2024-02-15 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 15 February 2024

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 1

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The amendments which were passed in the closing loopholes legislation and which were subsequently supported by this House will establish a right to disconnect in part 2-9 of the Fair Work Act and require modern awards to include terms giving effect to those rights. The right will provide that employees are not required to monitor, read or respond to contact from their employer, or work-related contact from third parties, outside of their work hours—unless refusing to do so is unreasonable. It shouldn't be controversial that people should be paid when they work, and yet essentially that's all this issue is about. Where disputes about the right to disconnect arise, employers and employees will be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission for stop orders. This bill ensures that the right to disconnect, introduced in the Fair Work Act by our closing loopholes legislation, will operate as it should. A lot's been said about the amendment that was moved in the Senate. It's important to note this: the amendment did not explicitly include criminal penalties, but there's an interaction with section 675(1) of the Fair Work Act, and because of that interaction it's necessary to make a further amendment to rule out criminal penalties. The amendments in the bill will insert a new paragraph into subsection 675(2) of the Fair Work Act so that if a person contravenes a commission order about the new right to disconnect, it will not amount to an offence under section 675 of the act and will not expose that person to a criminal penalty. The amendments in this bill will commence at the same time as the other right to disconnect provisions—that is six months after royal assent of the closing loopholes legislation, noting that for small business, the right to disconnect provisions will not commence for an additional 12 months. My understanding is no member of parliament supports criminal penalties applying. But for reasons I will never understand, coalition members refused to grant leave for this issue to be corrected last Thursday. Despite that, I hope that, now that it is in a separate bill, the coalition—and indeed all members—will now support this legislation which will ensure that criminal penalties do not apply. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 1

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:05 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is an important bill, to establish a clear legal basis for means testing of the income from military invalidity payments affected by the full Federal Court's 2020 'Douglas decision', when recipients of those payments also seek support through our income support system. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, to give these veterans certainty and to maintain equity in the way different income support recipients are means-tested. This bill is necessary as a result of the Douglas decision determination that relevant veteran invalidity benefits paid from the Defence Force Retirements and Death Benefits Scheme and Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme should be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than defined benefit superannuation income streams. In our response to this decision, the Albanese government passed legislation, ensuring affected veterans could retain the tax benefits of the decision and the benefits that flowed from any resulting changes to their taxable income in areas such as family tax benefit and childcare subsidy. We also prevented adverse impacts, including on veterans with child support obligations—or their ex-partners—by recognising the Douglas decision as a special circumstance and proactively remediating any child support debts caused by changes to taxable income through an act-of-grace strategy. The bill I am introducing today has no impact on the government's existing response to the Douglas decision; however it is now clear the court's findings have had additional consequences for the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Analysis of these consequences has now identified there is no clear, legal basis for means-testing these payments when recipients also seek support through Australia's income support system. One of the key features of our social security system is that it is means-tested, to ensure that this taxpayer-funded support is targeted to people who need it most, based on their need and circumstances. These means-testing arrangements—which are generally applied to all applicants in the system—include an income test and an asset test. Veterans who receive a relevant military invalidity payment from the DFRDB and MSB schemes can be assessed on whether they can get further support from the social security system, and the level of that support. To do this, historically we have always treated them as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams in the means test. This is the same way we treat other veteran retirement benefit payments from the same DFRDB and MSB schemes. But because of the Douglas decision, it is now understood that this means-testing treatment for social security purposes—as an asset-test exempt defined benefit income stream—can no longer apply to the invalidity benefit payments. When we apply the framework used to assess income types in the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act, it is apparent there is no explicit, alternative means-testing treatment for these payments that we can use instead. The only alternative identified is clearly not intended for statutory superannuation benefits of this type. Analysis shows the only other way these income streams could implicitly be treated under existing legislation has significant legal risk and uncertainty, is unclear, and creates inequities in the system, including among veterans themselves. This is why we need a clear way forward. To this end, the bill introduces a new classification of 'military invalidity pension income stream' in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act, to include the military invalidity payments affected by the Douglas decision. The assessment of a military invalidity pension income stream within the means test is designed to produce the same result as the historical assessments of the affected invalidity payments. In addition, the bill will provide for military invalidity pension income streams to be considered 'asset-test exempt income streams' under the acts, ensuring the payments remain exempt from the assets test for income support. Together, these provisions are intended to ensure veterans with income from a military invalidity pension income stream receive income support at the same rate they were always intended to receive, and consistent with the outcomes for other veterans. Importantly, in almost every case these amendments will result in no changes to payment rates for the approximately 850 veterans (or their partners) who receive one of these invalidity benefit payments and also an income support payment from the social security system. An alternative option the government could have taken would be to make amendments to classify these invalidity benefit payments as 'lump sums' for the purposes of income support legislation. This would adopt the same nomenclature as the definition the Douglas decision assigned in tax law. But the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act are not bound by the way different types of payments are classified in the tax system. And, in fact, if the lump sum treatment was applied to these payments in the social security means test, because of the way that treatment works, these veterans would actually be worse off. This is because it would have the effect of reducing recipients' rates of support from the social security system, leaving them with less money in their pockets. That is why, with this bill, I am introducing means-testing arrangements that are designed to mirror the assessments obtained from the previous treatment before the Douglas decision. These amendments will ensure that the relevant invalidity payments can be means tested for income support in a way that delivers the same outcomes for these veterans as the pre-Douglas arrangements. This will mean veterans and their partners continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other income support recipients, including the other DFRDB and MSB veterans who receive retirement defined benefit income streams, under existing arrangements. These provisions will apply in determining income support payment rates for existing social security recipients who have income from amilitary invalidity pension income stream, as well as new applicants, from the day after the bill receives royal assent. The bill also includes a provision to validate past assessments of the affected invalidity payments under the means test for income support, as these may have become invalid due to the payments being treated as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams, which the Douglas decision now precludes. Importantly, this provision confirms past means-test assessments without removing people's rights of review or appeal in cases where decisions may have been invalid for other reasons. The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, or the Repatriation Commission, to specify additional income stream payments as military invalidity pension income streams by means of a disallowable instrument. This will allow for other incapacity payments from legacy superannuation schemes that may also be found to no longer meet the requirements for being treated as an asset-test exempt defined benefit income stream for reasons independent of Douglas to be included down the track. In summary, this bill: establishes a clear legal basis for means testing veterans' invalidity benefits from the DFRDB and MSB schemes, when recipients of these benefits also wish to seek support through the income support system; delivers the same outcomes for these veterans as the pre-Douglas arrangements; and preserves the equity of Australia's social security system, by ensuring they continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other recipients and, critically, other veterans. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 3

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:15 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is a critical tool of foreign policy which the government uses to demonstrate to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses, flouting of the international rules based order, and the undermining of international peace and security. In a challenging global environment, with new and emerging situations of international concern, sanctions are a potent tool to reinforce the values to which Australia ascribes. Australia's sanctions are highly targeted and effective. Through the imposition of travel bans and targeted financial sanctions, we hold actors to account for their egregious behaviour, and prevent illegal activity by imposing costs on those who transact with them. Australia's sanctions framework provides the government with the ability to respond quickly and flexibly with our international partners to apply sanctions, exert pressure and effect change across the world. Since being elected in May 2022, as of 12 February 2024, this government has been decisive in imposing nearly 500 sanctions under the autonomous sanctions framework for a range of matters including flagrant human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, significant cyberattacks and threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. We have demonstrated our leadership in imposing autonomous sanctions on 190 individuals and 102 entities in connection with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including those linked to Iran's provision of drones to Russia, and human rights abuses against Russian opposition figures. We have sanctioned 40individuals and 20 entities for their involvement in the oppression of women and girls in Iran, and the violent crackdown on protesters since protests began on 16 September 2022. We have sanctioned 29 individuals and 69 entities for their involvement in the nuclear and missile programs of Iran and North Korea, and for their destabilising activities in the region. We have also imposed sanctions on 16 individuals and seven entities responsible for the coup d'etat and ongoing repression and violence in Myanmar and for providing funding to the military regime. Recently, we have also imposed Australia's first-ever autonomous cyber sanction on an individual for their role in the compromise of the Medibank Private network in 2022. In the face of an increasing need to respond to situations of international concern, it is necessary to ensure that Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is robust and clear. The bill will help us do this. The bill amends the Autonomous Sanctions Act to remove any possibility of doubt that individuals or entities can be validly sanctioned based on their past conduct or status. Imposing sanctions based on past conduct or status is an effective way to reinforce the message that actions have consequences, not only to the individual or entity targeted, but to others now and in the future. The bill also clarifies the validity of sanctions listings that rely on the minister's discretion to impose sanctions. In doing so, the bill provides certainty and transparency to the Australian community, so that they can effectively comply with sanctions laws. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024 4

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:20 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will extend community television licences beyond the currently legislated 30 June 2024 expiry date and provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with instrument-making powers for when an alternative use for the spectrum is identified in the future. Community television adds crucial diversity to the Australian media environment. It provides local news and content, supports local businesses and serves as a platform for fostering the next generation of industry talent. With the help of around 4,000 volunteers, the two remaining terrestrial community television channels, Channel 31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, create content that entertains and informs their communities each week. The Albanese government is committed to keeping these community television stations in Melbourne and Adelaide on air until an alternative use for the radiofrequency spectrum they currently use is realised. This bill will legislate to achieve this outcome by removing the current expiry date of 30 June 2024. It will create a new framework that reasserts the objectives of broadcasting and radiocommunications policy and the role industry and its regulator, the ACMA, have to play in assessing the possible uses of the last available high-power television channel—the so-called 'sixth channel'. In 1992, an inquiry into possible uses of that channel received more than 70 submissions supporting the introduction of community-owned and operated television. The Labor government of the day accepted a recommendation to allow community television services to use the sixth channel until the spectrum was required for other uses, and asked the ACMA, or the Australian Broadcasting Authority as it was then known, to facilitate community television trials. Trial broadcasts began in 1994. Since then, community television has become a vibrant part of Australia's media ecosystem. And, since then, the sector's existence has been subject to debate and uncertainty. This government is determined to realign the legislation with the original intent of the Radiocommunications Act 1992—to promote the long-term public interest derived from the use of the spectrum by providing for efficient planning, allocation and use of the spectrum. This bill achieves this outcome by ensuring that Channel 31 and Channel 44 can continue to use the sixth channel to provide content that serves community interests. The first measure is simple. It repeals the 30 June 2024 expiry date for Channel 31 and Channel 44's apparatus licences. Channel 31 operates under a community broadcasting television licence under part 6 of Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and Channel 44 operates under an open narrowcasting television licence under a part 8 class licence. This dual licensing arrangement makes it more sensible to use the apparatus licences which both hold under the Radiocommunications Act 1992. This means the ACMA may continue to consider renewing these licences, allowing the channels to access spectrum and provide content via terrestrial broadcasts. The second measure introduces two instrument-making powers for the ACMA instead of using a future date. We consider that the ACMA is best placed to make these decisions both through its role as regulator and due to its expertise in and consultation with the broadcasting industry. The first instrument will allow the regulator to declare, via notifiable instrument, when an alternative use for the spectrum has been identified. This will provide the first notice to the community television sector that it will need to commence action to cease terrestrial broadcasting in the near future. The government has made a clear decision not to be too prescriptive on what the alternative use may be given that this will occur in the future and we want to give the ACMA flexibility to make the best decisions in this matter. There will be a condition that there be a period of at least six months from when this declaration is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation and when the second instrument can be made. The second instrument allows the ACMA to issue a determination that confirms a specified date which will be the day that Channel 31 and Channel 44 will have to switch off their terrestrial broadcasts. It is a legislated condition that this specified day will be at least six months from the date that the determination is registered. This two-tiered approach is the most effective way to ensure the two licensees can continue offering terrestrial community television services into the future until there is a decision about the use of the spectrum. It offers certainty to stakeholders—licensees and viewers alike—by providing a minimum of 12 months' notice to Channel 31 and Channel 44 to transition away from terrestrial broadcasting when an alternative use for the spectrum has been declared. Furthermore, industry will be consulted during this decision-making process. The government recognises there should be a well-managed transition, and the legislated minimum 12 month notice period combined with industry consultation acknowledges this. Finally, the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act code-making provisions to enable Channel 44 (which is the open narrowcaster) to be considered as a community broadcaster (like Channel 31) for the purposes of code making only. This is to make both licensees part of the same "section of industry" so that the Australian Community Television Alliance (ACTA) can make and register a single Code of Practice for both. This harmonises and simplifies the existing arrangement where the two licensees are regulated under separate codes of practice. The two licensees (Channel 31 and Channel 44), the community broadcasting peak body (CBAA) and the ACMA were consulted and are supportive of these amendments, as they recognise this is a good outcome for all. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 5

