helping to keep prices low for their consumers. I encourage all small and medium-sized businesses in Reid to apply for these energy efficiency grants.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Surfing</title>
          <page.no>288</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Margaret River's Jacob Willcox is a talented and outstanding figure in surfing. Ten years ago, a 16 year old Jacob actually created his own waves when he beat none other than Kelly Slater to make it through to the second round of the World Surf League's Rip Curl Pro in Portugal. Jacob learnt to surf around the age of five on a styrofoam board with handles. As he got older, Jacob and his group of mates would head down to the beach most mornings before school, timing their dip before the school bus. By the age of 11 or 12, it was clear that Jacob had a talent for surfing, and it was also around this time that Jacob and another young Margaret River surfer, Jack Robinson, caught the attention of local surfing legend Taj Burrow at Taj's Small Fries surfing comp. Soon after finishing school, he broke his leg and was out of the water for six months. Jacob credits the challenges he's had to overcome for helping him to grow mentally and maturing into a formidable competitor. Ten years since Portugal, after many near misses in the grinding challenger series, Jacob joined the championship tour this year, kicking off in Hawaii. While he now lives in Queensland, he says he will forever be a proud Western Australian and, I suspect, proud to be from that wonderful place which is Margaret River. As the co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Surfing, I'm looking forward to seeing Jacob in Canberra here as part of that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Day Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>288</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge the residents of the Parramatta and Cumberland council areas who received awards in the Australia Day honours list. These are residents who've made a huge contribution to our community and are rightly recognised for the effort that they've contributed. They are people like Peter Bacha OAM, the much loved founder of the Rydalmere Lions Football Club. Peter has given 40 years of service to that club, and what a legacy he has built, creating an outstanding community club and an institution where families go to enjoy themselves and where kids have fun, get outdoors and play sport. There's not a single pokie in the entire club, just a wonderful family environment.</para>
<para>There is also Councillor Sabrin Farooqui from Cumberland City Council, who's been recognised for her service to the community. Sabrin is the President of the Cultural Diversity Network and makes an outstanding contribution through all of her work in community groups and across the council. Another person who received an award was Sarkis Karam, a proud Lebanese Australian. Sarkis is a journalist, he's a director of the Merrylands RSL Club, and he's involved in many other community activities. Finally, Lilian Ries received an OAM. Lilian has been volunteering at Ronald McDonald House for 30 years. This year she turned 100. She's made a huge contribution to our community and is much loved for everything that she's done. Congratulations.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Riverina Electorate: Tibetan New Year</title>
          <page.no>289</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Mayor of Wagga Wagga, Councillor Dallas Tout, and I ventured on the 13-kilometre Tumbatrek walk on Saturday, and we were feeling a little worse for wear. Despite that, we were both invited to the celebration of Losar, the Tibetan New Year. Indeed we were both hoping that we weren't going to be asked to dance, like we were in recent times, at these celebrations. Thankfully, we weren't—and not just for the fact that we probably don't have the traditional moves that the Tibetans are so adept at. It was a great celebration, and I do thank Tsering Tsomo for her emceeing. I do thank the Tibetan community in Wagga Wagga—so small yet so enthusiastic! It's such a multicultural community.</para>
<para>Awards were given to various local people for keeping the traditional language alive. It's so very important because, if you lose the language, you lose everything. You lose the traditions and the customs. One of those award recipients was Belinda Crain from the Wagga Wagga multicultural council. She has done so much to help make the Tibetans welcome. There is a Tibetan restaurant in Wagga Wagga. I recommend you go there if you venture by that fine city. More than that, the Tibetans add so much vibrance and colour to our community. We welcome them, and we enthusiastically embrace their new year's celebration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McGrath Foundation</title>
          <page.no>289</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the weekend I had the privilege of attending the Cranbourne Cricket Club's pink stumps day. This event is an annual fundraiser that the club has run for over a decade to raise money for the McGrath Foundation, an organisation dedicated to providing support to those battling breast cancer. It is a relentless disease that all in this chamber know too well, given we've lost a dear friend and colleague Peta Murphy to breast cancer not too long ago.</para>
<para>The statistics of its prevalence in our country are sobering. One in seven Australian women will face a breast cancer diagnosis by the age of 85. In 2022 alone, 20,640 Australians received this devastating news. I commend the vital work of organisations like the McGrath Foundation, which tirelessly supports those affected by breast cancer.</para>
<para>I extend my gratitude to the Cranbourne Cricket Club for hosting this remarkable fundraiser every year. Let us honour the memories of those we have lost to breast cancer by continuing to support initiatives that offer hope, comfort and assistance to all those affected. I look forward to attending pink stumps day again next year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Casey Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>289</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The community spirit of the Upper Yarra Valley was on full display last weekend. It began with the Jeff Long memorial match between Powelltown and Yarra Junction at Yarra Junction. It was very enjoyable to dust off the whites and join the Powelltown side for the match in memory of a great local man—a guy that I had many battles with. It was great to see so many of Jeff's loved ones there, including his daughter Stacie, his grandsons and many others, to pay tribute to Jeff. The game was played in true Jeff spirit. It was at times serious but always good-natured. I want to thank the Yarra Junction Cricket Club for taking the initiative of hosting the day and bringing on the first of what will be many matches in memory of Jeff Long. I look forward to being there next year. May he rest in peace.</para>
<para>From there it was on to the Wesburn Junior Football Club where I was on the barbecue and then on the dunking machine. It was lucky that it was a hot day because the locals are definitely good on the handball. I spent the majority of the day underwater, but it was great to see the community again come together to raise funds for the juniors, have fun and connect with their mates. I want to thank the president, Wayne Morgan, and all the volunteers at the Wesburn Junior Football Club. I also thank the president of the Warburton-Millgrove senior club, Steve Noonan who was there on the day. They gave up so much of their time so that others could enjoy the community spirit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>290</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are only two major advanced economies in the world that don't have new vehicle efficiency standards: Australia and Russia. Thank goodness the Labor government wants to change that. Australia needs these reforms because we are getting a dud deal. We have less efficient cars and, because of that, we're spending more at the bowser. Australians use 20 per cent more petrol than Americans. Our cars are dirtier and less efficient. Analysis shows that these changes will, by 2050, reduce emissions by 369 million tonnes of carbon, deliver $5.5 billion in health savings and save Aussies a massive $108 billion in fuel at the bowser. For those in Bennelong, that's $1,000 worth of fuel savings each and every year.</para>
<para>A CarsGuide.com.au contributing journalist asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Why should Australians get treated like second-class citizens with older, less fuel-efficient cars dumped on us? Don't fall into the trap of being told these rules are 'too ambitious' or 'unrealistic' …</para></quote>
<para>The Liberals are once again trying to lure us into this trap of deceit and division. The Liberals would rather our standards mimic Russia than adopt the same new vehicle standards as the USA. This is the party that said electric vehicles would ruin the weekend. Now they want us to believe the government's coming after your ute or your SUV. We know those claims are false, and those opposite should be ashamed of their continued politics of fear and division. We need these standards for our environment, for the cost of living and for our health.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flinders Electorate: Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>290</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At one of the flag-raising ceremonies at my local RSL on Australia Day, I bore witness to two remarkable speeches: one by Peter Rimkevicus, senior vice president of the Sorrento RSL, which I read out at the citizenship ceremony later on that day; and a second by the RSL's welfare officer, Lea Francis, who captured the best of the Australian spirit when she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the number of returned servicemen declines and their situations and mobility become more difficult, we need to provide assistance and caring to those in need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As it is difficult to 'keep an eye' on them all, we would like to ask that if anyone knows of any specific circumstances where our care can be provided, please contact us as this is our opportunity to care for them in return for their sacrifices and contributions in allowing us all here, to have the freedom, the opportunities and the safety of a stable existence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have been given this gift and it is for us all to make it 'the Best Country'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is truly up to us, our generosity, empathy and acceptance of all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">History is past, we should without hesitation look to the future and peace of our people and love them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have the chance to make a difference and we can all do it, without sacrifice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia, perhaps there's some reason that we are an island far away—that has given us a chance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many of our ancestors travelled across the seas and land in harrowing conditions, they left most of their families and friends behind and faraway places and took that chance, that adventure with very little certainty of where it would lead.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They had plenty of hope and determination—that is now our backbone.</para></quote>
<para>Well said, Lea.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>290</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 4 February, the people of Newcastle came together with representatives of businesses, industry, workers and environment groups to support the newly gazetted Hunter offshore wind zone and the jobs of the future. I was delighted to stand alongside my community to back the offshore wind zone, declared by the Albanese Labor government, off the coast of Newcastle.</para>
<para>We heard powerful testimonies from Hunter Workers, Hunter Jobs Alliance, Doctors for the Environment Australia, Business Hunter, the Hunter Community Environment Centre, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, as well as Wiradjuri woman, Newcastle City Councillor Deahnna Richardson—all in recognition of the importance of offshore wind opportunities for our region.</para>
<para>The rally also drew support from CFMEU Construction & General, the Electrical Trades Union, the Public Service Association, the National Tertiary Education Union, the Community and Public Sector Union, the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association, the Australian Services Union, the United Workers Union and the Independent Education Union, whose members all know the value of this project for workers, for our local economy, for our environment and for the planet.</para>
<para>The declared offshore wind zone stretches over 1,800 square kilometres between Norah Head and Port Stephens, giving us the capacity to generate up to five gigawatts of wind energy, which is almost double the amount that Eraring Power Station currently produces. This is critical for jobs for our future in this region. That's why our community came together, united in our support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murdoch, Mrs Carmel, OAM: Australia Day Honours and Awards</title>
          <page.no>291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Maryborough's beloved cultural figure, Carmel Murdoch, has been honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia, a well-deserved recognition for her significant contribution to the heritage city.</para>
<para>Over her impressive 23-year tenure, Carmel has embodied various iconic personas, including Mary Poppins, Mary Heritage and Mary Christmas, captivating audiences with her storytelling prowess and historical knowledge. As a dedicated tourism ambassador, she has enlivened Maryborough's unique past, charming both locals and visitors alike with her infectious smile and authentic costumes.</para>
<para>Though officially retiring her multiple Mary personas, Carmel remains actively involved in her hometown. She manages the volunteer 'flusher ushers' at the Cistern Chapel, a popular tourist attraction, showcasing her ongoing commitment to Maryborough's heritage. When I spoke to Carmel, she told me of her upbringing in Charleville and that she attributes her strong sense of civic-mindedness to her father, instilled in her at a young age. She is humbly accepting this award but on behalf of all the local volunteers; she emphasised that it's a collective effort behind the community service. Congratulations, Carmel, for your exemplary dedication. In the words of Mary Poppins, you are the— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spence Electorate: Community Radio</title>
          <page.no>291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As members of parliament, listening to our electorates would have to be one of the most important tasks we undertake. In my electorate of Spence, one of the ways I can do this is by tuning into 89.7 FM—or PBA-FM, Spence's own community radio station, operating in Salisbury under its station manager, Indi Wood.</para>
<para>PBA-FM provides our local community in the northern suburbs of Adelaide an accessible, creative outlet for those in radio or for those thinking about getting into radio or other like-minded creative outlets. PBA-FM, much like many community radio stations across Australia, is supported by some incredible volunteers. The station provides valuable training and experience for future hosts, DJs and producers. They are just a small part of the close to 18,000 volunteers that help to ensure community broadcasting retains its special place in the local media landscape across many pockets across the country. PBA-FM produces over 70 diverse programs in 16 different languages, offering a vehicle for constructive discussion within our community and abroad.</para>
<para>A strong community radio presence leads to more engaged communities and more connected communities. Community radio provides an invaluable service in Spence and across Australia. I encourage all members to get involved in some of their local stations and discover some of the hidden gems that they produce—for the community and by the local community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fowler Electorate: Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia Day is a wonderful day that we celebrate in our community of Fowler. It's something that everybody in our community marks and honours. I want to acknowledge two members of our community in the Australia Day 2024 honours list: Mrs Kathleen Whiteley, from Cabramatta West; and Nicholas Magriplis, from Mount Pritchard. It is wonderful to have our local communities being acknowledged, and I hope I encourage more members from our community to participate in the Australia Day honours list.</para>
<para>At the local level, we also have our Australia Day events which the Fairfield City Council proudly holds every year. This year we have amazing community leaders being awarded. The Fairfield Citizen of the Year is Srey Kang, who is part of the Khmer community in New South Wales, based in Bonnyrigg. Pearl Jameson and the Wetherill Park Crochet and Knitting Group are the Fairfield City Volunteers of the Year. Erica Chau is the Fairfield City Young Citizen of the Year. And Munib Smajic, a great young sportsperson, was awarded the Fairfield City Sportsperson of the Year.</para>
<para>Our community, on the day, have Australia Day flags everywhere; council put them up very proudly, in sharing the day. We, as migrants, believe Australia has given us the opportunity to rebuild our lives. That is something that we want to acknowledge continuously.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Swan Electorate: Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Gongxi gongxi. On the weekend, my wonderful community of Swan joined millions of people around the world to celebrate Lunar New Year. It's a festival full of colour and festivity—fireworks, family, fun and, of course, food. Dragon and lion dances, roving mascots and drumming performances made it loud, colourful and exciting. I also love that it's a celebration of our cultural diversity and a celebration of the rich tapestry of Chinese culture that makes Australia so unique—and other South-East Asian countries that celebrate the Lunar New Year—paying tribute to answers and exchanging gifts, including the traditional red envelopes filled with prosperity or money.</para>
<para>In my community it was a celebration not to be missed, whether it was dining in the acclaimed fine dining restaurant strip in Victoria Park or visiting the six-metre-high wishing tree illuminated by lanterns and vibrant light projections at Crown Perth. It was a weekend not to be missed. The best news is it's not over yet. The town of Victoria Park will present the Lunar New Year night market, featuring a light show, Chinese folk, swing and pop dancing, and lion dancers.</para>
<para>Finally, I say 'gong xi fa cai', or 'May you have a prosperous life', or, as comedian Ronny Chieng says, 'Hope you get rich!'—which is what the Albanese Labor government are doing with our tax cuts.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</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>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>292</page.no>