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 5 09:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Madeleine King. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 5 09:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: This this bill be now read a second time. Throughout our history, Australia's prosperity has been closely tied to the success of our resources sector. The contribution of the resources sector to Australia's national prosperity is significant, and it continues to play an essential and irreplaceable role supporting our economic wellbeing today. The Australian Government will always support a strong and resilient resources sector, and in supporting the sector we have a responsibility to ensure the ongoing health and safety of its workers. Nothing is more important than ensuring that every worker can come home safely at the end of a shift, or at the conclusion of a lengthy swing away from family and friends to the comfort of their homes. It is therefore incumbent on Governments to review and update our rules and regulations governing resources sector safety to ensure those rules and regulations remain fit-for-purpose. The Bill I am introducing to the Parliament today achieves this objective. Improving offshore safety This Bill proposes amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. The Bill implements outcomes of a review of the offshore safety regime for offshore resources sector workers which was undertaken by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources between 2019 and 2021. This review recommended several improvements to ensure that Australia's offshore resources safety regime continues to provide an effective, leading best practice framework for ensuring the health and safety of the offshore resources sector workforce. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources identified several additional measures to further strengthen Australia's offshore safety regime, which include improvements to operational health and safety, workforce health and wellbeing, and effective administration of the regime by the regulator. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources worked closely with stakeholders throughout the review process and during subsequent policy analysis. A representative group comprising employers, the workforce, unions and state and territory governments were consulted extensively throughout the review. A public consultation process was also undertaken. This bill will implement the outcomes of the safety review, with additional reforms implemented by subsequent amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Safety Regulations 2009 to be finalised following the passage of this bill. The key safety measures in this bill will: Strengthen the role of Health and Safety Representatives through better access to training; Allow Health and Safety Representatives to request reviews of safety management-related documents; Ensure Health and Safety Representatives have representation on Health and Safety Committees; Enhance the protection of workers' health and well-being by clarifying that the definition of health includes physical and psychological health; Provide further protections for workers against discrimination and coercion in the workplace; Modernise diving legislation to improve health and safety compliance in diving operations and dive vessels; Expand reporting requirements on safety issues relating to diving; Ensure that, in situations where a separate operator is appointed by a titleholder, that separate operator is able to carry out all required duties under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and its subordinate regulations; Strengthen notification and reporting requirements to improve death and serious injury notifications and simplify monthly reporting requirements; and Introduce a vessel activity notification scheme to ensure that the regulator knows when vessels enter and leave the offshore regime. The reforms proposed in this bill will improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. Several of the measures included in the bill will also drive greater alignment between Australia's offshore petroleum safety regime and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and its regulations. Several measures identified in the safety review will be implemented in regulation following passage of the bill. Some of these measures will be implemented through revisions to existing provisions, such as strengthening reporting obligations around sexual harassment, while others create new provisions. The regulations are supported by existing powers in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. Where this is not the case, the bill inserts new regulation-making powers in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The government will consult on development of these regulations before they are made. Improving jurisdictional interface in Australia's offshore areas To further enhance safety outcomes in Australia's offshore resources industry, the bill introduces amendments to clarify the validity of certificates issued under the Navigation Act 2012 to provide greater regulatory certainty for disconnectable facilities. The proposed amendments will apply certain aspects of Commonwealth maritime legislation to disconnectable facilities that, from time to time, may need to disconnect to navigate away from cyclones or to undertake maintenance. These amendments will ensure that vessel safety certificates remain valid when a disconnectable facility transitions between the maritime and offshore petroleum regime, and this will improve safety outcomes. Enhancing offshore regulatory frameworks It is essential that the environmental management regulatory framework for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities remains fit for purpose. In addition to enhancing safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce, this bill introduces amendments to enable changes to be made to the environment regulations under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006while maintaining the validity of streamlined arrangements endorsed under section 146B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In February 2014 the federal Minister for the Environment endorsed the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority's regulatory processes as a program that meets the requirements of part 10 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Subsequently, the minister also approved a class of actions which, if undertaken in accordance with the endorsed program, will not require separate referral, assessment and approval under the EPBC Act 1999. The endorsed program reflects the offshore environmental regulations under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 that were in place at that time. However, the program cannot be amended to reflect changes to strengthen and improve those regulations over time. The amendments proposed in this bill will enable changes to be made to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023while ensuring that those changes do not impact the application of streamlined approval arrangements already in place under section 146B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Australian government is reviewing the offshore environmental management framework for petroleum and greenhouse gas activities to ensure the regime is fit-for-purpose and is appropriately designed to enable our economy to decarbonise over time. The amendments proposed in this bill will support implementation of the outcomes of this review. Minor and technical amendments The bill proposes additional minor and technical amendments to ensure the ongoing effective operation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The amendments will: Enable the Minister for Resources or the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to specify a reasonable timeframe for a person to comply with a remedial direction; Clarify the spatial extent of a greenhouse gas storage formation to ensure that it covers the entirety of the expected migration pathway of injected carbon dioxide; Ensure that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 specifies when the annual titles administration levy imposed on a cross-boundary greenhouse gas assessment permit is due and payable; and Ensure that a person is subject to occupational health and safety obligations when undertaking activities in relation to a pipeline, where there is a remedial direction in force. The bill, together with regulation changes in response to the safety review, will further strengthen the occupational health and safety outcomes for the offshore resources industry and make improvements to the operation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The bill represents the government's ongoing commitment to improve occupational health and safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 8

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:37 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the bill be read a second time. One of the summer's box office hits is Wonka—the prequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Without giving too much away, it's the tale of how Willy Wonka takes on the chocolate cartel of Slugworth, Fickelgruber and Prodnose. Between them, the cartel controls the chocolate market. Prices are kept high. Innovators are kept out. Big chocolate has the police in its pocket, and is willing to use every bitter trick to preserve its sweet control over the market. For many Australian consumers, Wonka will resonate. In recent years, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken action against anticompetitive behaviour in pharmaceuticals, finance, waste disposal and building construction. When so-called competitors collude, the public pays the price. As Wonka vividly shows, a lack of competition isn't just bad for consumers—like the chocolate-loving public. It's also bad for innovators, such as a new entrepreneur who uses giraffe milk. In the Australian economy, robust competition has been a major driver of economic growth. During the early-1990s, competition reforms helped unleash a surge of dynamism in the economy, leading to a rapid increase in productivity. Wage growth followed, and the income of the typical Australian household rose by around $5,000. Whether it is airlines, telecommunications, supermarkets, franchisees getting an unfair deal, or small businesses' cash flows suffering due to slow payments, we have seen too many examples of consumers and small businesses not getting a fair go. Competition brings out the best from our companies. Innovation is more likely to emerge when firms test themselves against competitors, not when a monopolist dominates the market. Uncompetitive markets aren't just bad for growth; they're bad for fairness, too. When consumers lack choice, prices tend to be higher, and service levels tend to be lower. When big business can push around small firms, suppliers suffer as well. When workers lack choice, wages can be lower. Uncompetitive markets hurt the most vulnerable and worsen inequality. If you don't have a car, it's harder to shop around for the best deal. If getting a fair price from your supplier involves an annual phone call, then the well-heeled are more likely to make the call. It's no accident that payday lenders and door-to-door water cooler salespeople tend to proliferate in low-income communities. Over recent decades, the problem of market concentration in Australia has become worse. Market concentration has risen. In 2001-02, the market share of the largest four firms averaged 41 per cent. By 2018-19, this figure had risen to 43 per cent. Price mark-ups have swelled. Meanwhile, the number of new firms with employees has fallen when measured as a share of the total pool of businesses. These declines in market dynamism have coincided with a lousy period for productivity. In the decade before Labor took office, Australia recorded our worst productivity performance in the postwar era. Real wages flatlined. And, because earnings are the main source of income for most households, real household income growth was painfully sluggish. But history shows us how competition reform can turbocharge competition. In 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating tasked competition expert Fred Hilmer to lead reforms that would collaborate across federal, state and territory governments to boost competition. In themselves, many of the reforms were small. In one case, a state law that banned bakers from starting their ovens before a particular hour in the morning was abolished. But, by focusing attention on competition, the reforms added up. Assessing their impact in 2005, the Productivity Commission concluded that national competition policy had been a major driver of the 1990s surge in productivity. That analysis estimated a permanent increase of 2.5 per cent in Australia's national income from competition reform. Today, that lift equates to around $50 billion a year, or around $5,000 for each and every household. The challenges the Australian economy faces today are different from those of a generation ago. We need to make the most of artificial intelligence and digitisation. It's vital to support the net zero transformation. We need to ensure that workers aren't unfairly prevented from shifting to a better job. And we must look after the most vulnerable. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has been hard at work examining Australia's competition laws and policies. We've increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. It's hard for small businesses to compete if larger companies use sneaky tactics to dominate the market. That's why Labor increased penalties for corporations engaging in anticompetitive behaviour from $10 million to $50 million, ensuring that the price for misconduct is high enough to deter unfair activity. We've strengthened protections against unfair contract terms to help level the playing field in negotiations between big corporations and both small businesses and consumers. These reforms gave regulators the power to seek a court penalty for businesses that include unfair terms in standard form contracts. Small businesses and consumers often lack the resources and bargaining power to negotiate contracts, and previous laws against unfair terms did not provide adequate protections. While big business previously risked only an unfair term being declared void, our stronger protections mean that businesses can now face substantial penalties for using unfair terms and therefore will be motivated to ensure that their contracts are fair. We have appointed former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, to ensure that the supermarket sector is working as it should. With many families feeling the squeeze, it's vital that Australians pay fair prices at the checkout and suppliers get a fair price for their products. Dr Emerson will bring his wisdom and compassion to this vital area of economic reform. The Australian Treasurer has directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate pricing and competition in the supermarket sector to ensure Australians are paying a fair price for their groceries. This inquiry, the first of its kind in over a decade, will investigate the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector. It's an important part of the government's broader efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on the price of essentials for Australians. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will produce an interim report in 2024 and final report in early 2025 which will provide the government with findings and recommendations. We will fund respected consumer group CHOICE to provide price transparency and comparison reports on a quarterly basis for three years. Starting from the second quarter of 2024, CHOICE will provide shoppers with better information on the comparative costs of grocery goods at different retailers, highlighting those charging the most and the least. The provision of this information will empower Australian consumers to make informed choices about food and grocery purchases. We've established a Competition Taskforce located in the Commonwealth Treasury, to foster greater dynamism in the economy. Staffed by a crack team of competition experts and advised by a talented expert advisory panel, the taskforce's role is to produce practical policies that will boost competition and help fuel innovation and wage growth. We need to ensure our competition policy settings are fit for purpose in the face of the big shifts underway in our economy, so we can make the most of digitalisation, the growth in services, the net-zero transformation, all while supporting our nation's most vulnerable. The review will look at competition laws, policies and institutions to ensure they remain fit for purpose, with a focus on reforms that would increase productivity, reduce the cost of living and boost wages. Among the Competition Taskforce's first priorities is to look at Australia's merger laws. When big firms join forces, the resulting entity has better economies of scale, which gives it the potential to benefit consumers. But if it wields significant market power, it can also drive up prices. At a time when many other countries are reviewing their merger codes, it's only sensible to consider whether Australia's laws need an update. The taskforce is also examining 'non-compete clauses' and related terms that restrict workers from shifting to a better-paying job. Many workers have clauses in their employment contracts that make it harder for them to move to a better job. 'Non-compete clauses' used to apply only to well-heeled corporate executives, but in recent years, they're being used to prevent early childhood workers and hairdressers from shifting firms. When employees have fewer choices of where to work, they're less likely to earn a fair return for their labour. We'll have more to say on restraint-of-trade clauses in coming months. More competition means better prices, which is why Labor committed at the last election to establishing a 'designated complaints' function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 delivers on this commitment, with designated complainants being able to raise significant or systemic complaints with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission from July 2024. Consumer and small-business advocates have expressed the need for a consumer complaints framework that allows certain designated entities to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for consideration. In cases of significant or systemic market issues affecting consumers and small businesses, it's often consumer and small-business advocates who play an important role in bringing publicity and attention to governments, policymakers and the community on serious and systemic issues impacting Australians. This bill provides the framework to empower designated consumers and small-business advocates to bring forward evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for a response in a timely and transparent way. A range of entities may apply to the minister to be approved as a designated complainant, including a corporation, an individual, or an unincorporated association. This provides an opportunity for entities that represent the interests of consumers or small businesses in Australia to become designated complainants, regardless of the entity type. Upon receiving a designated complaint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of any action they intend to take. If the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposes to act on a designated complaint, they must commence that action as soon as practicable and within six months. Any response by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be based on their existing powers and functions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and may include education, research, compliance and enforcement functions, or a combination of all of these. The designated complaints function will promote transparency and accountability, with the minister and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission being required to publish certain information on the Department of the Treasury or Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website. During stakeholder consultations a number of consumer and small-business advocates have indicated they support the establishment of a designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 10 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 10 Report 10 09:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen On behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the committee's report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2023. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 10 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 10