        <type>PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Abuse</title>
          <page.no>292</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>It's total control. Controlling someone's money, controlling someone's access to the bank account, tracking someone's spending, sending abusive or threatening messages via banking transactions, forging a signature, taking out a loan in someone else's name, stopping someone from working or forcing someone to work, refusing to contribute financially—these are all examples of financial abuse. It's a powerful, insidious and pervasive form of abuse, and that's why I'm making an effort to bring this conversation to national attention.</para>
<para>Our Watch defines financial abuse as 'someone using money or finances to hurt or control someone else'. It's abuse that can happen to anyone. It does not discriminate between rich or poor, between educated or uneducated, or by gender or age. In fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in 2021 that an estimated 1.6 million women and 745,000 men have experienced partner financial abuse. Bankwest reports that one-third of Western Australians have experienced or know someone who has experienced financial abuse, four in five agree that it is a widespread problem and one in seven admit to having been perpetrators of financial abuse.</para>
<para>However, it's more difficult to recognise than other forms of abuse. People don't talk about money in our culture. People don't see it as a form of abuse. And women have a tendency to not talk about finances in their social circles. Some people don't even realise that it's happening until it's too late. It makes it a hidden epidemic.</para>
<para>What I often talk about with people in my electorate is that financial abuse is often a red flag for other forms of abuse later on. It undermines a woman's financial independence, it limits her choices, it limits her freedom and it can leave victims-survivors in debt or poverty for years. It's often why women find it hard to leave an abusive relationship. It can be an early sign that there is yet more to come: physical, emotional and psychological abuse.</para>
<para>Life has moved online, and so have our financial institutions. While it brings so many benefits to us, it exposes women to another form of abuse, and we need to make sure that our financial institutions keep up. Some of the major banks have been taking up the challenge, training staff and banning perpetrators. Looking at the design of our banking products is the next step. And what about the consequences for perpetrators of financial abuse?</para>
<para>The issue is complex. Just last week I met with the Indian crisis centre, experts in dowry abuse. As for migrant women, visas are used to control them and take their money. Imagine going to work, getting paid and not even seeing that money. With the additional threat of being told that you could have to leave the country, it results in a significant power imbalance. This is the reality for too many women in our society.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge the member for Aston, who will soon be seconding this motion, and the brave women who have helped campaign on this particular issue. I want to acknowledge victims-survivors, and advocates such as Rebecca Glenn at the Centre for Women's Economic Safety, members of the newly formed Economic Abuse Reference Group in WA and other groups around Australia. We need prevention but we also need solutions. We need a coordinated approach by banks, regulators, government and consumer advocates.</para>
<para>Stopping all forms of violence against women is a priority for the Albanese government, which is why we are aiming to eliminate all forms of abuse in one generation. It's a commitment that's evidenced by Labor's financial investment in women's safety across the first two budgets. Together we can empower women with the skills and strength they need. We can change thinking and raise awareness so that people will understand financial abuse and that it's simply not okay.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Doyle</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have spoken many times in this place, as the assistant shadow minister for the prevention of family violence, about the scourge on our society and on our families in all its forms. I've spoken about the need to break the generational cycle and all the policies that are required for prevention. If we don't do that—if we don't look at a generational approach—then, in the words of victim-survivors, they will eternally be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We need to put that fence there, though systems there to prevent our victims from falling.</para>
<para>As we know, domestic abuse constitutes much more than simple physical violence. As we're aware, coercive control is where someone uses a pattern of abusive behaviour against another person. This can include nonphysical behaviours that instil uncertainty and fear of reprisal in an individual. Financial coercion is a form of coercive control that quite often goes unnoticed by friends and loved one's. It's very easily hidden away from view. The controlling partner managers the money. The reality is that financial coercion is a primary tool of domestic abusers to subjugate and disempower their victims. That is their whole intention. Without independent access to funds, victims are unable to put steps in place to escape an abusive situation, rendering themselves powerless.</para>
<para>With the increasing push to online services, it's far easier for would-be abuses to open, drain, deny access or close accounts without raising suspicions. With that in mind, I am very pleased to see the move by many of our financial institutions to recognise the existence and pervasive impact of coercive control in the domestic abuse space and to put conditions in place to stop it.</para>
<para>Having said that, our bank tellers and officers are not police officers, and there need to be some very strong guidelines in place to help them. I'm not stepping back from what I have said. This is very important legislation to ensure that it doesn't happen to our victims, our victim survivors and our elderly. It is not just those in the considered domestic male or female role; it is also sons, daughters and grandchildren who also can be seen to enter into this coercive control on elderly people. The Australian Banking Association industry guideline 'Preventing and responding to family domestic violence' states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When a bank is aware of family and domestic violence, or suspects it may be occurring, the bank will work to support the customer wherever possible.</para></quote>
<para>For the guidelines that need to be given to our bank tellers, to those working in the industry, I think it's really important that we ask these three questions. What guidelines do the banks have to establish the veracity or information about an account being used for financial control? What lawful authority do the banks have to investigate and make assessments on the nature and conduct of transactions in customers' joint or accessible accounts? What processes are in place to determine the risk that may arise for a joint account holder denying access to the perpetrator? These questions need to be answered to provide that structure for those working in our banking industry. I would hate to think that a 22-year-old teller remained silent because he or she was unaware of the guidelines and processes that should, and no doubt will, be put in place for him or her. We have to do everything we can for victims, particularly when it comes to financial coercive control.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to speak on the motion put by the member for Swan as this is an issue that I care about deeply. Financial abuse takes many forms. It can be checking over the items when you come home from shopping and questioning why certain things were purchased. If done repeatedly over time it can leave a person feeling like they have to constantly justify their needs and wants, as if they are not important. It can be having to hand over your entire wage into a joint bank account and having it managed entirely by your partner, only having a certain amount of pin money doled out each week. It's the whole attitude of, 'Don't worry about it, honey; I'll take everything.' Or you can be told that you don't need to work, that you'll be taken off completely, but years later find out that you've been taken advantage of in ways that you had no idea about, such as signing mysterious documents which turn out to be legally binding.</para>
<para>Years after a relationship like this has ended, a woman can find herself with barely any superannuation, stripped of years of work experience, deskilled and with little self-esteem left over. Financial abuse can happen over many years, sometimes without a person even realising what's going on. It wreaks havoc with one's self-esteem and confidence and is designed to keep someone under another's control.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has invested $2.3 billion in women's safety, including more than $326 million in prevention initiatives specifically, across our first two budgets. Last year, our government, along with the states and territories, released the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-2032. This plan specifically recognises that financial abuse is a common form of domestic and family violence. It is perpetrated by intimate partners or family members and also occurs in the context of elder and carer abuse. It manifests in different ways, but generally it is a type of controlling behaviour where the perpetrator controls finances and assets to gain power and control in a relationship.</para>
<para>The safety of women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence is a national priority for the Albanese government, and our governments believe women and children experiencing violence should not be forced to remain in unsafe situations due to financial barriers. A woman I know in my electorate told me a story of how her husband put a stop on their joint bank account when their relationship was breaking down. She was then unable to access her pay for a fortnight which had just been paid in. Her husband knew that this was the account her pay went into and knew she would not be able to pay her credit card off that month. What upset her the most was that the bank was able to do this without even alerting her first. There was not even a phone call. She was the other named account holder. No bank should be able to do this to a woman.</para>
<para>Financial abuse can also be withholding child support payments from an ex-partner to punish them, even though child support is specifically for the upkeep of a child who a person has helped bring into the world to help pay for their clothes, food, the electricity and internet in their home, the rent or mortgage on that home, their education and everything else involved with raising a child.</para>
<para>Just last Friday, a woman came into my electorate office to talk to me about an issue that affects many women like her across this country, that of unpaid child support. She has done everything right. She has contacted the Child Support agency numerous time about the unpaid payments, but because of the creative accounting of her ex-husband, who is not short of money, he is able to find various avenues to escape down to avoid paying what is owed to her for the upkeep of their children. He, like a lot of ex-partners, uses child support payments in an abusive way against his former partner to hurt her and, in turn, he hurts his children. This is financial abuse. The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous but who gave permission to talk about her situation, is in dire financial straits currently. She's unable to work at the moment due to an injury but is keen to get back into the workforce. She is a highly skilled worker in her field and just needs someone on her side. Welfare payments barely cover her rent and bills. She is at breaking point and came to me in a desperate state.</para>
<para>I would never want to see any government department, financial institution or any other organisation, for that matter, contribute to a woman's ongoing trauma and abuse. Ending violence against women and children, including financial abuse, is everybody's responsibility and business. We can all play a role in prevention, whether as colleagues in the workplace, workers in the community, financial institutions, local sporting groups and other community organisations or parents, carers, family and friends.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to support the motion from the member for Swan. Financial and economic abuse are forms of domestic violence. They are patterns of abusive behaviour by which an abuser uses money to exert power and control over their partner. Last year, more than 600,000 Australians were victims of financial abuse. Ninety per cent of women seeking help from domestic violence services report that they have experienced financial abuse, and we know that these figures underestimate the extent of the issue.</para>
<para>Financial abuse is prosecuted in different ways. Some people take out loans and credit cards in their partner's name, leaving them with debts and compromised credit ratings for years after the relationship ends. Some abuse their partners by not allowing them to work, by limiting their spending money, by forcing them to make early withdrawals from their superannuation, by making them take on debt against their will or sometimes even their knowledge or by taking control of their social security benefits.</para>
<para>Like all forms of domestic violence, financial abuse can happen to anyone regardless of their wealth or social economic status. It often develops and evolves insidiously. Coercive control, including financial abuse, is commonly described by victim-survivors as the worst form of abuse that they experienced. It can have a more immediate and ongoing impact than physical forms of violence, but it is also a predictor of severe physical violence and even homicide.</para>
<para>Sadly, we have to acknowledge that the disabled are particularly susceptible to this form of abuse. The disability royal commission found that disabled women are abused almost twice as often as non-disabled women. Perpetrators can be anyone in the victim's life, but they are often their caregiver. Lack of access to financial resources and barriers to accessing social security entitlements can increase the risk of financial abuse of disabled people. Other forms of financial abuse against those people may include legal guardians denying access to money, services withholding disability support or government payments and support workers misusing National Disability Insurance Scheme funds.</para>
<para>I have heard repeatedly from women in Kooyong about this issue. They have told me that they feel that their abusers are never held to account despite multiple reports filed with police and domestic violence orders against their perpetrators. In their view, sadly, police seem unable to act on allegations of coercive control, even when those perpetrators are in breach of court orders. I have heard from women who have lost their homes and who are now homeless due to financial abuse and forced to couch surf with friends. I am also hearing from many women who are distressed by the incidence of domestic violence in Australia more broadly about the anger that they feel that so little is done to curb the violence perpetrated against them.</para>
<para>There are several steps that we can take, and that we must take, to address the important issue of financial and economic abuse. Firstly, we must support the existence of family violence financial counsellors to help abused individuals make a case for their debts to be waived or to be transferred back to the abusive family member. We should encourage large businesses to understand the need for policies and procedures that support customers who are experiencing domestic financial and economic abuse. I applaud the efforts of the Commonwealth Bank and other institutions which are working to report technology facilitated abuse to law enforcement. Major businesses should provide trauma informed, culturally safe support, promoting the safety and wellbeing of survivors and holding people who choose to use this sort of violence to account. We have to improve police responses and we have to improve the way that the justice system supports victim-survivors.</para>
<para>Finally, we need to legislate a specific criminal offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in all states and territories of this country. We have to ensure that people who choose to use coercive control are held to account. Despite being one of the most insidious and most common forms of domestic violence, coercive control has been legislated as a standalone offence only in Tasmania. Movement in other states and territories has been too slow to date. We can and we must do more to protect Australians from financial and economic abuse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Financial abuse is, without a doubt, a form of domestic and family violence. It can leave victims and survivors in unfathomable positions. Many do not recover; many do not survive. This must end. That is why I support this motion's unequivocal condemnation of the use of bank accounts to perpetrate abuse, the use of money to control victims of economic abuse, and the disgraceful exploitation, and in some cases sabotage, of a person's finances to undermine their financial security and limit their ability to be independent and self-sufficient.</para>
<para>As the world continues to transition to online financial services, the rates of financial abuse are going to continue to increase if we do not act. A 2017 study on economic abuse between cohabiting partners found that 16 per cent of women and seven per cent of men had experienced financial abuse in their lifetimes. This study also established that age, disability, financial stress and health status were significant risk factors, especially for women. For example, 63 per cent of women who experienced high financial stress and 24 per cent of women with disability or long-term health conditions had experienced financial abuse as well. Middle-aged and older women also more commonly experienced financial abuse.</para>
<para>Many members of this House may have friends or family with firsthand experience of this type of abuse. I certainly have, and I saw that abuse cross and damage generations. It's critical that all governments work together on these issues. Inconsistency will cost lives and livelihoods. That's why governments at all levels need to be pulling in the same direction. As my colleagues have touched on, this issue cannot be left to one party, one government or one state or territory, nor can the resolution be left to a small part of the community. That is why this government, in partnership with state and territory governments across Australia, is committed to addressing the underlying factors that drive gender based violence as well as rates of violence.</para>