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 10 Third Reading 10 09:52 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024 10

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 10 Third Reading 11 09:53 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 11

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Report from Federation Chamber 11 Third Reading 11 09:54 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 11 BUSINESS Rearrangement 11 09:54 Ms HWA Kingston RISHWORTH (—) ():  I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 11 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 11

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

Second Reading 11 10:00 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 5 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 88 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Sukkar, M. S. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:11 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 51 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 87 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 14 10:14 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 February, the bill will be taken as a whole. 10:15 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom At the request of the member for Hume, I move opposition amendment (1): (1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act 2024". This amendment would change the name of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill to 'the Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act'. Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 I note the groans from those opposite. It gives me great pleasure to read an amendment raised by Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, for the original stage 3 tax cuts amendment that went through. He moved that the short title of the bill be amended to read 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More of Their Money but Not for a Really Long Time) Bill'. So this is in keeping with that spirit of renaming amendments around the stage 3 tax cuts. I think it's very important that we maintain that, because, as we saw in the last election, Mr Speaker, integrity matters. It's important that things have the appropriate name, as the Prime Minister was so keen to point out when he was on the opposition bench. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Rishworth HWA How wonderful! Mr HAMILTON 291387 I hear the interjections: 'How embarrassing!' How wonderful to move this, exactly the same as the Prime Minister, and then to hear the question: why would we do this? Well, I guess, if it's good for the goose it is good for the gander. I'm reminded of a quote from the Prime Minister, which is that he promised to change the way politics was done in this country. Of course, we haven't seen that. What we've seen instead is a desire by this Prime Minister to break promises. This has been the best broken promise that we have seen from this Prime Minister so far, amongst a list of other broken promises. We can remember, of course, the promise to have cheaper mortgages. Well, that turned out to be a broken promise. We can remember the promise of a $275 reduction in electricity prices—another broken promise. And we saw my favourite promise, which was that groceries would be cheaper—another broken promise. How appropriate, then, to take the opportunity to provide that integrity to the Australian people— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr HAMILTON 291387 and appropriately name what this bill is: a broken promise to the Australian people. I'm reminded of a different pathway when you do change your mind on tax, and I offer this humbly. When you do change your mind on tax, there's always the option John Howard took when he changed his mind, which was to take the changed position to the Australian people and seek a mandate for that changed position. That's courage. It takes courage to do that. Of course, having done that—having stood by his decision and having taken it to the Australian people—he was rewarded by the Australian people with continued government. What a great comparison we have between the golden era of John Howard and, sadly, the leadership of today. Rather than take that changed position and seek a mandate, this Prime Minister has simply chosen to mislead the Australian people. He has misled the Australian people on over a hundred occasions. 'Yes, of course we'll keep stage 3,' he said, but when push came to shove he broke his promise. That is why it is so important to capture that today. Of course, there could be another name. We could seek another name for the bill. Maybe it would be the 'Dunkley By-Election Emergency Bill'. Maybe that would be appropriate as well, seeing the timing of this and hearing the clear politicisation that we've heard from the government on this bill. How much legitimacy, how much integrity, can there be in making these changes when we hear the Prime Minister repeatedly challenge us to oppose them? If you really were standing by this, if you were seeking a mandate, how could you hold that position? This is clearly cheap politics and deserves to be renamed so that the Australian people can see what it is. There's another great name we could have for this bill. It could be the 'My Word Is My Bond Bill'. I think that would be great, because everyone could get to remind themselves of the great promises made by this Prime Minister and that, when push came to shove, when the pressure came on, when it came time to actually stand by his commitments, he chose to break his promises to the Australian people. I commend this fantastic change to the title. I think it's one of the clearest demonstrations we can make to the Australian people of exactly the character of the government, what their real position is when it comes to integrity, their intentions for how they're going to govern this nation and the continued broken promises we've seen. Maybe there will be more. Maybe I'll have another chance to rename a bill as it comes with the next set of broken promises, but for now I think this is the most substantial promise that the government made, and it deserves full consideration. 10:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This is indeed a great day! It is a great day on so many levels. This is a day on which every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut—all 13.6 million of them. The difference between this side and that side is that we want people to earn more and we want workers, all taxpayers, to keep more of what they earn. They want people to work for longer, for less. I've got a bit of advice for the backbenchers there, including the member for Menzies—and it's not too late for him to have a rethink before he stands next. When a frontbencher gives you an amendment in their name and says, 'You move it on my behalf,' that doesn't show courage. That shows gutlessness. That shows cowardice. That shows them hiding behind their own backbench. It's unbelievable. I've been here since 1996. I've never seen this before. 'I move the amendment circulated in the name of Mr Taylor' is what it says. He's the shadow Treasurer. He's here. I say to the member for Menzies, 'Don't do it.' He's right there. If it's so good, put your name to it, Shadow Treasurer. Give a speech in favour of it. The second reading amendment you moved said this: … the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts … A government member: That's rollback! Mr ALBANESE R36 Rollback is back! I'll give the shadow Treasurer the big tip: if you vote against the legislation, the Morrison tax cuts stay. By voting for this legislation, you are voting against the position that you took to the last election. You're voting against the position that you took to the election before. You're voting against the position that we said in 2019 was a triumph of hope over experience, saying that you knew what the economy would look like in 2024. That was why we expressed our concern at that time. The equivalent would be for this Treasurer to introduce legislation saying what the system would look like in 2029. That's the equivalent of what they are doing. For people who are voting for this legislation, they're pretty hostile to it. It shows their real position. They always will take every opportunity to oppose things for Middle Australia, to oppose things for people who need a hand up. Their idea of aspiration is people who go to a few of those schools, who get the leg up in life, who live a life of privilege. Our idea is to use government to create opportunity, because we understand that every Australian has aspiration, which is why our tax cuts change every single level of tax— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. There has been a lot of noise, but we're just going to dial it down for this and the remaining minutes. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're very loud and angry for people who are voting for this legislation—very angry. Why are they voting for it? Because they know that this package is a good package. This package doesn't leave behind people who earn under $45,000 a year. This is a package that provides extra assistance as well, through our changes to the Medicare levy. It provides for aspirations so that people on average incomes will get double the tax cuts. No wonder we don't hear any questions from them about cost of living. And bear in mind what this amendment is. This amendment is to remove the words 'cost-of-living tax cuts' from this bill, because they don't care about cost of living. They think they're okay. As long as they get double the tax cut, they're okay. Yes, politicians will get less from this legislation, but average workers will get more. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that opposition amendment (1), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor and moved by the member for Groom, be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 51 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 84 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:33 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I move opposition amendment (2), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor: (2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 ", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024". The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Menzies has the call. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 While I am on my feet and the Prime Minister is here, can I congratulate you on your wonderful news last night. Before I moved this amendment, an amendment was moved by the member for Groom in the name of Mr Taylor, and we recently divided on it. And it was moved because, of course, we recognise that Australians are hurting. Of course we recognise that they need more money in their pockets. That is why we are supporting this amendment. Let's take that off the table; that's not what these amendments are about. I heard all the interjections that were made. But how this change is done matters and the timing of it matters. We know that the timing was about politics and the Dunkley by-election. This amendment (2) is about a key feature of our tax system that is hurting everyday Australians: entrenching bracket creep. Bracket creep has been described by the shadow Treasurer as 'the thief in the night'. It is a thief in the night because it is a thief that comes for every hardworking Australian. A lot of things happened with the government over summer. During the government's first summer, the Treasurer decided to reinvent capitalism. This summer the Treasurer thought, 'I'll leave reinventing capitalism and I will turn my mind to changing the narrative that our party'—your party—'doesn't represent working Australians anymore.' There was a real question about that last year. The question put before the Treasurer was: how can we re-engage with the 80 per cent of our electorates who didn't agree with us on the Voice? You're out of touch with your own electorates. That is what is driving this change. When we speak about aspiration, it's more than just a word or a talking point; it is something that resides in our hearts and minds. All of us in this place go to citizenship ceremonies and welcome new Australians to this country. The thing that drives them here is aspiration for a better life for them, their children and their families. At the moment, housing affordability has made this a key topic of conversation around dinner tables. In Melbourne, where I'm from, there are 354 suburbs. A household on a median income can afford a house in zero suburbs—zero. In 200 of those 354 suburbs, to afford the median house you need a household income of $200,000. So the original reform that was put forward, removing the 37 per cent tax bracket, wasn't just about giving more money to people in those brackets; it was about telling young Australians who aspire to be in those brackets, 'We want you to take that second job, do that extra shift or otherwise work harder so that you will have a better future for yourself and your family and you too can own a little bit of Australia, particularly in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.' When we put extra brackets back into the system—and that's what the 37 per cent is—we're putting a brake on aspiration and we're telling young Australians, 'You may not be in that bracket now, but that thief in the night will come for you and your family, and the idea of homeownership is that little bit further away.' Dr Chalmers 37998 You're voting for it. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 The Treasurer has interjected saying that we're voting for it. Of course we are. But you're not in the opposition anymore; you are in the government. Where is your actual proposal for tax reform? The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 New governments get a chance. You get some capital to change this nation in a way that governments can't later on. You spent that capital on the Voice. You should have spent it on actually reducing the cost of living and tax reform. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. There's far too much noise. 10:38 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Today the working people of this country are one step closer to a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living. This bill is all about backing in the hard work of the truckies, the nurses, the teachers, the police officers, the steelworkers, the plumbers, the sprinkler fitters and the early educators. Thirteen point six million Australian workers will get a tax cut because of this legislation. Unlike those opposite, we will be voting for these changes enthusiastically because we believe that, when people work hard to provide for their loved ones, they should be able to get ahead. We believe that people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We reject the approach taken by those opposite, who say that the only way to prosper as a country is for the Australian working people to work longer and for less pay, and that's what this bill, at its very core, is all about. The Australian people are closer to getting a tax cut because of this legislation before the House today. Now, if those opposite are supporting these tax cuts, they have a funny way of showing it. We heard once again from the member a moment ago and his mate before him. They're going out of their way to bag these tax cuts and they want the Australian people to believe that they support them. Of course they don't, because they are abandoning Middle Australia in opposition just like they abandoned them in government for the best part of a decade. I want the whole House to know that the effect of the amendment moved by those opposite is to take the words, 'cost of living' out of title of the bill. I mean, oops. Did they really think that through, to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill? They don't just want to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill; they dare not mention 'cost of living' all week, not in question time, not in the name of this bill, not in the questions they ask or the speeches they give, and that's because they couldn't give a stuff about the cost-of-living pressures that Australian people are facing. We know that because the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, when asked about rolling back the tax changes, said, 'That is absolutely our position.' So if they're supporting these tax cuts, they have got a funny way of showing it. After all of the hyperventilating and all of the red-faced incoherence that we've heard from those opposite, they want the Australian people to believe that they support our tax changes. Of course they don't. They might be voting for it, they might have been dragged to this kicking and screaming, they might vote for it reluctantly in a few minutes, but we know what they really think about the working people of this country. So I say to the member for Menzies, the member for Groom: ordinarily, when you're asked to speak to an amendment moved by a frontbencher, usually it's because the frontbencher is not available. Now, the frontbencher is right there. He might not be up to it, he might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he's available. He's right there in the front row. So when the shadow Treasurer gives you an amendment to move and says, 'I'm available to speak to it but I don't want to,' that should ring the alarm bells for the member for Menzies and the member for Groom. Have a yak with the member for Forde; he's been around a little bit longer and he'll give you the heads up. We on this side support these tax changes enthusiastically. We're very proud that every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut because of the changes that we are putting through the House today, and 11½ million Australians will get a bigger tax cut to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that we understand, even if those opposite don't. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that opposition amendment (2), moved but the member for Menzies, be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 51 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 83 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 10:49 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024". We've heard both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wax lyrical about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and certainly in the Treasurer's contribution just now he waxed lyrical about the cost of living. Well, my amendment goes to changing the wording of the title to 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living)', because what we're actually seeing in this legislation is nothing that's dealing with the cost of living. When we look at the cost of living over the past 18 months—with the price of food up by over nine per cent, housing by over 12 per cent, electricity up, insurance up, gas up—all those things do not include the 12 interest rate increases and the costs of people's mortgages. We are seeing nothing in this bill with the cost of living; $15 a week is not going to scratch the surface when people are at a minimum of $150 a week worse off. And if you take into account their mortgage cost, they're closer to $600 a week worse off. Looking at some of those people in my electorate that the Treasurer and other members opposite have referenced in their contributions during the substantive debate, these ordinary hardworking Australians: a truck driver in the electorate of Forde on an average wage will get a tax cut of $804, but his cost of living has gone up by a minimum of $8,000 a year, plus the interest on his mortgage of $20,000-odd a year. So he's at least $600 a week worse off—for a $15-a-week benefit that those opposite are crowing about. Let's have a look at an electrician in the electorate of Forde. They're $8,000 a year worse off in real terms— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I can't hear the member for Forde, because the member for Hume and the Treasurer are engaging in dialogue. So we just might cease that so I can hear from the member for Forde. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Thank you, Mr Speaker. And it's instructive for those opposite to listen to this, because all the people they've said will be better off are actually worse off in real terms. For the benefit of $15 a week, people in my electorate—hardworking Australians, such as an electrician in Forde—will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off, before including the additional costs on their mortgage. A receptionist in my electorate working in one of the professional services firms will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off. Also, those opposite failed to take into account in their earlier contributions the removal of the low to middle income tax offset. Nowhere in this debate have those on the government side really spoken about the cost of living. They have spoken about the tax cuts. But every example they've used in their answers to questions and in the debate do not reflect the totality of the situation for ordinary people on the ground. Ordinary people on the ground in my electorate of Forde, as a whole, because this government has failed to deal with the cost-of-living issues that I pointed out earlier, are not better off as a result of this bill. They are still worse off under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up so substantially. We hear those opposite say regularly, at the end of every answer—and it's even been mentioned a couple of times today—that they want to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Well, can I say to those opposite, that is exactly what is not occurring under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up to such an extent that Australians are worse off now than they were when this government came to power 18 months ago. We see no evidence whatsoever of this government doing anything to deal with the real cost-of-living issues that everyday Australians are facing, and I urge support for this amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Forde be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 51 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 83 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 21 11:01 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 21