<para>Through the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022</inline><inline font-style="italic">-</inline><inline font-style="italic">2032</inline> that we released along with the states and territories last year, this government has set a goal to end violence against women and children in one generation. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children aims to address the underlying drivers of gender based violence to prevent violence before it occurs; to intervene early and prevent further escalation; to respond appropriately when violence is used; and to support the recovery and healing of victims-survivors in ways which put them at the centre.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has invested $2.3 billion in women's safety, including more than $326 million in prevention initiatives specifically across our first two budgets. This includes funding for initiatives like our consent and respectful relationships education, sexual violence prevention pilots and funding to support the work of Our Watch, the national leading organisation for the primary prevention of family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia.</para>
<para>Ending violence against women and children is everybody's responsibility and everybody's business. If we are to successfully end violence in one generation, we must ensure our social security safety net recognises the circumstances of people who are experiencing violence. Victims of family, domestic and sexual violence should not be unfairly punished as a result of how their relationship is recognised under social security law.</para>
<para>Finally, I thank the member for Swan for moving this motion and for the leadership she has demonstrated on this issue. There will be many victims, survivors and organisations who will be empowered by the strong stance this parliament has taken on this issue, as well as by this parliament's united commitment to victims and survivors of financial abuse to ensure that we as a nation can enable generational change and eliminate it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to echo the member for Bean's words but also commend the member for Swan for this motion. It's a tough subject to talk about, but sometimes the toughest subjects are really the most important to talk about. We have an important role in this House in shining a light on challenging, difficult issues that impact a lot of people.</para>
<para>A habit that I've had for many years is, on a Sunday, to read the Barefoot Investor in the local paper, and I've always found it good; he was a great financial adviser, unofficially, to me, growing up, and I took on his 'buckets' theory. Reading it is something I've continued to do, because it gives me a great perspective on issues and challenges that people have, and, as an MP, I've found it quite helpful in that regard as well.</para>
<para>On the weekend, there was a letter to him written by someone called Denise that really touched me at the time, and I think it's appropriate that I share it now, just to put a real person and a real story behind what we're talking about when we talk about financial abuse and the impact it will have. These are Denise's words. 'Dear Scott, I've been married for 35 years, and I am scared. I'm only 81 days away from accessing my super balance, which is $30,000. I need to take that money and escape from my husband. I would be leaving a property worth $1.7 million. Nothing is in my name, only the debt of $170,000 that is left on the mortgage. I know I'm losing everything I've worked for, but I'm scared of him and scared that he can take what I have left. I feel I need to take the money and go overseas so he can't find me.' When I read that on Sunday, it hit me hard. There's a lot in that that's challenging. There's obviously Denise's situation, but I think many in this House, reading that or listening to that at home, would realise the options she has and the reality. How can he own the $1.7 million house but she owe the debt? It defies financial logic.</para>
<para>But we all, outside of the situation, understand that this is the perverse nature of financial abuse, domestic violence and the control that is exhibited in a partnership. It's important that we shine a light on that.</para>
<para>Scott did give Denise some good advice, and I hope she takes that up. And to anyone listening at home who is in a tough situation: there is support out there for you; you have more options and more rights than you know. It's important that, across the aisle, we—the government, the states, the not-for-profits and the banks—all work together to support those who don't think they have an option.</para>
<para>Let's not pretend this is an easy situation. And I'm not at all trying to be political. I commend the government. Many have spoken about their strategy. It is important that we have a strategy and we work together. So I'm not, in any way, saying this to be political. But we need to acknowledge that it is complex and challenging. There are other issues at play, as well, with that domestic violence. Often, there's substance abuse; often, there are challenges from socioeconomic status. We need to recognise that and to not judge those in these situations but provide them with options and information.</para>
<para>We also need to remember that, in many of these cases, there are young children and families that are involved. We need to think about what those children are seeing, what they're learning and what impact it's having on them. How can we help break the cycle and give them a safe place?</para>
<para>I know that they're only a little thing, but breakfast programs at schools are vital. My wife is a teacher's aide, and I know the impact it has to give those who need it a little bit of normality. It's important that we do what we can to continue to break that cycle and to allow children to understand that it's not acceptable behaviour; it's not normal.</para>
<para>The unfortunate reality in Victoria, with the lockdowns, was that many children were exposed to significant and difficult situations. We need to keep continuing to support those children and support those mothers that are caught in these tragic situations. So I commend the member for Swan for shining a light on this challenging issue.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>297</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>In August 2022, the Food Supply Chain Alliance highlighted the serious shortage of around 172,000 workers overall in agriculture. This figure was well understood when Labor held its Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022. The leader of our party, the Leader of the Nationals, went to the summit in a bipartisan way, rolled up his sleeves—as they often are!—and said, 'If we don't face this together, we won't have a worker crisis; we will have a food security crisis.' And, more than a year on, that's where we find ourselves.</para>
<para>I'm so disappointed that Labor haven't managed to address this worker shortage crisis in agriculture in the time they've been in government. We had a solution prior; the previous government introduced the ag visa. That was, I thought, a very good solution, and it was well appreciated by those in the agricultural sector. Labor scrapped the ag visa but have come up with nothing to replace it. This private member's motion is an effort from me and others to implore Labor to get on with replacing the ag visa with something. You don't have to call it the ag visa; call it the 'Joel Fitzgibbon memorial worker entitlement scheme', going back to when Labor had people who cared about agriculture!</para>
<para>People know I'm from the electorate of Nicholls, which has a very proud history of developing agriculture, growing fruit and creating the dairy products that are enjoyed here and overseas and that contribute greatly to our export dollars. There are waves of immigrants who have come from all over the world to work; what happens is they come to Nicholls or the Goulburn Valley, which has been happening for over 100 years, to work. They get enough money and they buy their own farms, and then they employ people from other parts of the world who work hard, get enough money and buy their own farms. It's one of the most incredible success stories in Australia, and it leads to Australians having a better situation in terms of the cost of living. We grow our produce here. We grow it efficiently, and we have generally had high productivity in the agricultural sector. That means that, when you walk into the supermarket, you can find a cauliflower, a kilo of apples or a lettuce for a reasonable price. If we take the tools to produce that away from the farmer, those things either are imported or go up in price—probably both. That's not in the interests of anyone struggling through this cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>Labor has not been a great friend of agriculture since coming to office in May 2022. I would argue this government is the worst in terms of agriculture. The IR legislation is making it impossible for the PALM scheme to operate, for business productivity. There is the atrocious attitude to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, ripping irrigation water out of production. There is the biosecurity tax, making farmers pay for their competitors to send products into this country to compete with them. The list goes on. We are 18 months down the track, with no dedicated visa in place. The dairy industry is struggling. The horticultural industry is struggling. All agricultural industries are struggling.</para>
<para>At the Senate food security inquiry last September, AUSVEG reported that 30 per cent of vegetable growers are considering leaving the industry within the next 12 months, while 72 per cent are currently experiencing workforce shortages. Imagine walking into the supermarket and we've got some Soviet Union type situation where the shelves are bare. None of us want that. It needs to be fixed by bringing in overseas workers to contribute to Australian agriculture and by a pathway to permanency, which is what the ag visa did. As I said, if you don't want to call it the ag visa, find something else to call it; I'll support it. But just get something in place so our farmers can do what they need to do, which is make sure that people working in the supermarket have got good, clean, affordable produce to ease all the other issues they're facing in the current cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think the member for Nicholls was here during the glory days of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments! The last government promised the world when it came to agriculture.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The glory days!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, I say that with sarcasm in inverted commas. They promised they would have an agricultural visa. In fact, they were going around with the National Farmers Federation saying 100,000 people would come here with no TSMIT, no industrial protection, for workers. That's what they were going around doing. They got elected in 2013. They announced in 2018 that they would have this agricultural visa. Of course, Prime Minister Turnbull didn't want to have a bar of it. They announced it in 2018 and what happened? Nothing happened. In 2021, the now Leader of the Opposition—he was the immigration minister at the time—started running around the countryside saying for months that the promised ag visa would be up by Christmas. What happened? Nothing at all. How many workers came by Christmas 2021? None—not one. How many workers had come by the election in 2022? None—nil. None came. Those opposite were in power for nine years and had done absolutely nothing by the 2022 election. And they proceed to give us lectures about getting this ag visa.</para>
<para>There were shocking examples of exploitation in the sector. We saw unions and other people who were interested in this sector talking about what was going on in the sector. But did those opposite protect anyone? Did they do anything about protection? No. I had forums all around the country, from Melbourne to Brisbane, talking to migrant workers in the sector who were being ripped off, and those opposite did nothing. They come in here and say it was all wonderful during the glory days when, in fact, they did nothing. Now we've been in power for 18 months and have reformed the PALM Scheme. That's what we're doing: creating a well-run visa system, including the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme. We're going to do it the right way. How about you protect workers in the sector? How about you make sure you give a helping hand to the farming sector so that farmers get access to not just the workers but their families to work in the sector? That's what we're doing. How about you make sure that our relationship with the Pacific is enhanced and improved? How about you make sure that those farming communities are sustained, and you don't just run off at the mouth and say, 'We should do something about it,' as so many people opposite did during those nine dark years when they were actually in office.</para>
<para>Now we're in power and we've reformed the scheme. There are about 38,000 people who come to this country under the PALM Scheme, and it's growing all the time. This is good for our relations with the Pacific. It's good for our relations in the farming sector. Those opposite proceed to talk about regional Australia. How about they prioritise those ag visas for regional Australia? None were prioritised. We are doing that in the PALM Scheme. It's not just about aged care, which is another area; agricultural communities like in my electorate of Blair, up in the Brisbane Valley and rural Ipswich, get prioritised by what we're doing in the PALM Scheme. Those opposite spent the best part of a decade undermining and devaluing the administration of the visa system, doing not a single thing in this space to help farming communities, doing nothing to stamp out the unfair practices in the sector and doing nothing to support those regional communities by making sure that the workers that they needed in their workplaces were there.</para>
<para>The member for Nicholls talked about Mr David Turvey, the acting Jobs and Skills Commissioner. I see he was quoted in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> in relation to this matter. Don't let a headline or, indeed, a motion get in the way of the facts. Mr Turvey did not say at all that there should be a special agriculture visa. If you listen to what he had to say, he did not say that at all. Of course, he's been fitted up in this motion. This motion also claims the agriculture sector was in contention for the lowest tier visa announced by the government after the review of the migration scheme. However, the government's migration strategy clearly states that it does not propose a special agricultural visa. Rather, it identifies that further consultation be undertaken on a more regulated pathway for low paid workers with essential skills and the role of the Working Holiday Maker program, both of which will take into consideration skills needs in the agricultural sector. So we're prioritising the agriculture sector. Those opposite over nine dark years did nothing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A little bit of history—history's important and context is important. The current Leader of the Opposition was never the agriculture minister. The Nationals would never give that up, quite frankly, in government or in opposition or at any other time, with all due respect to my great friends in the Liberal Party. The agriculture portfolio belongs with and stays in the National Party, even though I appreciate that the member for Braddon, who is right here, has probably raised more cattle and done more farming than most of us will ever do. That said, I'll take the member for Blair up for asking what we did. He did not give any opportunities or talk about what Labor is doing. I will fill in some of those details for him in a moment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've had your turn. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme was introduced in April 2022 by the Morrison coalition government. It replaced the Seasonal Worker Program, and that came in under Julia Gillard's ALP government in 2012. The Pacific Labour Scheme came in in 2018, when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister. The PALM scheme allows Australian businesses to hire workers from nine Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. It helps to fill labour gaps in rural and regional Australia by offering employers access to a pool of workers—and they are good workers. They are vital workers. They are essential workers. And not only do they add to all components of industry and agricultural endeavour in rural and remote areas of this fine country but they add so much vibrancy to our local communities, and we thank them for that.</para>
<para>If ever there were a diplomatic way to ensure that the Pacific knows that we care—and I know the member for Blair appreciates this too—it is through the PALM scheme. It is through this labour scheme. I say 'labour' with a 'u', labour scheme. When we talk about labour without the 'u'—another bit of a history lesson. I think Labor dropped the 'u' in 1912. For those listening, for those tuning in, they've forgotten about 'you' ever since.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I knew that'd get them going! It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really—because they know how true it is. This is the Labor way. They're forcing farmers to offer a minimum of 30 hours a week over four weeks to PALM workers. Farmers will then be forced to offer 30 hours a week every week from 1 July 2024. This is despite agricultural work being seasonal and weather dependent. The member for Braddon knows that. He knows how seasonal and weather dependent the farm he runs and the operation he has in Tasmania are, let alone anywhere else. The new rules do not work for farmers, particularly in the horticulture sector. What if it is too wet to work? We have workers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing.</para>
<para>I appreciate that we have to look after PALM workers; I get that. And exploitation of PALM workers is beyond the pale. I know the member for Bendigo in her contribution, and I'm being a little bit psychic here—not psycho but psychic! I should probably go to that. So I'll say it before she does: you can't exploit workers. No-one should do that. It is so egregious that some people think that those workers are there to be exploited. And, if anybody has any examples of that, please report them, because it is so important. They need to be paid the right amount of money, they need to be given the right conditions and they need to be treated as equals to Australians, because they are.</para>
<para>But you can't also have that impost on farmers, whereby it's going to make them walk away from the PALM scheme. And that is actually happening. It's happening in Queensland. It's happening in my state of New South Wales. It's happening right across the country. Farmers are now determining that the PALM scheme is all too difficult. They can't afford to pay somebody who is not working, and they're walking away from it. You heard from AUSVEG through the member for Nicholls's contribution. That is why this motion is so important. That is why it is important to make sure we get the PALM scheme right.</para>
<para>It's also important that we get agriculture right, and Labor has walked away from our farmers. They've walked away through the changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They're taking productive water out. That's going to force the price of groceries up. It's going to force the amount of imported food up. We know that the best food is grown in Australia by Australian farmers, and we should thank them three times a day every day when we tuck our knees under the table and eat.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Riverina is right: I will address worker exploitation in the agriculture industry at some point in my remarks today. But first I want to talk about how hopeless the design of the former government's ag visa was. There is a very good reason why no workers were ever granted entry into this country under that visa. It is because, when they designed it, there were fundamental flaws. It was a moment to politicking to try to buy off the farming community as opposed to really delivering for them. This visa was a free-for-all. This visa was proposing that a country could enter into an agreement with Australia and allow workers in to work in agriculture, but they weren't tied to an employer and they weren't tied to a region. All they had to do was enter this country and say they would work in agriculture. That was it. They could go anywhere. We had to take it on good faith and value that they would work in agriculture. It's not going to fix your labour problems on farms if all they have to do is tick a box on their way into our country.</para>
<para>International students, to enter the country, have to demonstrate before they enter the place that they are enrolled to study. If people are employer sponsored to enter the country, they have to demonstrate who they're going to work for and show proof of that. Under the design of the agricultural visa, they didn't have to demonstrate that. Farmers—you're right—did not want to be connected to these workers, so they left that out of the visa design. So there's a very good reason why the former government did not let anyone in. We know how bad and unscrupulous these labour hire companies are in the agriculture industry. I've met workers who've come into this country, thinking that they're going to work in higher education, thinking that they're going to work in the city, only to be picked up at the airport in a black van and driven all the way to Wagga Wagga or driven all the way to somewhere else, dropped off at a caravan park and told: 'We've taken your passport. You are going to be working on this farm until I come pick you up.' People are literally trafficked here. We have seen through report after report people tricked into working out in the regions.</para>
<para>How many media, government, and committee reports does the opposition have to have received? Blueberry pickers are being paid less than $4 a day to pick blueberries. Strawberry workers, people picking tomatoes—when we talk about horticulture and the exploitation of temporary migrant workers in this country, it is just mind-blowing that we have not done more to protect them. Yet the agriculture visa didn't offer any protection to those workers. How in good conscience could any government continued to have that visa on offer given the treatment of workers in this country? Clean-up needed to happen.</para>
<para>I remind those opposite that no visa applications were received or granted within the program prior to the swearing in of the Albanese government on 23 May 2022. So why are we here are debating this? You want to keep a visa that no workers entered the country on. What's the point of that? You're offering false hope to farmers to try to fix their labour hire problems. We should be working with the farming sector to improve the PALM scheme, making sure that it is working and flexible. We need to ensure that any worker coming here, particularly to work in agriculture, has protections. There's a reason why backpackers are reluctant to go to the bush. It is because of the experience of other backpackers, who don't have to wait for the media reports to tell us that working in agriculture is not only a tough job; it can be a very dangerous job and we have seen far too many examples of backpackers being exploited, and they are now choosing not to go to the bush, which is tough for those who do the right thing.</para>
<para>I should say that we know it is not all of the farming community and the farming sector who mistreat their workers, but there is that old saying: a few bad apples do disrupt the applecart. That's the problem that we have. Workers don't want to work in agriculture because we haven't cleaned up the seedy bottom, and the agriculture visa does not fix that. The fact that we have an opposition that are still trying to push it means they have not learned from their mistakes. They've not learned that the reason they didn't grant any visas is the flaws within the visa. If you're serious about helping the farming sector, then you would work with the government, the unions and with the sector to improve the PALM program.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A newsflash from me this afternoon comes to you from the National Farmers Federation, God bless them. They found in a recent survey that the majority of farmers found that the Albanese government's policies were harming the agriculture sector. That's not very nice. At best, this is a poor reflection on a government who promised the world. They promised to leave no regional community behind. Remember the newsflash? At worst it's just another sign that Labor continues to forgo the needs of rural and regional Australia to win votes in the cities. This betrayal is not simply a domestic issue. Australia's agriculture sector is important on a global scale. In fact, we produce enough quality food—ethical food—for 80 million people. Imagine that for a moment. We need to be very clear, everyone: whether you live in the bush or the city, everyone is being impacted by Labor's bad agricultural policies as backed in by the National Farmers Federation. It might be targeted at farmers, but it insidiously weaves its way right down through the supply chain and finishes with the consumer. With a cost-of-living crisis in which families are struggling to pay their grocery bills, everyone will notice that every time they go to the supermarket.</para>
<para>Labor's anti-farming changes to the Pacific Australian Labour Mobility scheme commenced in January. Our farmers now must offer a minimum of 30 hours per week over four weeks to workers from nine Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. Farmers will then be forced to offer an additional 30 hours per week every week from 1 July this year. That's what it says. It appears that everyone except Labor politicians knows that agriculture work is seasonal and weather dependent, as the member for Riverina pointed out. They're pretending to fix a problem that doesn't even exist, given that short-term workers already receive an average of 42 hours per week. It's predicted that this policy will decrease the agriculture workforce by 20 per cent. The PALM scheme has the potential to provide 42,000 workers, but Labor has made it almost unworkable for farmers to sign up.</para>
<para>As a farmer, I understand the basic principles of farming, and I understand that flexibility is the first pillar that underpins any farming operation. Mitigation of risk is another one. My father was a farmer as well, and so was his father before him. When we had a problem with the weather, the old saying was that we just 'farm around it'. They understand that. We farm around it. In order to do that, we need a workforce. Many of our Pacific Islanders end up in the great state of Tasmania picking our strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and blackberries. They then move on to brassicas like cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts. We all love a good Brussels sprout, don't we? After that, they come up to the really heavy country in the north-west where I farm and where we grow potatoes, peas, beans, broccoli, carrots and onions.</para>
<para>You will see that the workers move around to extend their duration so that they can maximise their visit to Australia and return to their country to look after their families. That's the entire premise behind their coming here. If we are going to inhibit that by restricting that movement, then we owe it to those good folk who do return. The other day I was talking to some Pacific Islanders who work for Costa's, Driscoll's and Harvest Moon. There was one fellow who had brought his family out 13 times. It was his 13th year of coming to Tasmania, and he loved it. We owe it to these island countries to make an investment in their coming back. We don't want to use them as slave labour; we want to invest in them. We need future farm managers. We need people doing courses and investing in IP—agriculture excellence—so that they can then take that back to their own home countries. We do the right thing.</para>
<para>Doing the right thing starts at government level. It starts at the legislative level. And I can't believe, I can't fathom, I can't get my head around how anyone could put our Pacific islander scheme at risk like this, given that what we are dealing with here is the fact that we need to feed a nation—and more. And it's getting worse. So wake up and start thinking about all that goes on in the real world in regional Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the motion from my friend the member for Nicholls. The issue of agricultural visas is a matter of significant importance to the agriculture sector and to our relationships with our Pacific neighbours. It is essential to note that the history of this visa highlights a tale of promises unfulfilled and opportunity squandered by those opposite.</para>
<para>You see, the previous government promised big things about the agricultural visa, but Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rightly questioned it, worried it might cause problems with our friends in the Pacific. However, Prime Minister Morrison, in a turnabout to appease the Nationals, performed more backflips than an Olympic gymnastics team and broke their promise.</para>
<para>Despite its announcement in 2018, there was a pitiful silence for three long years, a period marked by inaction and broken promises. In 2021, the Leader of the Nationals, in a frenzy of activity, crisscrossed the nation, assuring citizens that this visa would be operational by Christmas. Yet, come Christmas 2021, not a single worker had arrived. By the time the 2022 election rolled around in May, the tally remained unchanged—a big fat zero; doughnuts.</para>
<para>Instead of taking accountability, the Nationals leader resorted to scapegoating and blaming everyone but himself for this failure. In his firing line was the AWU, the Australian Public Service and even his own cabinet colleagues. Well, it's high time he looked in the mirror.</para>
<para>In my electorate in the Hunter Valley, we have a very diverse agricultural sector, from viticulture and fruit and vegetable growing, to dairy farming and—one of my favourites, of course—the meat industry. Every day that I am out speaking with our farmers and growers, the common theme I hear is the need for more workers.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to working with and supporting our agriculture sector to access the workers it needs. To tackle the workforce challenges, this government has undertaken a range of measures in collaboration with state and territory governments and with the industry and unions. The tripartite or three-way Agricultural Workforce Working Group, established as a result of the Jobs and Skills Summit, has been working to pursue solutions to better skill, attract, protect and retain workers in the agriculture and processing sectors. That commitment is unwavering. We pledge to deliver for our farmers through a meticulously managed visa system, including the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. We are sticking to our plan to make sure the visa has the right protections for workers, gives employees some leeway and keeps Australia's ties with the Pacific islands as a top priority.</para>
<para>Also, we are focusing on helping our rural areas in Australia by making it quicker and easier for them to get the workers they need. This shows how committed we are to helping our regional areas grow.</para>
<para>Compare this to the last government, which spent 10 years messing up visa rules, especially with the agricultural visa. They didn't handle it well at all. The failings of the past serve as a stark reminder of the necessity of a competent and diligent approach to governance. At a National Farmers Federation event last year, the Nationals leader acknowledged his failings and said, 'We didn't get it right, like the fact that there were nearly a million unprocessed visas is a failure, and I congratulate Minister Giles for the work he has done in making sure we can move forward.'</para>
<para>Moving the Australian agricultural visa to the PALM scheme and having more than 38,000 PALM workers by December 2023 demonstrated our commitment to building good relationships and fixing the lack of workers in agriculture. The PALM scheme stands as a testament to the commitment to the Pacific and our resolve to tackle labour shortages in regional Australia. The benefits to Australian employers, regional communities and industries such as agriculture, meat processing and aged care are undeniable.</para>
<para>The PALM scheme is incredibly important to an electorate like mine. It helps employers who need more workers, especially in areas like agriculture and aged care, and it gives workers from the Pacific countries a chance to earn money and learn new skills. We have also made it easier for employers and workers by reducing travel costs and improving protections now that we are starting a trial program that will let PALM scheme workers bring their families to Australia. This is how you get on with delivering for the community. Those opposite should pay attention. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the member for Nicholls for this very important motion when it comes to agriculture and farming and, ultimately, cost of living as well. I want to commend the member for Hunter. He got there in the end. The member for Bendigo and the member for Blair didn't. I was mistaken. I thought that we were potentially still in government because the member for Hunter spent a little bit of time and the members for Blair and Bendigo spent 100 per cent of the time talking about our former government! They had five minutes to outline the Albanese government's plan for agriculture and PALM workers and they couldn't. I think that says it all about this government. They spend more time about talking about the opposition than they do governing. The sad reality of that is that farmers and communities and then consumers feel the effects of that.</para>
<para>In my community of Casey we are lucky to have a strong agricultural community. Agriculture is a big part of who we are as a community because of the contribution it makes to our economy but also our culture. I am proud to be part of a farming family. My family came from Italy in 1952 and established a farm in Silvan. Seventy years later, my uncle has finally retired from strawberry farming. It played a huge part in our lives. There is no doubt that he and every farmer knows that getting access to workers is the big challenge.</para>
<para>As the member for Nicholls said, we are short 172,000 workers for food in this country. The government's solution, as the member for Hunter said, is 38,000 workers on the PALM scheme, leaving us about 140,000 workers short for agriculture. But it's really important we understand what this shortage means. What happens every season for every farmer in the electorate of Casey and every farmer across the country is they make a decision. The decision they make is on the questions: How much crop am I going to plant? How many head of cattle am I going to buy? They make that decision based on many factors. One of those factors, particularly over the COVID years and I know for a fact in 2024 and beyond, is: do I have access to workers to pick my product? The simple reality is that, if they are not confident they'll have access to workers, what do those farmers in those communities do? They do the only prudent thing; they plant less crop. If you plant crops in May and it gets to September, October and November, if we're talking about strawberries as an example, and you do not have workers to pick them, they die. They rot and go to waste, and all that time, money and effort disappears. That's before we allow for weather events and other things they obviously cannot control. So they are controlling the controllables. You don't have to be a genius to understand that, if farmers make the decision to plant less crop, there is going to be less product during that season. Supply and demand tells you that, if there is less supply and there is the same level of demand, prices will go up. Then, when people walk into a supermarket, they'll be paying more for their fresh fruit and vegetables.</para>
<para>There is a 140,000-worker gap that this government doesn't have a solution to. If anything, they are making it even harder. They are making it impossible for farmers under the PALM scheme. On 1 July 2024, they want to make it compulsory to offer 30 hours per week, every week, to PALM scheme workers. The reality is that anyone who's spent a day in farming knows that it's so variable and flexible depending on the weather conditions that one week there might be 70 hours and the next week there might be 20 hours depending on how much it's raining, how hot it is and so many other variables. If you set a baseline of an employee working for 15 hours and you've got to pay them for 30, and then, the next week, they work 40 hours and you have to pay them for 40, it is going to drive the cost up for the consumer or it's going to send farmers to the wall.</para>
<para>This is just one of many examples of this government not understanding how it works in business, how it works in agriculture or how it works in industry. Ultimately, it is the consumer that is paying more in the supermarket because of this government's incompetence.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</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>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>302</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>Women are the backbone of this nation, and I'm proud to be part of the team that has 53 per cent women representing the 47th Parliament. I want to commend the effort of the Albanese Labor government in addressing the status of women and promoting pay equality, which will improve conditions for working women across Australia in addition to supporting their safety and economic wellbeing. We all know that true progress cannot be achieved without the active participation and inclusion of women from all facets of society. We have implemented a comprehensive set of policies aimed at dismantling barriers and fostering an environment where all women can triumph.</para>