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

Second Reading 21 Third Reading 21 11:02 The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with the resolution, I put the question that the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 21

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 21 11:03 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin With this bill, the Help to Buy Bill 2023, we have a good opportunity to do a bit of a stocktake of where housing policy sits in Australia at present and to give an explanation as to why the coalition, consistent with our position before the election, will be opposing this bill. Here we've got a promise that was taken to the 2022 election by the Labor Party. It was promised that this shared equity scheme would commence on 1 January 2023. We're now into February 2024, and this bill is just arriving in the House. The first point to make here is: what on earth has the housing minister been doing? What on earth has this government been doing in being so slow and in breaching an election commitment? That's another broken promise from this government, who said they'd have this scheme up and running by 1 January 2023. In order to have a scheme like this in operation by 1 January 2023, they really needed to have introduced this bill into the parliament in late 2022. It was nearly 18 months before this thing even ended up in the House. Australians around the country are within their right to say to a minister like the housing minister, 'You get paid very handsomely to do some work, and you're given responsibilities to actually deliver on your commitments.' The fact that this is just arriving in the House more than a year after it should have commenced is an absolute indictment on this minister and is yet another reason why the Prime Minister needs to move this housing minister on. In this country right now, we have housing approvals and builds at record lows, and homebuyers are at their lowest levels since the Gillard government. We've got rents skyrocketing, vacancy rates at record lows and record migration. At a time when fewer homes are being built and being approved and it's tougher to find a rental, you're dealing with rental increases, and you've got record migration. There were more than 520,000 migrants last year alone. That's an absolute world record in migration. We have absolutely nothing from the government on housing. What do we get? Eighteen months late, we get this pitiful offering here. In addition to a bill that I spoke about earlier this week in relation to vacancy fees, this is the sort of stuff you do when you want to be seen to be doing something, but you're doing nothing at all. Let's be clear. This so-called Help to Buy scheme is a vanilla shared-equity product, where the government owns, in this case, up to 40 per cent of a home. There are shared-equity products offered by state governments throughout this country. If somebody in South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia wants to co-own a home with a government, there are already plenty of opportunities for them to do so. The South Australian scheme is a useful example of the point I'm about to make. There are more places than people wanting to take them. There are available places because people don't want these. People don't want to co-own a home with a government, so what did the geniuses on the other side do? They thought, 'Let's bring in our own shared-equity scheme, even though there's one operating in most states in this country and even though there are available places under the existing ones throughout this country.' It's clearly something you do when you want to be seen to be addressing the absolute housing crisis in the country, but you've got no idea on what to actually do. You'd think that, if you were 18 months late in bringing forward legislation like this—if your homework was 18 months late—you'd be looking at something that was in perfect condition and perfect order, with dotted Is, crossed Ts, every single question answered and every single eventuality considered. But what have we got here? This is the most half-hearted offering in a bill that I have seen in a very long time, and I'll explain why. Again, you'd think that every single question would be answered. You'd think, whether you were the opposition or the Greens political party asking question of the government, that, if they were 18 months late, that means they were really working on all the detail. Here we've got a shell of a bill and we've got a range of things that are not answered. And I'm not talking about minor details around the edges, I'm talking about the following things, and I'm talking, in some respects, to the Australians in the gallery right now. These are not technical questions, but these are the questions that this bill does not answer, believe it or not, after being 18 months late. What are the scheme's eligibility criteria? Who is eligible to apply? Now, you'd think the bill would want to make that pretty clear. You'd think the bill would want to tell Australians, 'This is who is eligible to apply for this scheme.' Now, I assume that you've got to be a first home buyer. That's an assumption I'd make; it's an assumption I have to make. What happens if you make improvements to your home? Let's just go back to what a shared equity product is. The government owns a portion of your home. The Prime Minister's sitting at your kitchen table because he owns 40 per cent of your home. What happens if you've got a $5,000 repair to the roof? The roof's leaking. We've all been there. A big storm comes through and you think, 'Oh, damn, I've got a leak in the roof.' Who picks up the tab for that? Well, there's no answers in this bill. If the government owns 40 per cent of your home, shouldn't they pick up 40 per cent of the bill? If you've got to go to Bunnings and spend $300 on paint and wood because you've got to repair something, do you send an invoice to the government and say, 'You own 40 per cent of my house therefore you've got to pick up 40 per cent of the Bunnings bill I've just paid.' We don't have any answers to those questions. We were told, during the election, there would be income caps for eligibility. We were told that it would mirror some of the income caps in other legislative schemes. So we assume that this scheme will apply to people who earn up to $90,000 a year, for example, or for couples who earn up to $120,000 a year. A question that we have repeatedly put to the government is what happens if you've got two people—they earn $120,000 a year; $60,000 each—who enter into one of these shared equity products with the government and one or both of them get a pay rise? You come home, you're very happy: 'I've just been given a pay rise. I've gone from $60,000 to $65,000.' All of a sudden, they're over the $120,000 cap of the eligibility criteria. We keep asking the government will they then cease to be eligible for this scheme and will you pull the rug out from under them? Will you sell the home from under them, the 40 per cent that you own as a government? You'd expect the government would say: 'Absolutely not. We've worked on the criteria. We're not going to do that to people.' Instead, the government says, 'We're going to look at that on a case-by-case basis.' So this should not be called the Help to Buy Scheme, it should be called the 'forced to sell scheme'. That's what it's going to be. This is going to end up in a position whereby if you get a pay rise—you're on a modest income but you get a pay rise and you're feeling happy about that, as you should—then the government can say, 'We want our 40 per cent, thank you very much.' Now you can understand why these schemes in each of the states has available places: people do not want to have the rug pulled from underneath them by a government, particularly one that says: 'Trust us. We'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis.' I think Australians entering into something like this would say: 'No, we'd like that in black and white, thank you very much. We'd like an assurance that you're not going to sell it from underneath us, and an assurance that if I have to spend money on our home that we jointly own with you as the government, that you're going to pick up the tab.' Let's assume that everything goes really well. You end up buying a home with the government. You own 60 per cent; the government owns 40 per cent. You have wonderful news in your life: you're expecting a child, or you may be expecting your second or your third. You need to upgrade. You need to move home. The government, when you sell, will say: 'Thank you very much, we'll want our money back. We'll take our money back, thank you very much.' Good luck upgrading, because you've just had that 40 per cent ripped out of the proceeds of that home. There's no way you're upgrading to the next home if you enter into one of these agreements with the government. So you could be forced to sell, you could have the money taken off you and your opportunity to move into a next home will be next to nothing. You can understand why these things are not wanted by Australians at the moment. There are available places in shared equity schemes around our country, so what did the geniuses opposite us think? 'Let's set up our own one of these at a cost to taxpayers of $5.5 billion.' The additional borrowing of the Commonwealth to fund this program is $5.5 billion. We say there are infinitely better ways of spending $5.5 billion than making people enter into these very dubious arrangements, that are very small and that many Australians don't want. Further questions that aren't answered in this bill—a bill that's 18 months late, homework that's 18 months late—include will the ATO be auditing people's incomes? If you've got income thresholds, will the ATO be auditing you each year to determine whether they're going to pull the rug from underneath you and sell the house? 'Sorry, you earned a dollar more than the threshold, so call the real estate agent. You've got to sell.' We don't have answers for that. What are the reporting obligations? What happens if you fall behind in your mortgage payments? We've seen, increasingly, families and people dealing with the crippling interest rate rises delivered to us by this Labor government. An average Australian family with a mortgage is paying $24,000 more, thanks to this Labor government. That's $24,000 after tax. You've got to earn a lot of money in order to be making those payments. Many people and families are struggling under those increased mortgage payments, so what happens if you fall behind in your payments? Is that when the government comes along and rips the rug from underneath you and says: 'Thank you very much. We've really enjoyed this. Now it's time for you to sell, and we'll take our 40 per cent back, thank you very much.' You'd think that the answers to that would be in this bill. You'd think the Minister for Housing would have done some work for 18 months and given people some answers. We don't have those answers in the bill. What are the property price caps? Not only are there income caps but there are property price caps. What are they? How can the government not outline in this bill what the property price caps are? Let's just say you're one of those people—and there aren't many around this country—who wants to own a home with the government. What if you are and you're watching today and you think: 'I want to get a sense of whether I'm eligible. I don't know what the income caps are, so I'm a bit in limbo there. I don't even know what the property price caps are in this bill.' What on earth are we voting on? What's the point of having this shell of a bill in front of us? The housing minister is sitting in a foetal position in her office with absolutely no idea of what to do with the housing crisis that is befalling this country. No answers, no idea. They want us to come in here and support the bill and to support this scheme—a blank cheque for $5½ billion—so the government can force people to sell homes. What lenders are participating in the scheme? We've got no idea. Who are the lenders? Who do I go and borrow from? Are there going to be restrictions on who I can borrow from, in conjunction with owning a home with a government. None of these questions are answered. If I was a prospective buyer, I would draw a couple of conclusions. These questions are not answered in the bill because (a) the government doesn't know what the answers are, which is very possible, or (b) they don't want you to know what the answers are because if you knew what the answers were you would never do this. 