<para>First and foremost, our government has made huge leaps in closing the gender pay gap. We have reformed the workplace relations system through the secure jobs, better pay bill, which improved how the workplace relations system supports women. This reform included making gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act 2009, banning pay secrecy and legislating a statutory equal remuneration principle. This will produce tangible results in reducing wage inequality and ensure that women receive fair compensation for their labour.</para>
<para>On top of this, our government's most recent decision with Labor's tax cut will also have a bigger impact on the majority of working women, by increasing the amount they can take home at the end of the financial year compared to what they would have under the previous government. These tax cuts are testament to our government's vision of a fair and inclusive Australia, where the benefits of economic growth are distributed equitably.</para>
<para>Furthermore, we have championed an initiative to promote economic empowerment among women. We have invested in education and skills training programs, with fee free TAFEs seeing strong uptake by women, who represent 60 per cent of all enrolment. Our cheaper childcare policy, with increased subsidy arrangements, makes it more affordable for families to return to work. I'm glad to see that women across the nation are breaking down barriers and shattering glass ceilings, contributing not only to their own economic wellbeing but also to the prosperity of our nation.</para>
<para>In addition to addressing economic inequality, the Albanese Labor government has been a trailblazer in expanding access to paid parental leave. The significant expansion of paid parental leave, which increases the scheme to 26 week by July 2026, provides each parent four weeks of reserved leave to encourage shared care and send a strong signal that both parents play a role in caring for their children. But our work is far from over.</para>
<para>Despite the progress that we have made, there are still challenges that lie ahead in our journey towards gender equality. I acknowledge that women still experience economic inequality, with a disproportionate impact on working mothers who do take parental leave and experience a significant gap in superannuation contribution during this period. This, coupled with a national gender pay gap of 13 per cent and an average of 47 per cent less super for women compared to men, equates to a difference of $85,000 in the average superannuation fund.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government remains committed to addressing issues such as gender-based violence, workplace discrimination and the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles. Through continued collaboration with stakeholders across all sectors of society, we will work tirelessly to build a future where every woman and girl can fulfil her potential and contribute fully to the prosperity and wellbeing of our nation. As we look to the future, I remain committed to advocating for gender equality and a more prosperous future for all Australian.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Ananda-Rajah</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Women's economic empowerment is one of the issues that I care about and have cared about for many years. I have been searching everywhere for silver bullets to close that gap once and for all. What I have found from all the work that I've done and the work that so many other people have done on this topic is that there is no silver bullet. It is the complicated intersection of policy, legislation, business practice and Australian culture that is holding women back. That complicated soup of causes is what we need to address as we consider how to continue to close that gap.</para>
<para>Let's start with facts about why we have this gap in women's economic empowerment. KPMG recently did some work to disaggregate the gap. What they found was that a quarter of the pay gap at least in hourly earnings was due to the career choices of women and men, with women going typically into jobs that are less well paid on the hour compared to men going into mining and construction and women more strongly represented in the various caring sectors. Secondly, about a third of the gap is represented by women stepping out of the workforce or having fewer hours in the workforce and the fact that women in Australia take on more part-time work. You see in the average Australian family that men spend about 36 hours a week working and five hours caring for children or disabled or elderly relatives, while women spend around 25 hours working and about 11 hours caring. Frankly, those numbers do not quite add up with my own personal experience. I don't know how anyone gets away with only 11 hours caring, but that is how it really feels, I think, in many Australian families. The third explainer of the gap is around the age of women in the workforce compared to men, with women typically being younger in the workforce than men and on an hourly basis are being paid less. Finally, and probably most concerningly, there is a third gap, which is about a third of the difference—about 36 per cent of the difference between men and women's pay—that is put down to gender discrimination. It is 'other'. It can't be explained by career choices and it can't be explained by years in the workforce; it is basically just the gap that you get for being a woman that cannot be explained by anything else.</para>
<para>Those are just the gaps when it comes to hourly earnings. You also see additional drivers when it comes to the differentiation of women's wealth and women's overall earnings over their lifetime. For instance, on wealth, when you look at, say, the support for women's start-ups, you see that start-ups involving women as one of the founding CEOs only get seven per cent of the share of investment funding—only seven per cent out of 100. Women currently are only six per cent of Australia's ASX 300. So you can see that opportunities to build wealth are reduced for women. Also, similarly, you see a situation where women's financial literacy is around a third lower than men's financial literacy. That also affects how the wealth and economic empowerment of women has evolved. We have all these different challenges that women in this country experience in terms of getting to that economic empowerment. The question is where to, and how do we, fix this?</para>
<para>I acknowledge what the government has done in terms of stepping up on women's economic empowerment. I think, frankly, this has been a key priority of the government, and I particularly acknowledge the work they have done on child care and paid parental leave, including making parental leave more shared between men and women. But if I was going to pick one thing to focus on even further, that's what I would be focusing on: how do you share the caring more? Currently women have a 55 per cent what they call 'mothers tax', a motherhood penalty where women's earnings are reduced by 55 per cent in the first five years after parenthood while men's—when they join the parenting lot—aren't reduced at all. The other key areas we need to continue to focus on are child care—how to reduce the cost and increase the availability—and how we work with women around career choices and how we improve financial literacy.</para>
<para>Finally, it is up to all of us to drive the cultural change. That missing third comes down to gender discrimination—that is, women leading from the front and men sponsoring women from the front as well so that we can close this gap once and for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Tangney for moving this important motion. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that has reduced the gender pay gap to 13 per cent, the lowest gender pay gap in Australia ever. To be clear, the correct gender pay gap should be zero. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say that you should paid the same amount for the same job irrespective of gender. Thirteen per cent is a great step forward, but this still means that, on average, working women, women working full-time, can expect to take home $252.30 less per week than men; that's a significant amount. We have a way to go.</para>
<para>In May 2022, under the previous government, the gender pay gap sat at 14.1 per cent—so to see it turn around so quickly under this government, to record low levels, is very pleasing. We've also seen a turnaround in Australia's rating at the World Economic Forum global gender gap index; we are now rated 26th out of 146, up from 43rd in 2022. These sorts of changes don't happen by accident; they happen because the government cares about gender equality and implements deliberate policies to address it.</para>
<para>We've made significant investments across our first two budgets that support women—in child care, paid parental leave, women's safety and wages. We expanded the eligibility for parenting payment single. We're delivering cheaper child care for working families, resulting in an 11 per cent average drop in cost across the country. We expanded the government's paid parental leave scheme, making it more flexible for families to give them more choice in how they share care and encouraging fathers to also take parental leave because it's important to normalise parenting leave for men.</para>
<para>We're also abolishing the punitive ParentsNext program. I am part of the select committee that looked into this, and we heard so many stories from mothers; it was primarily targeted, 95 per cent, at single mothers. Imagine a government program cutting all income support for a mother with a nine-month-old baby if she missed playgroup because the child was sick and she hadn't called in on time. Imagine knowing your attendance at playgroup—supposed to be a bonding time, promoting child development—was being monitored.</para>
<para>Another important step to closing the gender pay gap is the key reforms in the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, which will require the WGEA to publish gender pay gaps at employer level. From 27 February 2024, WGEA will, for the first time, publish employer level gender pay gaps for employers with 100 employees or more. Publishing this information increases pay gap transparency, assists employees to make more informed choices about where they want to work and encourages employers to take action to close gender pay gaps in their workforces.</para>
<para>Gender pay discrimination is often a hidden disadvantage for women and can affect women at all stages of their career. We know there is data that shows that female university graduates in their first job are, on average, paid less than their male counterparts irrespective of grades—and it goes through to executive. I personally experienced this in a workplace as one of three executives of equal level and responsibility. I discovered I was being paid significantly less than my two male counterparts. I had to fight to have this addressed. I shouldn't have had to fight.</para>
<para>If you add to this the mummy tax of the lost career momentum that women experience from taking parental leave and working around child care and schooling arrangements in their prime career years, there is a significant impact on women's finances, not to mention the loss to our economy of their talents. And, of course, those years that they aren't working or are working reduced hours at reduced pay are the very years they need to be maxing out their superannuation payments. The lifelong pay gap has very real consequences. Women retire with significantly less superannuation, savings and assets, and so women retire into poverty. It's not surprising that older women are overrepresented in the homeless population.</para>
<para>The fact is that 50.7 per cent of the Australian population is female and our experiences of society, community, health services, careers, economics and much more are different. Certainly, our outcomes are different. I have used the example of superannuation, poverty and homelessness. So it's important when we make decisions in this place that we think about how those decisions will play out for both women and men.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp> (Hughes) (18:06):</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this motion that relates to Australian women's economic inequality, paid parental leave and closing the gender pay gap. In the short time I have been in this place, I have used every available opportunity to speak about supporting measures that will improve the lives of Australian women, Australian mums and Australian families overall. Closing the gender pay gap is a crucial step in ensuring that we have gender equality going forward. It is important that we shine the floodlight on the barriers that limit women building their financial security and focus on practical measures to help change that because, when Australian women do well, their families do well, our economy does well and Australia does well.</para>
<para>One of the largest barriers to women's financial security, workforce participation and earning capacity is that the predominant responsibility of family and caring duties still falls to women. Women should not be discouraged in their employment through their intrinsic role in childbearing. Australia's Paid Parental Leave is an integral component of our workplace relations system. It assists Australian parents to manage their work and parental responsibilities so that the needs of children and families may be met in the context of a modern Australian society. It also supports dads and partners. Paid parental leave is a classic representation of liberalism, where the role of government is to facilitate an environment that enables Australians to make choices that work best for their individual circumstances. This is why the coalition has supported legislation that will expand government funded paid parental leave to 26 weeks, commencing from July 2026.</para>
<para>However, the government has again missed an important opportunity to address a very crucial part of women's financial security, and that is the superannuation gap. It's a massive gap that exists between Australian men and women. This motion does refer to the national gender pay and superannuation gap, and I commend the member for bringing this important matter to this place. However, the member is part of a government that could have used its 18 months to legislate to include superannuation guaranteed payments on parental leave pay. This is a government where the Minister for Finance is also the Minister for Women. I will shortly be writing to the honourable Senator Gallagher about this issue in the lead-up to the next budget. Parental leave is still the only commonly taken form of leave on which superannuation is not paid. This gap directly contributes to women retiring with an average of one-third less superannuation than men. This is effectively a financial penalty women pay for having children. It is time that that changed.</para>
<para>In that context, another thing that really needs to be addressed—and this is a matter close to my heart—is that it's time that things changed for mums and families with multiple births. As we speak about paid parental leave and women's equality, those women who give work birth to multiples—twins, triplets or more—remain significantly disadvantaged. As a mother of twins, I fully support the policy changes recommended by the Australian Multiple Birth Association to assist these families, which amount to over 4,000 each year. Multiple-birth families face a range of unique challenges in comparison to families with singletons, including pregnancy complications, in particular premature births. I know from personal experience all about premature births. Mothers of multiples face a number of potential health impacts, including things like lower breastfeeding rates, higher rates of postnatal depression and other issues.</para>
<para>The Australian Multiple Birth Association is advocating for increased financial payments to families with multiple births and also to increase parental leave. That is to recognise that twins and triplets are far more likely to come early and to spend significantly more time in hospital. In my personal experience, my son spent 11 weeks in hospital, and that 11 weeks was not a period that was then added onto the parental leave that I had available. It would have made a massive difference to me. It would make a massive difference to other families experiencing this, and so I call upon the government to make the changes that are being advocated by the Multiple Birth Association as we are now coming into the prebudget submissions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to begin by thanking the member for Tangney for moving this important motion. It holds great personal significance for me as a mother of two young women and as a member of Australia's first female-majority Labor caucus. Pay equality is an issue that resonates deeply with me as it reflects both the progress we've made and the challenges that still lie ahead. Since Albanese government came to office in 2022, we have made it a priority to lessen the disparity in wages between men and women, and we are having success, with Australia climbing from 43rd to 26th in the global gender gap rating.</para>
<para>Despite the significant advancement in the fight for gender equality, women do continue to face persistent wage gaps and often earn less than their male colleagues. Our government recognises this and is acting to further bridge the gender pay gap. Our government's tax cut package will significantly benefit women in the workforce. It will mean 90 per cent of women will receive a tax cut and they will receive a $1,500 tax cut on average. These are the teachers, the nurses and the aged-care workers who play such an important role in caring for our children, our neighbours and our older community members. These are the same workers who are at the centre of our industrial relations reforms to lift the minimum wage in female dominated industries. We have also increased the wages of aged-care workers by 15 per cent in line with the royal commission recommendations. From these reforms to the employment white paper, we have been placing women at the centre of our agenda and have made pay equality a key economic imperative. We're continuing this work through our expansion of paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 1 July this year.</para>
<para>For young mums in my electorate, this can't come soon enough. They want to see this pass the parliament as soon as possible. I recently visited a local playgroup in Torquay where Gemma Smith, the mother of one-year-old twins, said the changes to paid parental leave would have made a dramatic difference to her life when her boys, Angus and Charlie, were born. Gemma welcomed the extra flexibility in how parents could take leave, which she said encouraged gender equality. She said: 'It is so much harder to go back to work when you have twins. This would have been so helpful. Our family would have had a steadier income sooner.' More paid leave will ease the cost-of-living pressures for young families like Gemma's and, importantly, create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build a career and earn a pay packet.</para>
<para>With its rapid growth—almost the fastest in the nation—my electorate of Corangamite is home to many young mothers facing challenges similar to this. Our government and I recognise that many women want to return to work or re-enter the workforce to extend their career and, importantly, contribute to the family budget. That's why our government boosted the cheaper childcare subsidy: so that mothers can get back to work, earn a good wage, build their careers and boost their superannuation. The data shows that this has had significant impact across the nation and particularly in my electorate of Corangamite. Since the subsidy was boosted, the average reduction in out-of-pocket expenses across the sector has been 11 per cent for centre based day care, 8.8 per cent for outside school hours care, 12 per cent for in-home care and 13.8 per cent for family day care.</para>
<para>While we take pride in these accomplishments, our government understands that there is much to do. The current national gender pay gap means that on average women working full time earn $253 less each week than their male counterparts. The national gender pay gap is at 13 per cent, and women have an average of 47 per cent less super compared to men, equating to an $85,000 difference for the average superannuation fund. These things matter. I understand they matter, and we must do more, but we are working hard because we believe in fairness and justice in wages.</para>
<para>In closing, I note that over recent years, the voices and experience of women have helped change public perceptions. We are listening to those voices, and women are changing public policy. It's time to build on this and to continue to work to reduce the gender pay gap. Together, as a nation, we will all be better for it because, when women do well, we all do well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The women of Australia have spoken. Thousands of Australian women contributed to the development of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce report, and what they want is secure work and respect. At the UN Women breakfast in parliament last week, chair Georgina Williams said that, when women are empowered to have their own voice, agency and meaningful participation in economic decision-making at all levels of society, everyone benefits. Despite some progress in recent years, Australian women don't have economic equality. Australia ranks equal first for women's education but 43rd for women's economic opportunity. Australian women are much less likely to work full time than women in many other OECD countries. Gender segregation persists across the economy. As an example, 76 per cent of employees in the healthcare sector are female, and 86 per cent in the construction industry are male. Most casual workers are women, and some of the most highly feminised sectors are the most casualised. Women do most of the care work, which is generally low paying. In the early childhood education and care sector, 92 per cent of workers are women. Women continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of unpaid labour, and there's a stubborn gender pay gap of 13.3 per cent.</para>
<para>Goldstein includes an increasing number of lower and middle-income workers—many of them women, more than 25,000 of whom work in feminised industries—and almost 9,000 of those women who work in the care sector. These are among the millions of women I've been talking about repeatedly since I was elected and, indeed, before then. At the Jobs and Skills Summit and in conversations with ministers, I've strived to convince them of the need to place a gender lens over all legislation. The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work found that on average an Australian woman earns $1 million less than an Australian man across her career and $136,000 less in super over her working life.</para>
<para>There are attitudinal barriers that keep the inequality ticking along too. According to the WEET report, 30 per cent of Australian men don't think gender inequality exists. I'll just pause so you can digest that, ladies. Gender inequality is real, and it's a moral issue as well as an economic one. Currently Australia is underutilising 50 per cent of its economic potential. According to Deloitte Access Economics, the Australian economy would be boosted by $128 billion if the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation were removed. That equates to $12,000 extra a year per household.</para>
<para>As I've said before in this place and elsewhere, we need to turbocharge our efforts. At the Jobs and Skills Summit in 2022, I called for gender impact statements on all new legislation and the mandating of gender pay gap reporting—two simple measures to create fairness and accountability. The member for Tangney is right when he says that the government is taking steps to improve conditions. Expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026 is evidence of that. But, as the WEET report outlines, 52 weeks of paid parental leave is where we need to be, and this should be phased in and achieved by 2030. We need to legislate the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave. We also need to legislate to establish and invest in universal, high-quality and affordable early childhood education and care and abolish the childcare subsidy activity test. More broadly, we need to elevate the status of care work and attract a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers.</para>
<para>We must generate policies to get more women into male-dominated industries. Let us not let women miss yet another revolution, the renewables revolution, by leaving it to hi-vis male trades. Australia has one of the most highly gender-segregated workforces among OECD countries, with women making up only three per cent of the trade workforce. Only when we have all these reforms will we unleash the full capacity and contribution of women to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>The final point I'll make is that we can't ignore the link between women's economic insecurity and violence. Recent data from the ABS exposes a staggering reality: 2.7 million women have experienced partner violence or abuse in Australia. When women have financial independence, they have the power to make their own decisions and they don't have to make the hideous choice between poverty and violence. Women's economic security can be a life-and-death conversation which deserves the full attention of the whole parliament. Australia's competitive advantage, economic growth and future prosperity depend on it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</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>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Economy</title>
          <page.no>307</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>It's crucial, when we talk about the digital economy, that we understand there are two elements we're talking about. We are talking about the sector, or the industry itself, which is well represented in Australia by companies like Canva and many others. But we're also talking, very importantly, about the wider impact that the digital economy can have across the whole economy. At a time when we've got a collapse in productivity, it's important that we look at the elements where the digital economy and tech can play a very important role in helping our economy. We look at AI as a great opportunity for us as a country. It covers many different areas, but it is a way that business can invest in their company to improve productivity and their return on investments.</para>
<para>But the reality today in Australia is: businesses are being asked to invest millions of dollars with no certainty from this government. Early last year, they launched their digital safe Australia strategy, around AI. We got to January this year and the minister for industry said that he was going to put on a committee, to have a look and a new review. There's no certainty. It's an example of why we actually need a minister for the digital economy. What's happening in businesses today is that CEOs are talking to their executives and saying, 'Do we invest $5 million in this AI program?' They are going through the opportunities and the risks, and then they're getting to the question: what's the legislative environment that they can work in? The reality is that those executives have to tell the CEO, 'We don't actually know what the government's going to do in terms of regulation.' They've developed a risk where they can invest the money and then they turn around and what they are trying to do is not actually sustainable. Without certainty, business can't invest. Many businesses that I've spoken to have to use the European standard—which is the toughest in the world—as the standard that they operate on. It means they have a limited opportunity.</para>
<para>I hear the member for Bennelong talking about the Tech Council. I'll get onto the Tech Council right now, just for him. I know, as the parliamentary co-chair of the digital economy, he is interested in all areas digital. We'll move to another example of where not having a minister for the digital economy really hurts this country and economy. When you look at the sophisticated investor reforms that the Assistant Treasurer is looking to bring in, they are going to change the level at which people can invest in tech start-ups and invest angel capital to get some of those VCs up and running.</para>
<para>So what did the Tech Council's heads of policy, now acting CEO, Ryan Black, say when asked about sophisticated investors and the changes that this government are looking to make in the space? He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We've been talking to a lot of companies in the investment space, a lot of VC fund managers and angel investor organisations, and there is a lot of concern about what has been mooted. A lot of the products on offer, particularly from venture funds, require investors to pass a sophisticated or wholesale investor test and so there is a direct impact on the potential flow of investment into venture capital.</para></quote>
<para>As I said, the government are looking to make changes in this space that are going to directly impact VCs, which are one of the key drivers of innovation in the tech space. And it could not come at a worse time. Data from Cut Through Ventures has shown that 2023 was one of the lowest years on record for VC funding in this country. Things like angel investing are so important because they give businesses the start so they can get to series A, series B and series C and then become the Afterpays et cetera that are so well known and so successful in the tech sector. This is what happens when you have a government that does not have a minister dedicated to the digital economy and making sure that the right decisions are made to drive productivity—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm trying to get the member for Bennelong a promotion. You should put your hand up. The member for Fraser would also be good as the minister for the digital economy. We actually need it, because it will drive economic growth and productivity growth for our country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ware</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before heading up to the chamber today I had to double check my calendar and confirm that it is 2024. The carry-on from those opposite suggests that they believe it is still the 1980s and they have just got their hands on their first Commodore 64. What they haven't managed to grasp is the fact that the digital economy isn't merely a futuristic concept. That is why I thank my mate the member for Casey for bringing this important motion forward. The digital economy is the economy; it is now.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The more they keep talking about this, the more they avoid changing. It just makes them look and more and more embarrassing. It is simple. Every part of the economy and the world that we live in is driven by digital technology, commerce and data. As a government, we know this and that is why we are continuing to invest in an inclusive, sustainable economy supported by technologies.</para>
<para>My good friend, the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, released Australia's first National Quantum Strategy in May last year to boost our economic competitiveness to our target of 1.2 million tech-related jobs by 2030. Australia has been a global pioneer in cutting-edge quantum research for decades. We are using a thriving quantum industry to boost our economic competitiveness and help solve our biggest national challenges. We finally have a government that is setting Australia up to be a success, and we are well on track. We are already seeing how quantum-sensing equipment is making a huge difference for industry.</para>
<para>In time, quantum computing will unleash incredible computing power that can hugely outperform traditional computing. Quantum industries are on track to create 19,400 direct jobs with $5.9 billion of revenue by 2045. Quantum technology uses the study of the smallest building blocks in nature, subatomic particles, to help solve some of the biggest challenges we face, such as cutting the time and cost for developing new medicines; helping the transition to net zero with more efficient battery storage; and safeguarding cyber infrastructure. By pairing our National Quantum Strategy with the National Reconstruction Fund, we are aiming to turn Australia into a global technology leader, building stronger industry and creating jobs for the future. We have seen eight per cent growth in workers in the tech workforce since we came to government. Like me, 40 per cent of the tech sector workforce did not go to university and do not have a degree. This presents an opportunity for everyone.</para>
<para>Our industry growth program is open for business. Those opposite like to talk about the importance of backing innovation. But the truth is that they failed to deliver for businesses and entrepreneurs. After all, they did vote against the National Reconstruction Fund, one of the largest investments to build a future made in Australia, which included $1 billion for enabling technologies. In the 2023-24 budget, the government delivered $41 million to extend the National AI Centre's work on responsible AI in industry alongside support for small and medium-size enterprise adopting AI for the first time. We also stumped up $40 million to deliver the Critical Technologies Challenges Program, which will deliver greater awareness and increase uptake in quantum technologies in Australia. In addition, we delivered $20 million to establish the Australian Centre for Quantum Growth.</para>
<para>When it comes to AI, this government is making sure the development and adoption of AI technologies are safe and responsible. AI presents a great opportunity to drive economic growth and productivity across the Australian economy, and we all want Australians to benefit from it. But we understand the need for strong safeguards to oversee high-risk AI advancements. This is why, after community consultation on safe and responsible AI, the government has outlined actions on AI in high-risk settings. The community made more than 500 submissions, and we are bringing AI safety in line with community expectations. We developed a voluntary AI safety standard with the industry and considered options for watermarking and labelling for all AI generated content. We are also considering the possibility of mandatory safeguards for organisations who develop or deploy AI in legitimate but high-risk settings. We will continue to build domestic AI capacity across industry and government.</para>
<para>Those opposite talk a big game when it comes to technology—and most other things as well, may I say. It would have been nice if they actually delivered around this whole industry in the 10 years they were in government. We are where we are now, and we've got ourselves out of the mess, and that's what this Australian Labor Albanese government is doing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of this motion brought by the honourable member for Casey, who has been a passionate advocate for advancing and supporting Australia's digital economy. Our digital economy is now an integral part of the lives of Australians, whether it be ecommerce, emarketplaces, online education courses, streaming platforms, social media, videoconferencing, e-health or innovative work-from-home options. The digital economy now accounts for more than $120 billion of our economy's total value. Australians are renowned for our innovative spirit and inventiveness, as evident from our impressive contributions to the world in various fields. From the Hills hoist to the black box flight recorder, wi-fi technology, the winged keel, vegemite and the cochlear implant, our nation has consistently pushed the boundaries of human achievement. Australians have similarly embraced the digital revolution, whether as innovators, startups or users.</para>
<para>We need a government that will support this revolution and prioritise the digital economy. The Albanese Labor government's failure to prioritise the digital economy is therefore incomprehensible. The digital economy is not just a passing trend. It is the foundation of our future economic landscape. It plays a critical role in driving economic growth and creating new job and study opportunities for Australians. However, unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government has taken a 20th-century approach towards the digital economy and artificial intelligence. This is a government that, as we can see by its attitude towards AI, lacks vision, is backward thinking and refuses to act in the interests of citizens and industry. By all measures, this appears to be a government that has little enthusiasm for digital transformation. This comes as no surprise. The government does not have a minister for the digital economy, nor does it have a clear national goal to be a leading digital economy.</para>
<para>I was here when my friend, the member for Hunter, said that we had no plan. However, Labor inherited a fit-for-purpose digital economy strategy from the former coalition government. It provided the Public Service and industry with certainty and confidence about the government's commitment to this crucial and ever-emerging area of the economy. However, since this government was elected, we have gone backwards. Part of the problem, we can see, lies in the government's IR agenda, prioritising a union driven agenda, deeply hostile to the kind of workplace flexibility and choice which typically is a feature of technology businesses.</para>
<para>As I said, Australians have always been early adopters of new technology, and we can see that at the moment with such things as Uber, Menulog and Airbnb. Consumers embrace online platforms for their choice and convenience and savings in time and sometimes money. Australians have benefited not just as consumers but also from the new work and business opportunities that have arisen from these platforms. There's the opportunity to work flexibly when it suits them, be it a few hours a week or 40 or more hours a week, on these platforms. But the Albanese Labor government is actively hostile, and why is that? The reason is pretty obvious. The reason they don't like the gig economy is because their great mates, the union bosses, hate the gig economy. Their IR legislative agenda clearly shows this. Australia is returning to an interventionist, centralised workplace relations system, with no mention of productivity or actually trying to lift the standard of living of all Australians.</para>