'We're not going to sell from underneath you,' the government says, 'but we'll look at it on a case-by-case basis. Trust us. If you get a pay rise next week and you're no longer eligible under the income caps, we promise you we're not going to sell your home from underneath you.' This is not help to buy; this is going to be forced to sell. That's the truth. This will be a forced-to-sell scheme. The bigger concern here is this: this is the government waving the white flag on home ownership in this country. In 20 months of a Labor government, we have seen nothing on first home buyers. This is the first salvo. The only thing the government can do is talk about the highly successful coalition government programs that are still helping first home buyers such as the Home Guarantee Scheme, which enables people to buy a home with a five per cent deposit or single parents with a two per cent deposit, which I put in place as minister, which we took to the 2019 election. To put it into some context—I don't want to just do a victory lap but I will—I delivered that Home Guarantee Scheme on 1 January 2020, just a little more than six months after the 2019 election. So I know what it takes to take an election commitment and to have a functioning scheme six months later. On 1 January 2020, our Home Guarantee Scheme started. It started off with Kristina Keneally from the Labor Party criticising the program when we first announced it to now it supporting one in three first home buyers. One in three first home buyers now utilise the coalition's Home Guarantee Scheme. Now, credit to the government, they have welcomed that life raft that we have given them because it's the only thing helping first home buyers now. So they didn't come in and repeal the scheme, which many people wondered if they would. But even they saw how wonderful that coalition policy was and how it's making a tang able difference in people's lives. The first Home Super Saver Scheme enables people to increase their savings rate through super. The member for McMahon, when I first introduced it as Assistant Minister to the Treasurer in 2017, bucketed the first Home Super Saver Scheme and said, 'We'll repeal it in government.' Well, again, credit to the government, they haven't repealed it. They saw the light. They saw that another landmark coalition policy was tangibly helping people get into their first home. They should also see the light on the policy we took to the last election to enable first home buyers access to their own superannuation to help them fund a deposit for their first home. Our policy which we took to the election said that if you're a first home buyer you can withdraw up to $50,000 of your own super, use that to contribute a deposit to own a home and then, when you sell the first home, which on average is seven years later in Australia—most people hold their first home in Australia on average for seven years—you're required to recontribute back into your super. So your money's worked for you for the time you needed it when you needed that deposit and then, when you sell the home and move into your next one, you recontribute it to the super, so you're retirement income is protected. You have your money working for you. The Labor Party could never support that because the industry super funds tell the Labor Party what to do. I say to the members opposite: why be here if you can't exercise any of your own judgement, if you just have to do what the unions tell you? You're just a vessel for the unions. You might agree with them on a lot of things but surely there are times when they tell you to do something you don't agree with and, like a lemming, you walk off the cliff and go with them. That's clearly a policy where they've done that. How anyone could argue against first home buyers utilising their own super to help buy their own home and then requiring them to recontribute it at the end is a bad thing for first home buyers is beyond me. But this is all broader context in which this bill falls, because we have legacy coalition policies that are helping first home buyers, but in 20 months we have seen nothing from this government. My message to the housing minister and to the government is: as good as the policies are that you've inherited, when you're a minister you have to deal with the issues of the day. You have to deal with the problems that come across your desk. I say with some jest but cloaked in seriousness that the minister is sitting in her office in the foetal position with absolutely no idea on what to do while the entire housing market is crumbling around her. Approvals are down. New home builds are down. First home buyers are at their lowest levels since the Gillard government. Rents are skyrocketing. As for vacancy rates, trying to find a rental is extraordinarily tough. Our ability to build homes is being weakened by the day because we have insolvency after insolvency in the sector. And what do we get from the government? We get this pitiful shell of a bill with no answers to the questions in front of us. It's not good enough. As I began with, the minister is handsomely remunerated to do things, to actually do some work. I know schoolteachers around the place who, if homework were handed in 18 months late and looking like this, would be disgusted. What are the eligibility criteria? How much can the home I'm allowed to buy be worth? How do we deal with improvements to the property? Come on, government, you own 40 per cent of it; are you going to pick up the tab for some of it? I think we know, because of the silence in the bill, that the answer is: 'We'll own 40 per cent of it, but all the risk is yours. We'll own 40 per cent of it, and, if you get a pay rise or promotion at work, we could come in the next day, on a case-by-case basis, and force you to sell.' Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Empty scare campaigns. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I'll take the interjection. Apparently it's a 'scare campaign'. Having basic information in the bill is not a scare campaign. Am I eligible to apply for this scheme? How on earth can that be a scare campaign? How much am I allowed to earn in order to apply for this scheme? How much can the home I'm allowed to buy be worth? Who's going to pay for the improvements? When are you going to force me to sell? At what point will you send me a letter in the mail saying, 'We are selling our 40 per cent whether you like it or not'? The truth is that there aren't particularly adequate answers to any of those questions. That's why—to go back to where I commenced—there are shared equity schemes around this country that have available places. If you are someone who wants to own a home with a government—and I suspect most people are pretty agnostic as to whether it's a state government or the federal government that they own it with—you have access to a shared equity scheme right now. What did the geniuses do? They thought, 'We'll make some more places in a shared equity product that people already don't want, because there are available places all around the country.' I'll finish with this, because it highlights the chaotic, dysfunctional nature of the housing agenda of this government. They went to the election saying: 'We're going to bring in a shared equity product. We're going to call it Help to Buy'. It's now going to be known as 'Forced to Sell'. That's what people out there will know this scheme as. But what they didn't tell the Australian people was: 'We've got no constitutional power to implement a shared equity scheme.' This thing, even if it passes this parliament, is not effective until the state parliaments pass legislation themselves. They didn't go to the election saying, 'We're going to implement a scheme that requires state approval'; they said, 'We're going to do this scheme.' Again, I imagine that the minister and the government had absolutely no idea about the constitutional limitations on this. I don't think, quite frankly, any state government is going to deny this scheme, because the state governments will be looking at it and thinking, 'If the feds are going to stump up $5½ billion for their own shared equity scheme, that's a little less that we've got to spend for ours.' They'll say, 'So, by all means, you guys do it.' I suspect that's right, but what an embarrassment that nowhere in the detail, or the fine print, of their election commitment did we hear 'terms and conditions subject to approval from state parliaments'. As a former housing minister, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would be embarrassed if you were in that position. You would feel shy about walking into this chamber with an election commitment that you'd promised—18 months late—and saying to the parliament, 'By the way, even if this thing passes, even if we all sing "Kumbaya" and pass this bill, it won't be effective until other parliaments around this country approve it. We, the Commonwealth parliament, are waiting on and relying on the approval of state parliaments before this federal government election policy can be implemented.' To some extent, it's getting into the legal weeds of it, but it just highlights the inability of this minister to manage a really difficult portfolio. I again encourage the Prime Minister to move her on and put somebody in there that has some ideas—just some ideas. You can't just sit in your office, twiddling your thumbs thinking this is all a bit too hard, and bring in a bill 18 months late with no answers and no clarity or certainty for Australians. You can't do that in good conscience. For all of those reasons I reiterate that, as we said before the election, we do not support this bill. We do not support this half-hearted attempt at being seen to have any concern for Australia's housing market. It shouldn't be called the Help to Buy Bill; it should be called the 'Forced to Sell Bill'—that's what this will end up being. We in good conscious will not support it. We also invite the minister to come into the chamber and give us some clarity on the series of questions that I've asked. Before you ask anyone to vote on it, provide some clarity. What are the eligibility criteria? I know that's crazy! I know I'm asking a lot! Who's eligible to apply for this thing? What happens if you make improvements to your home? What happens if you co-own the home with the government and you go out and make a whole lot of improvements? Do you send the government an invoice for their share or not? What are the income thresholds? That is the first question. Once you tell us the answer to that, tell us: What happens if I get a pay rise and start earning more? Do you pull the rug out from underneath me at that time? It won't be good enough to say, 'We'll deal with it on a case-by-case basis.' In black and white: What happens? What's the contract? What's the certainty that I have? Will the ATO be auditing these individuals on a yearly basis to make sure they continue to be eligible? What are your reporting obligations? What if I fall behind on my mortgage? What if I want to refinance my mortgage? If I am with a bank that jacks up my rates, can I remortgage? Am I allowed to remortgage if I've entered into one of these with you? What are the property price caps? How much is the house that I'm entitled to buy? What are the available places in each state and territory? Is it first in, best dressed or are there some other criteria? This is stuff that should be in the bill, particularly for a bill that's not been rushed to this House—a bill that has come in at a very leisurely pace, 18 months late. I reiterate that we won't be supporting this half-hearted attempt, and we will listen very carefully and wait intently for the minister to come into this House and make clear to the parliament the answers to each and every one of those questions. No person in this House, including those opposite, can in good conscience vote for a bill without answers to each and every one of those questions. So we invite the minister and will provide the opportunity for her to do that, assuming she knows the answers—and I doubt that quite a lot. We won't be supporting this forced to sell scheme. 11:34 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I think that, if we were to do a word search on the previous speech, probably the most common phrase would be 'I reiterate'. It really was a brief scare campaign on autoloop and didn't go to the heart of this issue and the complexity of the homeownership challenge that this nation faces. I want to spend a couple of minutes touching on homeownership, because that is of course one of the great macroeconomic challenges that this nation faces and that has been evolving over decades. It's not just a macroeconomic changes, though; it's a social challenge. It affects the electorates of every member of this place, including my own, including the previous speaker's and including the electorate of every other speaker who will contribute to the discussion on this bill. But in addition to being a great macroeconomic and all-of-society challenge it is also the most personal of issues, because our home is the place where we live with our partner, where we live our own life, where we raise a family. It's a place where we want, under that roof, to have great security and certainty. So homeownership is, at the same time, an incredibly personal issue for so many people in all our electorates. And it's at the same time an incredibly multidimensional macroeconomic and social challenge. I'll just touch on a couple of dimensions of the macroeconomic side of it. One is that homeownership has been trending down over the past couple of decades. One can look at homeownership tracking down from 70 per cent to 67 per cent, roughly, between the 2006 census and the 2021 census. What's even more startling than that aggregate decline is what we see when we look at generational cohorts. ABS data that was released in 2022 shows that 55 per cent of millennials—25- to 39-year-olds—had achieved homeownership, 62 per cent of gen-Xers and 66 per cent of baby boomers, at the same age. So, that wasn't at a given point in time; it was the same age. We're seeing in the ABS data that homeownership rates are falling markedly across generations over time. That is one of the things I wanted to point out, because that is something this bill directly addresses. The second point I want to make is that in addition to that falling rate of homeownership across generations we have some structural changes that are occurring over decades—30 or 40 years or more—in our housing market. One of those is the rising ratio of house prices to disposable income. Over the past 30 years or so we've seen that ratio rise from around 2.5 to 5.5. Of course, there all sorts of reasons for that. Changes in our financial markets have meant increasing access to granular information and increasing willingness on the part of financial institutions to lend at higher ratios. And lower structural global interest rates over decades have meant that banks are willing to lend at higher household-to-income ratios. But of course that means households are having to come up with much higher deposits as a rate of their income. So, that's a second dimension of the longer-term change in this housing market that I think is important to note. Thirdly, I think it is important to note that