<para>The government's failure to have a minister for the digital economy has meant that the government has taken a slow approach towards engaging with artificial intelligence policy settings. This is despite AI already being widely used in consumer-facing services without controversy—for example, serving up suggestions to you on Spotify, YouTube or Amazon for your next song, video or book. Australia should be a world leader in AI thanks to our strong and growing technology sector and advances in scientific research. Rather than leading to a reduction in jobs, in many of these instances, artificial intelligence is instead resulting in an increase in activity. Just as the development of the automobile and the computer created a range of new professions and jobs, AI will do the same. It is now time that the Albanese Labor government started prioritising the digital economy and artificial intelligence policy settings.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I represent the electorate with the largest tech workforce in the country. Bennelong is home to 18,000 tech workers and understands how important technology is to our economy. This government gets how important technology is to our economy. Every facet of our economy, from agriculture to finance and from retail to advanced manufacturing, is impacted by digital technology. From small businesses moving across to digital point of sale and listing their goods online to multinational medical technology companies like Medtronic using AI to diagnose and screen patients, the digital economy is alive and well. It would be important for any government to foster its growth and ensure that it remains safe and that it remains acceptable to all Australians.</para>
<para>Since coming to government, we have got straight to work to ensure we can unlock the potential of technology and also AI. From our National Quantum Strategy to a world-first $5 billion capability investment by Microsoft to our ambitious target of recruiting 1.2 million tech related jobs by 2030, we are laying the groundwork for a prosperous digital future. Importantly, we are doing so by investing in our workforce. Currently, Australia is creating more tech jobs than we have tech graduates. This is unsustainable. Tech jobs are good, well paid and flexible. The sector has identified that we have severe skills shortages in a sector that we know will help productivity. In response, the industry has asked the government for help. From fee-free TAFE to changes to our migration strategy, we have put policies in place to ensure that Australians and Australian businesses can take advantage of well-paid tech jobs in the future. As the Tech Council has noted, shortages of experienced tech workers can put Australia's security and economy at risk. As a government, we are doing things to address that.</para>
<para>Despite what the member for Casey has put in this motion today, we are absolutely a government that have acknowledged the need for a comprehensive response to the emergence of AI. We recognise the immense potential of AI to drive economic and productivity growth, but we also understand the importance of ensuring its safe and responsible development. That's why, after extensive community consultation on the safe and responsible governance of AI, the government has outlined actions on AI high-risk settings, including developing a voluntary AI safety standard in collaboration with industry stakeholders. We are also exploring options for mandatory safeguards for organisations involved with high-risk AI, and we are doing so alongside the rest of the world. As signatories to the Bletchley declaration, we have put our name to global initiatives to encourage the safe, ethical and responsible development of AI. We are working with the EU, the US, the UK and China to ensure that AI is designed, developed, deployed and used in a manner that is human centric, safe, trustworthy and responsible, because we have to get this right. Our strategy cannot stifle innovation by being too prescriptive, but it also must ensure that AI remains safe and trusted.</para>
<para>It seems the only solution proposed by the member for Casey, seconded by the member for Hughes, is to increase the size of the Albanese ministry. All they want to do is appoint an extra minister; 'That'll fix the problem,' they say! I think this is a second time he has come in here and said, 'We want a bigger ministry.' Titles and name badges don't make good policy; good ministers make good policy, and we have, in the Minister for Industry and Science, a good minister who is doing important work on this issue. On the regulation of AI, he has been measured, consultative and deliberate, and his approach has been backed by industry and the public alike.</para>
<para>Don't take my word for it; here is a quote from the CEO of the industry peak body, the Tech Council, from only a few weeks ago—and it's actually relevant, unlike the quote the member for Casey read out:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Providing clarity on the Australian Government's approach to AI regulation is good for business and consumer confidence. It means businesses can better plan for building, investing in and adopting AI products and services, and the public can take confidence that AI risks are being safely managed and regulated in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This approach is the best way to balance innovation with the need to ensure that AI is developed safely and responsibly.</para></quote>
<para>I couldn't have said it better myself. Australia possesses the talent, resources and ingenuity to lead the way in the digital age. We've got a government and a minister that understands how to do it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that the extraordinary transformation of our economy being driven by digital technology and multiple manifestations and waves over the last 30 to 40 years has been absolutely profound. There's also no doubt that the speed and extent of change is only going to increase over coming decades. It is absolutely critical that Australia as a nation and that the Australian government are focused on the economic opportunities which the digital transformation of our economy can deliver.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, we have a government which is nostalgic for the 1950s, which is looking back to a time when most employees worked full time, when most employees were men, when the workforce was very heavily unionised and when longstanding workplace rigidities suited very much the interests of union bosses. It's true that consumers came a long way behind, and we discovered they paid higher prices and got poorer service than in many other countries in the world. Notwithstanding that, we've seen go through the House today a piece of legislation which speaks volumes to the essential hostility of this government and of key ministers—including the minister for workplace relations—to technology, to the digital economy, to innovation and to productivity. They are doing everything they can to turn this country in a backward direction, back towards the 1950s era, before computers were widespread and before there were such annoying things as smartphones, flexible employment and the internet and the cornucopia of choices and options it offers for consumers, and all the new business models it's created. Every one of these business models is hated by this Labor government and by the union bosses, and that is why the approach of the Albanese Labor government towards the digital economy and, indeed, towards artificial intelligence is backward thinking, disappointing and not fit for purpose. The previous government—the Morrison government—had a minister for the digital economy and had a very clear strategy in relation to the digital economy and Australia being a leading digital economy. That goal has been dumped by the present government—a complete lack of ambition—and the best justification we've just had from the member for Bennelong is that apparently he is now an enthusiast for small government. That would make him a pretty lonely enthusiast on the other side of the House. He certainly won't find his career advancing as he continues to advocate that enthusiasm. He is not credible at all. The real reason that he is opposing what we are calling for in this excellent motion moved by the member for Casey and seconded by the member for Hughes, two outstanding new coalition members doing such a great job, is that he, like all on that side of the House, is under the yoke, the suffocating orthodoxy, of the union-friendly government that is so committed to doing everything it can to hold back growth, hold back progress and hold back technology.</para>
<para>Let's talk a bit about artificial intelligence. Professor Anton van den Hengel, of Adelaide University, a leading thinker in his field, points out that there are only about 200 PhDs in Australia focused on artificial intelligence. We heard lofty words about how we're working cooperatively with Europe, with the US and with China on dealing with the risks. I'll tell you what the real risk is for Australia. The real risk when it comes to artificial intelligence is that we get caught napping when every other country in the world is using these tools to improve the productivity of the resources sector, of the agriculture sector, of the manufacturing sector, of the retail sector. We need to see a much more determined focus on productivity. I feel like I'm howling into the wind after the productivity-destroying legislation that's been passed today, but that does not change the imperative that our nation faces. We need to be more productive. We need to take advantage of the technology. At the moment, this government is sleepwalking into disaster. They've got no interest in the digital economy, and they are demonstrating that on a daily basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I disagree with this motion in large part because I disagree with the approach that the move of the motion takes in relation to AI. I might say that I disagree with the long bow and the massively overblown rhetoric of the immediately preceding speaker, but I will leave that largely to one side and focus on the contribution from the member for Casey.</para>
<para>I think there is probably to some degree and overlap of ambition and aspiration when it comes to AI across this chamber, across both major parties and across the crossbench. I suspect there's a recognition across parliament and all chambers that this is, in all likelihood, an extremely important transition for our society and for our economy. Where I disagree with those opposite is where they say somehow we need some kind of quick fix. Their quick fix seems to be that CEOs need certainty for the next $5 million investment, that we need to adopt this mysterious AI strategy now, that what we really need is another 50-page glossy document, that more important than anything is having the term 'AI' in someone's title. For goodness sake, someone has to have 'AI' in their title! This is all we've heard from them. It is not really much content at all other than symbolism.</para>
<para>What we have from this government, in contrast to that quick fix and, frankly, symbolic approach is a recognition that this is actually an extremely complicated emerging phenomenon. I want to touch on a couple of the pros and cons that are emerging. Experts put different weight on the pros and the cons and on where they see the risks and the potential benefits. Clearly, AI has a lot of potential upside and could actually be the next generalised industrial revolution. For example, it creates the potential for types of functionality which otherwise don't exist. Autonomous vehicles are one example. Vehicles that have to process vast amounts of data about their surrounds in real time couldn't operate safely and in a coordinated way without AI. This could be extrapolated across many parts of the economy. So there is that functionality.</para>
<para>Secondly, there's the capacity to replace and improve a whole raft of decision-making—for example, diagnosis based upon facts. This could be used in all sorts of situations, such as medical, legal or engineering contexts. There is also the use of big data to inform the activities of large organisations like governments and even large corporates.</para>
<para>Thirdly, there's outright creativity. We know, for example, that AI is now writing essays. AI is probably writing better speeches than most private members' bills generate! But, even in the context of chess, chess geniuses now see the moves that AI generates, and there are often moves that are clearly the optimal move but human beings have no idea why. They just call them 'computer moves' now because they don't know why they're good.</para>
<para>But then, of course, there are all the potential downsides. There are the downsides around privacy. What does the interpretation of all this data mean for ordinary citizens? We don't yet know what AI will do on that front. There are the ways in which it might change market structures, where, if AI requires massive amounts of research and development to get to the cutting edge, it might entrench the largest players or the winners in markets. It could also lead to the replacement of many human tasks, many more than previous waves of automation and industrialisation. What does that do the role of humans in the workforce?</para>
<para>The point I make is that we don't quite yet know what the balance of all these trends is. We don't yet know the trajectory of each of these trends. That's why, in my opinion, we need to take a cautious approach. We don't want to over-regulate too quickly, because we might kill the golden goose. At the same time, we probably do need to set up some guardrails, what one might describe as a regulatory sandbox. That's exactly what this government is doing. It's taking an approach which is looking at AI in high-risk settings. We've received 500 submissions. The government is developing a voluntary AI safety standard with the industry. We're looking at safeguards that would include testing, transparency and accountability.</para>
<para>With something as broad ranging as AI, something with huge potential upsides which could boost productivity growth in ways we can only imagine, but something that also has potential downsides that we can find hard to conceive, we have to take an approach that is measured and staged, and that's exactly what the government is doing. The right approach here is not to wade in and just regulate for its own sake; it's to take a measured approach.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Schools</title>
          <page.no>312</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<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>
<para>I am incredibly proud of the public schools in Pearce and right around Australia. The principals and staff in our schools do an amazing job in educating our children, and work hard to provide a sound basis for lifelong learning. Education plays a crucial role in shaping the social, economic and cultural fabric of our country. Public schools serve as a foundation for fostering equality, promoting diversity and ensuring that every child has access to a quality education, which is why the public school funding WA agreement is so incredibly important.</para>
<para>It saddens me that no public schools in Australia except for in the Australian Capital territory are currently at the full and fair funding level. In 2011, Mr David Gonski AC lead a review of funding for schooling under the Gonski plan. It was recommended that all schools be funded according to the individual needs of their students to give our children the best possible start in life.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to making Australia's education system better and fairer by working with all states and territories to ensure every school is on a pathway to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. I am very pleased that the Western Australian government has secured a funding agreement with the federal government. It will become the first state to fund its public schools to the full 100 per cent of the schooling resourcing standard. This agreement will increase funding for all WA public schools from 95 per cent of the SRS to 100 per cent by 2026. Disadvantaged schools will take priority, with the aim of reaching that funding level as of next year. The additional funding will mean more resources and more support for our students, teachers and school communities.</para>
<para>Pearce is a multicultural community and the public schools look after and educate students from various ethnic, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. Every child deserves a good, quality education, no matter where they live, what their background is or their financial circumstances and whether they be First Nations or culturally and linguistically diverse students or those living in a rural or remote part of our country. It is incredibly important that we help give them the best start possible, and education is the key. By working together we can deliver much-needed funding reforms and we can tie this funding to the areas of most need, whether it be for the students falling behind at school and needing additional help to catch up so that they finish school or those with health or mental health issues that require additional support. Reforms need to be tailored to funding that will help lift student outcomes. We especially need to better integrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives into classroom practice.</para>
<para>Both the federal government and the WA state government are committed, through the funding and through reforms, that the agreement reached will ensure our public system for our schools strive for equity and excellence. This is particularly important to ensure that the well-being of students and teachers are at the forefront so that we have a sustainable, quality teaching and non-teaching workforce in our public school system and help eliminate the education gap for students from disadvantaged schools. The agreement is indeed a landmark decision.</para>
<para>The federal government is also supporting our schools in other ways. For example, in Pearce, our school upgrade fund has delivered: $50,000 for outdoor play areas for Banksia Grove Primary School; $24,000 for upgrading and improving existing outdoor learning spaces and repairs and maintenance for school facilities at Butler College; $25,000 for both East Butler Primary School and Mindarie Senior College for the purchase or upgrade of ICT equipment; and $25,000 for Tapping Primary School to upgrade and improve the existing outdoor learning space. Other projects are currently being progressed for funding to assist other schools in my electorate.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government remains committed to working with states and territories to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding levels in the next National School Reform Agreement. WA Premier Roger Cook recently stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Statement of Intent provides a basis for the negotiation of the next National School Reform Agreement and associated bilateral agreement, which will tie funding to reforms that will help students catch up, keep up and finish school.</para></quote>