Australia has some of the highest absolute values of housing prices as well as the highest ratios of house price to disposable income in the world. Those are a few characteristics of the long-term nature of this challenge that I think are important to put out there right from the start, because they go to the specific nature of this program and how it fits in with the government's overall approach to housing affordability. Another thing I want to talk about is that this is, from an economic perspective, a challenge with both a supply side and a demand side. On the supply side there are a number of aspects to the housing affordability issue. One is issues relating to land release. Another relates to materials availability, which of course became an issue after COVID when supply chains had issues. Another relates to skills, and the government is dealing with that obviously through a whole range of measures, including fee-free TAFE. And another relates to funding and finance mechanisms, which tend to be very specific to particular areas of the housing market—for example, rent to buy or build to rent to buy. Those kinds of schemes have particular funding and financing needs, and those are things the government is looking at. There's also a whole series of demand-side issues. One of those is that demand tends to be very uneven geographically. For example, demand might surge in particular areas where there are changes in employment opportunities or demand might decline in some areas where there's a decline in employment opportunities. Demand might surge in particular areas where migration demand increases. Sydney and Melbourne, for example, go through periods where that has an impact on their housing markets. There might just be lifestyle changes—for example, a sea change or a tree change. All of these things feed in on the demand side, but they're uneven, and that's something which the housing industry, but also policy settings, need to reflect. Then there's security of work, and this is something this place has dealt with through a tranche of bills. This is a serious issue because insecure work is not just an issue for how people feel at their work and all of the consequences that can flow from not knowing whether you have secure hours from week to week or that your tenure at work is secure. The more people that have insecure work, the fewer people are going to be able to negotiate mortgages—long-term borrowing arrangements. That's something this House has dealt with through a range of IR bills, every single one of which those opposite have opposed. Finally, on the demand side, is the deposit. The deposit becomes a huge barrier for some cohorts in particular, but it becomes a particular challenge for younger cohorts because they need time to save. The challenge with the deposit is that, if you're in a race to save the deposit against house prices that are increasing, it becomes a particular challenge. In some housing markets it can take up to a decade or more for the median household to save a deposit. This has become a particular issue. That dovetails with the issue that I talked about before of the ABS data showing that, from generation to generation, homeownership is declining for people of the same age. This is a serious, complicated and multidimensional issue. Some aspects of this that are particularly noteworthy are that it's impacting younger cohorts and that on the demand side the deposit has become a particular barrier in some housing markets. Those factors warrant a particular response. If you look at the government's overarching approach to housing affordability, we've put in place many programs which reflect that this is a multidimensional issue. The National Housing Accord sits over many of them. The National Housing Accord brings together the Commonwealth government, state and territory government and local government but also the building industry and the superannuation industry. It's a sensible and appropriate and much-needed way of bringing together all the strands of this policy and making sure that we are moving forward on all of those supply-side and demand-side challenges simultaneously. There's also a series of very important programs: the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the $3 billion new homes bonus, the $2 billion social housing accelerator—and I could go on. There are all these different important programs which are dealing with different segments of the market. Rental assistance has also been a very significant priority. This is an important part of the housing market because there are many people renting and they have needed additional assistance throughout the broader cost-of-living challenge that the community has faced. What we see with this bill is that we are putting another important component in place of our overarching response to the housing affordability challenge. As I said earlier, this is an important piece because it deals with that cohort of people who are finding it a struggle to pull together the deposit, and that is a material issue for many households. So this is an important additional component to what's already a very comprehensive set of packages that this government has put in place—many of which have come through this place and, as I alluded to, many of which have been opposed by those opposite. This is an important scheme that will support up to 40,000 Australian households to purchase a home of their own. The Commonwealth will provide an equity contribution to eligible participants for up to 40 per cent of the purchase price for new homes and up to 30 per cent for existing homes. Skewing it towards 40 per cent for new homes, again, provides an incentive for additional supply. Four times 10,000 new participants is a material contribution for a particular cohort that's in need. Those participating in this scheme will need as little as a two per cent deposit. This goes to the point that I was talking about before. This is a multidimensional challenge with supply and demand, but one of the key intergenerational challenges that we're facing is that there are many young households who have the capacity to service loans but are struggling in the race against increasing house prices to save the deposit. So as little as a two per cent deposit will enable households to participate. The package has very sensible income limits. This is being targeted to those that need it the most. The limits are $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples. And there are price caps for each city and region, which, again, are tailored so that those people who need it most will get assistance, and they'll get assistance at the right level. Public policy experts are lauding this scheme. The Grattan Institute has been very supportive of this shared equity scheme and said that it will level the playing field for homebuyers, particularly by giving those who are struggling to save a deposit that extra leg-up that they need. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has said that a shared equity scheme can transform people's lives. Public policy expert after public policy expert will say that this is an important component of the overarching response. This is not the only thing that we should be doing, and this government has been bringing to this place measure after measure throughout the last 18 months, but this is an important component that will help a cohort that is struggling. Looking at my own electorate and looking at this in a very tangible and concrete way, my electorate is younger than the average, with a median age of 36, compared to the median age across Australia of 38. I talk to young people constantly. Many parts of my electorate are low socioeconomic or low or medium income, and they would be precisely the kinds of households that this bill is addressed at—households that are struggling to save a deposit. And, as I alluded to earlier, my electorate has a lower-than-average median family income. It's just under $1,900, compared to over $2,100 for Victoria and Australia. So it has precisely the cohorts that this measure is aimed at. Then again, if you look at median house prices across a number of the suburbs in Fraser, right around my electorate office, in St Albans it is $640,000, in Sunshine West it is $683,000, in Sunshine it is $802,000, and in Braybrook it is $730,000. So, for the median house in all of these suburbs around my electorate office where young families are looking to buy, they'll get a huge assistance in pulling together that deposit through this scheme. The opposition has made some frankly highly irresponsible claims in that most recent contribution. The kinds of things that were alluded to will simply not be a part of this scheme. Of course there's some flexibility in the scheme for the ways in which people might pay off their loan over the course of their life. That's entirely appropriate. But people will be secure in their homes, and, importantly, people will be given the assistance to buy a home in situations where it would have been a real struggle if they were left to just having to save. We all know the difficulty. We all know people in our lives, young people in particular, who are struggling to pull together that deposit—people who could service a loan but can't get on the first rung of the homeownership ladder. This is an important component of the government's overarching response. It will help 40,000 households—40,000 families—and I very strongly commend it to the House. 11:49 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I rise today to speak to the Help to Buy Bill 2023. It's called 'help to buy', but this bill won't help many. It'll help only about 0.2 per cent of renters while leaving behind the other 99.8 per cent. This just does not address the enormity of the housing crisis. Labor and the LNP have made it easier to buy your second home or your fifth home than your first. Investors do well. Everyday people get done over. Basically, how it works is this: Labor and the LNP have given huge tax breaks, incentives and concessions to investment property buyers, ensuring more people want to buy houses, massively driving up the price of housing for everyone and driving homeownership and affordable rentals further and further out of reach for all but the wealthy. Everyday people trying to buy 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. What are these tax cuts that Labor and the LNP are handing out like candy to investors? The first is negative gearing. That means an investor can claim all of the expenses associated with an investment property—and that includes interest payments, maintenance, insurance, body corporate fees and council rates—as tax deductions from their income. Particularly for those in the top tax bracket, paying 45 per cent tax on income over $180,000, this is a huge saving. Of course, first-home buyers have to cop all of those expenses themselves. They don't get to claim them off their tax. This dramatically affects how much they can actually afford to borrow. But the rort doesn't stop there. There's a thing called capital gains tax, CGT. 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 that you pay less tax on asset inflation than you do on wages. That's absurd. First-home buyers, of course, 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. It directly incentivises overheating the property market, so, instead of a particular property becoming someone's family 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 actually need a place to live. It seems like a no brainer to me. Even the Productivity Commission thinks the Help to Buy Scheme is a bad idea, and this makes sense when you think about it. Of course, if you make it easy for some through, essentially, a lottery, it makes it harder for everyone else. If you're standing at an auction and the person next to you has access to this scheme and you don't, there is simply no way you're going to be able to outbid them—unless you're a property investor and have access to a whole range of tax concessions, of course, as I've already mentioned. Here's a radical idea: what if we took the money we put into tax concessions for property investors and actually built some public housing? Actually, clearly, that's not radical. It's just common sense. Building public housing is something that even Australian governments used to do on a mass scale. Even under conservatives like Menzies, the federal government was building tens of thousands of dwellings a year. That's been whittled away over decades. Now the government barely builds any new public housing at all, and in many states numbers are going backwards as older housing units are privatised or demolished. Of course, there's a reason for all of this. The money is there. Just with savings from scrapping tax concessions for property investors, we could build half a million homes over the next decade, for instance. But Labor and LNP governments just don't want to build public housing. They prefer to leave that job to the private market. Could this be because they are completely beholden to their donors the big banks and the property developers, who, of course, support endless exponential growth in house prices? It keeps earning them enormous profits. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 I'll take that interjection. The Greens are actually supporting legislation that might be against their own personal interests and in the interests of real Australian people. The big banks and property developers support endless exponential growth in house prices. It keeps earning them enormous profits. Building public housing to actually house the Australians who desperately need it would eat into bank profits. Apparently, we can't have that, can we! Let's talk about those big banks and property developers. All of Australia's big banks donate to both political parties—over $5 million to Labor and $6 million to LNP in the last decade. Labor and the LNP seem to be on a unity ticket to protect the interests of bankers—which, as I said, actually ensures house prices keep going up and up—by refusing to tax their enormous profits. They even protect some bankers who rip off customers from the appropriate legal consequences, like fines and prison times. Particularly for Labor, there are some familiar faces. I would use the word 'culprits'. Former Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh is the head of the banking lobby. I'm not sure if there's a more stark illustration of the way power actually works in this country. What do the banks get for their donations and connections? Absolutely mind-blowingly enormous profits earnt off the backs of ordinary Australians. We've just heard this morning Matt Comyn, Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, boasting about their half-yearly profit of $5 billion. That's a half year, not even a full year. Nobody disputes that these massive profits are, in large part, due to rising interest rates. Mortgage holders and renters are struggling with their bills, struggling to put food on the table and struggling to afford the dentist because of high interest rates. Those ridiculous bank profits are directly proportional to the suffering caused by rising interest rates and the cost-of-living crisis, and they go completely unchallenged by this government and the political establishment. The government is essentially pulling a bait and switch on everyday people. They're giving peanuts to potential first home buyers, who've been shut out of the housing market due to skyrocketing interest rates, the soaring cost of living and wealthy investors artificially driving up property prices. But this government congratulates itself and pats itself on the back for this unconscionably bad policy that will ultimately make an already desperate housing crisis actually worse. Wealthy property investors flourish under this protection racket of negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks, while regular people bear the brunt of rising interest rates. In Queensland, nearly 40 per cent of property lending goes to investors, while first home buyers struggle to secure a measly 16 per cent. It's a similar story in New South Wales and Victoria. Investors get the lion's share of loans, larger amounts and tax breaks to offset their costs. And what do first home buyers get? They're left grappling with 13 consecutive interest rate hikes, soaring rates and no relief from the escalating cost of living. We are witnessing the lowest rates of homeownership in 70 years, and, instead of looking after people trying to purchase a home for their family, the government is doling out favours to wealthy investors, fuelling the housing crisis. 11:58 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby It's really good to hear from the Greens political party that they're suddenly in favour of public housing since they delayed the HAFF, which delayed building social housing. Now they're threatening to do the same with the Help to Buy Bill 2023. They run petitions against social housing in their own electorates. I'd encourage them to actually back housing strategies, instead of just talking about it and campaigning about it. Labor, on the other hand, actually has a range of strategies, because the housing and homelessness market is a very complex thing. No one strategy is going to fix it. We have a raft of strategies, and that's what's important. Labor took the Help to Buy policy to the 2022 election as one of our election commitments. As someone who has actually worked in the housing and homelessness sectors, I talked about it extensively. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 give effect to this commitment and provide for Housing Australia to administer the Help to Buy scheme, supported by a referral power from the states. States will be required to pass legislation for the scheme to operate in their jurisdictions. The territories don't require this. All states agreed at the National Cabinet in August to progress legislation, so the scheme will run nationally. The Help to Buy shared-equity scheme will support up to 40,000 Australian households to purchase a home of their own. Under the scheme, the Commonwealth will provide an equity contribution to eligible participants of up to 40 per cent of the purchase price for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes. The scheme will be open to applications for four years, with 10,000 places available per year. The Help to Buy scheme will be delivered by Housing Australia and supported by a panel of lenders. This will fulfil the government's election commitment to establish a national shared-equity scheme. It's expected that states will pass legislation this year. Consistent with general practice for referrals of power, at least one state must pass the legislation before the Commonwealth passes Help to Buy legislation. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party strongly attacked the Help to Buy commitment and attempted to stoke doubt about several elements of this policy. You can hear the scare campaign from the opposition here today. But governments have helped people buy homes in different ways for much of our nation's history, and the more we can do for low- and middle-income households to realise their housing aspirations, the better it will be for all of us as a society and as a community. Shared equity is not some scary, untested concept; it's been around in various forms for decades, overseas and in my home state of South Australia. In South Australia, a couple of versions of shared-equity models have been available for decades, initially through the South Australian Housing Trust and then through the SA government's statutory authority, HomeStart Finance. In the 1970s, the South Australian Housing Trust offered progressive purchase plans, where a person could buy their home in 25 per cent chunks over time and pay rent on the unpurchased portion. This was essentially a shared-equity plan where people could take out a mortgage against portion of the property, pay it off and then purchase a further portion as they could afford it. HomeStart Finance is a statutory authority founded in 1989 by the SA government, and it started doing modern shared-equity loans back in 2007. That's 17 years of successful shared equity, and they've done 2½ thousand shared-equity loans in that time. They've been getting more popular in recent years. The community knows that this is an affordable and low-risk option to get into the property market, and the market knows that shared equity does not push prices up. That's unlike many other government homebuyer strategies, including some favoured by those opposite—such as raiding superannuation accounts, which is widely panned by the housing market. I'll get back to that disastrous policy later. The Liberals' attack on shared equity is another way of Liberals attacking the aspirations of low- and middle-income earning Australians. They don't want them to get ahead, they didn't want them to get wage rises, they don't want them to get tax cuts, and they don't want them getting into homeownership. These nonsense attacks included suggestions that Prime Minister Albanese would be sitting at your kitchen table. I'm sure he'd love an invitation, but I understand he's pretty busy! He's got a wedding to organise, now! But seriously, shared equity is an established, legitimate and secure method of getting into homeownership. Some of the other scare campaigns those opposite have tried have been about participants having to sell their homes if they receive a pay rise over the income threshold. Again, I would encourage those opposite to inform themselves about how shared equity has already worked in South Australia and other jurisdictions around the world. Those opposite are standing in the way of the aspirations of Australians who want to own their own home. Their efforts to try and prevent low- and middle-income Australians having this option to enter the housing market are quite disgusting but, of course, fit in line with their efforts to keep wages low and prevent workers having a tax cut. This Liberal Party and National Party opposition have lined themselves up well and truly against low- and middle-income Australian families, and their proposed housing strategy of raiding superannuation has already been widely panned by the sector. But let's take a look at it anyway. The starting propositions that people on low and middle incomes, including of course young first home buyers have enough superannuation in their accounts to be able to raid it in the first place. Secondly, I don't believe that anyone of those opposite doesn't understand the power of compounding interest. So their proposal is deliberately targeted to make sure that first home buyers, those on low and middle incomes, do not have the benefit of compounding interest in their superannuation account. Every dollar taken out of superannuation accounts in early career will have to be replaced by multiple dollars in the future to achieve the same balance at retirement. Thirdly, while we know those opposite are short term thinkers when they are focused on fixing one problem now—housing deposits, they ignore what they know would be causing future problems for individuals involved and for the country as a whole. Lower superannuation balances mean greater dependence on age pensions in the future and that means a greater budget cost for future governments. But they're only interested in the next election. How unusual that the Liberal and National parties would raid money from superannuation balances of Australians but set the country up for financial bills in the future—very typical. And fourthly—this is the feedback from the housing sector locally and internationally—injecting more money into the housing market in this manner means the market automatically adjusts to account for it. Housing prices rise, making the problem worse. How does that help? They know this. They know the problems with their failed raiding-your-superannuation policy. They were pointed out to them by the sector in the last election and also by us. nonetheless they have taken up this failed policy, dusted it off, taken it out as a talking point, so it looks like they have something to offer. It is really just an extended play of saying no. It is just a way of saying no but pretending you have something to offer. So how will the government's Help to Buy Scheme work? Help to Buy will support up to 40,000 eligible Australians to purchase a home by providing an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent of the purchase price for new homes and up to 30 per cent for existing homes. The scheme will be open to applications for four years with 10,000 places each year. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 gives Housing Australia the power to enter into shared equity arrangements. The scheme will give those on low and middle incomes an opportunity to buy a home with a minimum two per cent deposit, allowing them access to home ownership. Having worked in the homelessness sector, I know that homeownership is linked to short, medium and long-term economic security, so this scheme will help participants overcome the dual barriers of homeownership—saving for the deposit and affording the mortgage. The deposit can be as low as two per cent. With the Commonwealth providing an equity contribution, participants will have smaller home loans and, consequently, smaller ongoing repayments. But the Help to Buy Scheme is just one element of the government's comprehensive housing plan. The supply shortage and affordability issues have been a long time coming and no one strategy is a solution to the entire problem. Some of the strategies already announced include the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which the Greens political party delayed to the distress of the entire social and community housing sector but is now being rolled out, and the $3 billion social housing accelerator payment, the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. The Labor expanded and improved Home Guarantee Scheme has helped 100,000 Australians into home ownership. That means almost one in three first home buyers in the last financial year was supported by the scheme. This is a significant increase from previous years of the former Liberal government and demonstrates that Labor's expansion and changes to the scheme are working and are meeting the needs of the community. The Home Guarantee Scheme sits alongside Help to Buy as part of the Albanese government's agenda to support home ownership. This government understands that affordable housing is critical to economic wellbeing and is committed to supporting more Australians to be able to access housing. The Help to Buy Scheme is an important part of that raft of strategies to make housing more affordable and accessible for Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 12:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Boothby could've just tabled a note. She could've just stood there and said, 'We're good and you're not,' and left it at that. But I want to rebut many of the points that she made—for a start, the point that she made about the very name of the bill we are debating: the Help to Buy Bill 2023. It's 2024. If it were that important, if it were that vital, if it were that essential, why wasn't this bill legislated last year? It's a good question. Why wasn't it? If getting people into homes and building those houses is so critical, why didn't Labor do this last year, 2023, when they obviously put the bill together? It's now 2024. As everything is with Labor, it's too little too late. The member for Boothby went on and on about what Labor was doing and what we didn't do as a government. Let me remind the member for Boothby and others opposite and anyone caring to listen what the coalition did do, what we did stand for, what we did represent. We supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, which consists