<para>In closing, I reiterate that, when we ensure every opportunity has the opportunity to fulfill their potential, it is without doubt good for our students and good for our nation. I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<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 Lim</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Pearce for speaking on this important topic and for bringing this motion to the chamber. I have five children and the four youngest are enrolled in fantastic public schools in my electorate of Bass. As the elected member in a region where there are more than 35 public schools, I have joined the fight to ensure that every school receives 100 per cent of its funding.</para>
<para>The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that success in education can be defined as a combination of high levels of achievement and high levels of equity, and that equity in education is also a matter of design and, as such, should become a core objective of any strategy to improve an education system. Ensuring equity of opportunity for all children is something that should be above politics. So I happily threw my support behind the Australian Education Union's campaign calling on the federal government to ensure that every public school is funded up to a basic benchmark level—known as the schooling resource standard.</para>
<para>As a proud former member of Ravenswood Primary in the 1980s and a regular visitor to the current school now known as Ravenswood Heights Primary School, I have seen firsthand the dedication of its amazing teachers and the passion its principal Jason Gunn has to provide the very best educational opportunities to their school community. But a funding shortfall of close to $6,000 last year makes it extremely difficult to meet the needs of many of its students. What would addressing this funding shortfall mean to the Ravenwood's Heights Primary School community? It could mean employing an additional five teachers or teachers assistants or an additional school psychologist. However the funding was carved up, the opportunity exists to reduce class sizes, provide specialist support and improve student and teacher wellbeing. Lilydale Primary School is underfunded by $700,000. Scottsdale High School and Youngtown Primary School are both underfunded by more than $600,000.</para>
<para>Every single public school in my electorate of Bass—in fact, every public school across the state—is underfunded to the tune of $118 million. That's a stark comparison to private schools which were found in a report by independent education economist Adam Morris to be overfunded by $7 million. I don't want to turn this into a fight about public versus private. Independent schools most certainly have their place, and parents should have a choice, but let's be real and recognise that that choice is available only to those who can afford it. As the Tasmanian Association of State Schools Organisations have stated, they believe current funding practices are pitting government and non-government schools against each other.</para>
<para>Every child deserves their schooling to meet the minimum educational standards and the unfair division of funding is fostering unnecessary division. It's not just providing additional assistance for teachers and students and tackling the problem of overcrowded classrooms. It could also mean that other school funds could be diverted to upgrading school facilities. I visited many wonderful schools, both public and private, across my electorate over the past 4½ years, and I've witnessed a stark disparity between the haves and the have-nots when it comes to facilities and basic amenities. And I mean 'basic'. At a minimum they deserve classrooms free of mould, heating that works and functional bathrooms.</para>
<para>Addressing the funding shortfall will also go a long way to relieving the pressure on overworked teachers, who are leaving the profession in droves. An AEU survey found that, even with new teachers, 39 per cent were planning to leave the profession within a decade. As I said earlier today, there is a significant teacher shortage, and I commend the Tasmanian government for several initiatives that they are taking to recruit and retain teachers, but ensuring that public schools are funded a hundred per cent and giving schools the ability to hire additional teachers if they choose will alleviate much of the pressure that they're facing. I acknowledge the recent in-principle agreement between the federal government and the Western Australian government to deliver a hundred per cent of the SRS by 2026. While the funding is tied to reforms under the national schools agreement, there is a lack of detail as to exactly what these reforms are.</para>
<para>Research has shown that, for the period between 2008 and 2022, the gap between high and low socioeconomic status year 3 students has widened substantially and that low SES students are on average five years behind the high SES students by year 9. None of us should be comfortable with these numbers or with standing by as this divide continues to grow. All of our children, no matter what their postcode or where they live, should have access to good-quality education. If the federal government delays taking further action to fix the gap now, we will continue to pay for the shortfall in outcomes for generations to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Pearce for moving this motion. Education can change people's lives and offer so many opportunities. I, for one, am very grateful for my education, and I am full of gratitude to my maths teacher, Mr Lee Yau Ting, who financially supported my last two years of senior high school fees in Malaysia. Without his support, I would not have been able to complete my senior high school education.</para>
<para>I am proud that all the schools in Tangney consistently deliver high-quality education. We have a world-class education system here in Australia, yet there are no public schools outside the ACT that are at a full and fair funding level. The Albanese Labor government recognises that every child deserves access to high-quality education, regardless of their background or postcode, and we are determined to make Australia's education system better and fairer. The commitment that this government has made is to work with all states and territories to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level in the next National School Reform Agreement, which is being negotiated this year. Knowing that this government prioritises education is important to me and my constituency. Finally, there is action in this space.</para>
<para>This is coupled with the information that has come from the Productivity Commission, which found that the equity gap in schools widened under the coalition's schools agreement signed by the member for Cook. It is unfortunate that it shows that, under the coalition's schools agreement, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were found to be three times more likely to fall behind and that 86,000 students didn't meet either the basic literacy standard or numeracy standard—but not under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>I'm proud that, in my home state of Western Australia, the state government was the first to sign a statement of intent to ensure that every school in Western Australia receives full and fair funding. There will be an investment of an additional $777.4 million from 2025 to 2029 in Western Australian public schools. It is under this agreement that the most disadvantaged schools will reach full and fair funding first, in 2025, and that every child in Western Australia will attend a fully funded school in 2026. This is something to be celebrated, and I would like to commend the Western Australian government on taking up this historic agreement with the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Importantly, the National School Reform Agreement is tied to reforms, as informed by the Review to Inform a Better and Fairer Education System. It advised on key reforms related to equity, wellbeing and the teacher workforce. It will be focused on driving real and measurable improvements to students' experience and will further support student outcomes and wellbeing with specific reforms, subject to negotiations with each of the states and territories.</para>
<para>The next school agreement is our opportunity to make our education system better and fairer, and tying funding to reforms is the best thing we as a government can do to close the education gap. Full funding is just the first step, but it's a testament to the dedication and perseverance of the Albanese Labor government and the Western Australian government in prioritising education as a fundamental right for all children. It is a shining example of what can be accomplished when a government prioritises education and invests in the future of its citizens. Together let us continue to advocate the rights of every child to receive a high-quality education and let us continue to invest in the future prosperity of our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 1945 Kim Beazley Sr, then a new member, remarked that he was glad to see that the Commonwealth government had set up an office of education, and he hoped that the action would one day lead to federal aid to education.</para>
<para>The schooling resource standard, the SRS, is an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs. The standard is based on the Gonski review commissioned by the Gillard government, which was delivered in 2011. As a federation of Commonwealth and six state governments, we have consistently failed since that challenge by Gonski in 2011, some 13 years ago, to meet the schooling resource standard. Let's just dwell for a moment on what that means. It means 13 years of failure to meet what the review described as a minimum standard, not the maximum standard. Thirteen years—that's a whole generation of schoolkids who have been underfunded in our public schools since the advice received by government, leaving aside the years running back to Kim Beazley Sr's stated hope.</para>
<para>In my first speech, I underlined the importance of a superb education system that is accessible and free. Meeting minimum funding for public education is the starting point for this. So I was so pleased to be able to announce to my Hasluck community at the end of January that the Albanese Labor government and the Cook WA Labor government have come to an agreement which means that, over the next two years, all public schools in WA will meet the schooling resource standard. I am proud that the most disadvantaged schools will be funded first, seeing an increase from next year, with all Western Australian public schools fully funded by 2026. All up, we are looking at an additional $1.6 billion invested in public schools in WA. Every child in a public school in Western Australia in 2026 will attend a fully funded school. This is an important step and one which I hope every other state, in concert with the Commonwealth, will emulate.</para>
<para>Public schools must be fully funded. Family fortunes cannot be allowed to determine the extent of a young student's fortunes. I want to see a public school system that is so healthy that every child coming out is brimming with confidence—the confidence to go to their chosen TAFE or university course or to choose any course they feel drawn to and are qualified for, the confidence to start their own business, if that is what they carry a flame for, and the confidence to travel anywhere in the world and feel prepared for what they might find. I want some of them to turn around after having met the world with that confidence and decide that they want to teach our young people, just like the teachers they fondly remember.</para>
<para>Gonski urged a needs based and sector-blind funding model for education. The meeting of needs, which this excellent agreement does for WA, is crucial. Funding increases of this order can make a real difference to the way in which schools can tackle disadvantage and help to close the gap. Schools like Ellen Stirling Primary School in Ellenbrook, Aveley Primary School and Swan View Primary School might look at ways to employ more education assistants to engage in one-on-one learning. Schools like Moorditj Noongar Community College might look at extra ways to bridge cultural and family experiences to support student learning. Schools like Falls Road Primary School in Lesmurdie and Herne Hill Primary School might look at ways to make their already growing STEM programs more connected with institutions outside their schools. The possibilities are endless, and with our support and with proper funding I know that our schools and our teachers will find a way.</para>
<para>I am also pleased that the funding increase has been tied to reforms aimed at closing the gap and reforms focused on real and measurable improvements for student outcomes in academics and wellbeing. The reforms being discussed follow on from the review commissioned by Minister Clare and published in December last year which recommended that we engage in reform in relation to equity, wellbeing and teacher workforce development. We are facing a world, as Minister Clare has noted, where finishing year 12 and completing some sort of tertiary education at TAFE or uni will be fundamental to accessing the jobs of the future. This funding agreement is an investment in that future.</para>
<para>I pay special tribute to Minister Clare today. He was elected to this place in 2007, saying the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our education system is the most powerful cause for good in this country. Run well, it can ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential. It is the great equaliser in an unequal world.</para></quote>
<para>The minister can be proud of the success he has achieved, and I know his ambition runs deeper still, as does mine, as does this government's.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very glad to speak on this motion. I thank the member for Pearce for bringing it forward. The member for Pearce knows the transformative, egalitarian power of education. She knows that it can be the greatest means of delivering fairness, equality of opportunity and individual fulfilment, which is why it's always been a core pursuit of the Australian labour movement and the Australian Labor Party. Just as Labor built Medicare to be the foundation of our universal public health system, we are now working to ensure that public schools are funded to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. As a proud Western Australian, I am really pleased to be here tonight with my WA Labor colleagues to recognise the cooperative work of the Albanese and Cook Labor governments which will mean that WA is the first state to reach that milestone. Thanks to the work of Minister Jason Clare and his WA counterpart, Tony Buti, all public schools in WA will reach the 100 per cent SRS mark by 2026, with disadvantaged schools getting there a year earlier in 2025.</para>
<para>I am fortunate to have grown up shaped by a public school education. My mum is a teacher. She continues to work right now at age 76 on a relief basis to support the learning of children with disability. Both my sister and my sister-in-law work in public schools. My best friend retrained from having been a stonemason to be a school teacher, and he is part of the incredible and life-changing team at Port School in Freo.</para>
<para>Every year I am privileged to visit and spend time with the teachers, staff and students at some of the 63 schools in my electorate, from North Freo to Aubin Grove Primary School, one of the largest primary schools in the state, and from Treeby to South Lake and South Coogee. As I've said, education is the great driver and guarantor of opportunity and equality. It's the best way of supporting social mobility and of resisting the socioeconomic factors that otherwise limit a child's potential as a result of their postcode or circumstances. At a time of difficult economic pressures, which always put equality at risk, it is vital that we refocus our efforts on improving our education system, to ensure that no child is left behind.</para>
<para>Not for the first time, it's a Labor government that's stepping up to support public schools, just as we support access to early childhood education. We know what a high-quality and accessible public education system means for shaping a healthier and fairer society. We know that, by investing in our schools, we're investing in the engine rooms of opportunity for young people and providing teachers with the resources they need to make that happen. This landmark agreement by the Albanese and Cook Labor governments will see all Western Australian public schools fully funded to the resource standard for the first time, creating a stronger public education system for all, to help every student fulfil their potential.</para>
<para>Under the coalition's schools agreement, the equity gap in schools actually widened. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds were found to be three times more likely to fall behind. That should never have been the case. We can't allow that to continue.</para>
<para>By contrast, Labor's National School Reform Agreement will link funding to reforms which are designed to improve education across the board. As part of this new agreement, Labor will focus the additional funds where they're needed most, so that children can catch up, keep up and stay in school. As I said, by 2026, the year after next, every child in Western Australia's public education system will attend a fully-funded school, and, quite rightly, the most marginalised schools will get there a year earlier, next year.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is delivering an additional $777.4 million into the Western Australian public school system over the next four years. The Cook government's commitments add to that, and the total package of funding is $1.6 billion over that period. It will improve the quality of school education, improve student and staff wellbeing and support a strong and sustainable workforce.</para>
<para>Last year, one of the most heartening and uplifting experiences I had was going to Atwell College and seeing how they support the education of children with a range of disabilities. I had a tour with Deputy Principal Brent Passchier, and all of the features of that college function together in the specialist Kim Beazley Learning Centre building, to support kids who really need the best that our education system can offer, and the faculty and students there make it a caring, creative and flexible learning environment.</para>
<para>There is no question that, by making sure our public schools are as good as they can be and should be, we'll be true to our values in this country—our values of fairness and equality of opportunity. This breakthrough new agreement between the Albanese and Cook Labor governments is a massive step in supporting Western Australian schools to deliver on that promise.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, this debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:18</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>