of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and the New Home Guarantee and Family Home Guarantee, which require a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent respectively. The coalition's Home Guarantee Scheme supported one in three first home buyers. We protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications generating—wait for this—$120 billion of economic activity. That's billion with a B, member for Jagajaga. We provided $2.9 billion—again, another B, not an M—of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments, which was to be reinvested in more affordable housing. We unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion dollar infrastructure facility, making housing supply more responsive to the demand. We established a First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. That's what we did. There was more, but we'll just leave it at that to counter the Member for Boothby's arguments that the coalition did nothing. It was a big package that we brought to government and to the people of Australia. We are facing a housing crisis. It is so difficult for young people in particular to get into their first home. It used to be the great Australian dream. Under Labor, that reality is fast disappearing. Sadly and all too tragically, under Labor's watch many small businesses are going under and many—I could argue most—of those companies that are going under and closing their doors are construction companies. They are the builders of houses, and they're not small companies either. Clough Group, Probuild, Dyldam Developments, Snowdon Developments, AGB Group and Condev have been some of the larger construction companies to fold. One of the more recent casualties is Porter Davis Homes Group, which was once rated the 13th-largest builder in Australia. It alone put 1,700 projects in jeopardy across multiple states. This is from information provided by Craig Donaldson of UNSW in an article on 29 June 2023. There's that year ago, 2023, when the Help to Buy Bill was concocted by those opposite. They didn't do anything about it. They didn't bring it to parliament or legislate it in 2023. We're now midway through February 2024 and they've just realised: 'Gee, we'd better do something about this. The Greens are on our backs. They're not going to give us their preferences. They're going to take our votes in those inner city electorates.' I do wish Labor well, because the very worst Labor member is always going to be better than the best Greens candidate; I get that. But construction companies have been collapsing so regularly. There are a number of reasons why residential construction companies have been going bankrupt: COVID shutdowns—I appreciate it's a very difficult time—extended periods of inclement weather and chronic supply chain issues to cashed-up infrastructure companies competing for construction labour; first-home builder stimulus packages being wound back under Labor's watch; and the end of a prolonged cheap credit fuelled surge. The industry has been at the centre of, unfortunately, a perfect storm. There are some interesting comments about why construction companies are going under. There have been very pertinent points made by people such as Master Builders Australia CEO Denita Wawn. She said that inflation and the federal government's proposed industrial relations changes—she said this in September last year, and we know that those IR changes are now legislation—are placing pressure on small construction companies. If the fear of the IR changes was very real and tangible in September 2023, imagine what the fear and the reality will be in February 2024. Denita Wawn, of course, was right then to worry and should be even more concerned now. She went on to say: While interest rate rises are starting to show fruits with consumer spending, the most sustainable solution to the inflationary problem lies on the supply side, by bringing down the cost of doing business. This requires issues like labour shortages, materials costs, and the regulatory burdens to be dealt with in a focused and urgent manner. Urgent! That was September 2023. We're now discussing the Help to Buy Bill 2023 in mid-February 2024. It should have been done last year. If it's that important, why wasn't it done last year? Ms Wawn said: We hope all levels of government pull out all stops to tackling the very real housing market challenges and to do their bit to reduce costs because we all know that a strong building industry underpins a strong economy. And, of course, it is so true. That's why during COVID, when we were in government, we provided so much support, help, encouragement and initiatives to the construction sector—sparkies, plumbers, chippies and tradies—making sure that they had the very best support available. Between July 2022 and April 2023, 1,709 construction companies across the country entered administration, according to data from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—July 2022 to April 2023, with Labor in power. It's on Labor's watch. It's on Labor's terms. This includes the likes of Porter Davis, as I mentioned before; ProBuild; Pivotal Homes; and, in the member for Boothby's state of South Australia, Quattro. It's not good enough. It's just not good enough. And you feel for those people who have entered a contract with a builder to build their dream home when, all of a sudden, the construction company goes under, and then they're faced with the prospect of: 'What do I do? I've invested my money. How do I get it back?' They have to go through that complete rigmarole of trying to fix up the mess that is left when a construction firm goes under. The only housing policies delivering support to first-home buyers are the housing policies that Labor inherited from the former coalition government. The Albanese government has absolutely dragged its heels in introducing this legislation. They announced it many months ago. The government have already failed to deliver their Help to Buy scheme, but this is not so unusual, because Labor has failed on so many fronts. It was Help to Buy, a key election policy by Labor, but that was 2022. The title name of this policy includes '2023'. It's now 2024, and we won't see, until well into this year at the earliest, the sort of start that Labor's promising with this policy. Nine Network's Today show co-host Karl Stefanovic hit the nail on the head on 12 September 2023 in an interview with the Minister for Housing, the member for Franklin. He asked, 'You better get cracking. Six hundred homes a day for the next five years to make 1.2 million homes. You've got Buckley's, haven't you?' That was the question that he put to the Minister for Housing. She said, 'Obviously, we're not building all of the 1.2 million homes over the next five years by ourselves.' But 1.2 million homes, I wonder how many of those homes have been built, are being built, will be built? It will be a long way short of 1.2 million, particularly with so many construction companies going under, particularly with the cost-of-living crisis that people are enduring under Labor's watch. I get that Labor has put through the low- and middle-income tax relief—their words, not mine—this morning, a broken promise, another election promise that wasn't delivered. The stage 3 tax cuts, they said were legislated. They said, 'Trust us. We're going to be accountable. We're going to be transparent.' They just keep breaking the faith. They just keep breaching promises with the Australian public. Karl Stefanovic was right when he quizzed the Minister for Housing about what Labor was going to do, the funding that was going to be required, the delivery model that Labor was going to use. Again, I say this is such a crisis that we're under. I get that Labor's now trying to scramble because the Greens are out there making all sorts of noises in inner city seats that Labor wants to retain or win back. But in the midst of Labor's housing crisis, this underwhelming policy is too little, too late. They went to the election promising to put in place a shared equity scheme but failed to explain that the scheme needs state government approval to operate. This means Labor has made yet another promise it will fail to deliver. It's all easy. Words are so easy. Promises are so easy. It's delivery that counts. It's delivery that matters. It's constructing homes at the rate that Labor said they were going to do that matters but it's impossible. And then, of course, speaking of state governments, we have a state Labor government in Victoria and they've been the government there for so many years—nine years—yet they're trying to shut down the timber industry, shut down the very products by which houses are made or part made. Ms Thwaites 282212 The Victorian industry is building houses! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I cannot hear the member for Jagajaga but I know that she comes from Victoria. I know she'd be disappointed. I'm trying not to sledge her but I know she'd be disappointed in her state government for doing that to the timber workers, to the forestry industry. I walked through the state forest at Tumbarumba the other day and it is a perfectly good, working, productive, sustainable forest. Forestry is good for the country. It's good for storing carbon. Houses are good for doing all of that. And it's a perfectly sustainable industry that Labor at a state level and no doubt, this mob too, will shut down and are shutting down. Labor has failed again to do what it should to keep its promises. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is now being debated in 2024. It should have been done if Labor were serious many, many months ago—last year. Too little, too late—not good enough, Labor. 12:24 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Well, what an act to follow from the member for Riverina. I'm just trying to tease out the logic through that argument and a number of the arguments we've heard from those opposite over recent weeks. On one hand, apparently, if you listen to those opposite, this bill is no good. In fact, the plan is no good—nothing to see here, we shouldn't go ahead with it. On the other hand, they say it's too slow, that we've taken too long to bring it in. Well, if that's the case, if we've taken too long to bring it in, why don't we get on with it? Come with us, support it, let's get it through the parliament, let's get it going. It's the same argument we've heard on tax cuts this week: no good, these tax cuts won't help Australians, these are not delivering what Australians need when they're doing it tough. People are doing it tough—but hold on: they don't need a tax cut now. That's the argument from the other side. Yet they voted for it. In the end they voted for it. So, all I can say is that at the moment we certainly do not look for logic from those on the other side. We don't look for policies, either, because when it comes to policies on how they are going to support Australians with the cost-of-living crisis, how they are going to support Australians into homeownership, there's nothing—nothing on the table. All we get from those opposite, and we've certainly seen this in the last fortnight—we have had these revelations in the last fortnight—is internal mechanisms dealing with fallout from nearly a decade in government, nearly a decade to do something about homeownership in this country and to make sure that younger Australians could get into the housing market. They had nearly a decade to do that. But we've seen on the ABC over the past few weeks that that was not a huge focus of the successive Liberal-Nationals governments that we had. An honourable member interjecting— Ms THWAITES 282212 I don't recall. I did watch closely. I must say, I did enjoy Nemesis. I don't recall housing policy coming up during that extended documentary series. I don't remember the member for Riverina talking about housing policy in his moments in Nemesis. So, I would ask those opposite to reflect on their nearly a decade in government, to reflect on what they now may well spend their time in opposition doing, about how they can best— Ms THWAITES 282212 Sorry, I can't hear the member for Kennedy there. Did you want to say that again? Mr Katter HX4 They might reflect on your 10 years before that! Ms THWAITES 282212 Okay, so we're going back 20 years now. You can also reflect on 20 years before that as well, if you'd like to. Thank you, member for Kennedy. History is important and it is important to learn from history. Alright: time for reflection, time to learn from history, but also time for those opposite to think about how they're going to support Australians in a cost-of-living crisis and how they're going to support Australians into homeownership, because buying a home is a big deal. It is such a huge step in anyone's life. In some ways, that homeownership represents more than just the roof over your head. It is that sense of stability and security that we know comes from owning your own home. We also know that that sense of stability and security is too far out of reach for many Australians at the moment. That's why this government is working to help more Australians into homeownership, to change that.. This Help to Buy program will support thousands of Australians to make that homeownership dream a reality, supporting those thousands of Australians who are branching out on their own, moving on from their parents' place or a share house and going to their own place to call home. This is life changing. We know that housing affordability is front of mind for many Australians. Help to Buy will take what can currently seem impossible and put that homeownership dream within reach. Owning your own home is a big step in your life. And I know that it's something that many young people think about at the moment. I know it's something that their parents think about at the moment. And I can see why, when we look at the numbers. Young people today are good savers, just like the generations before them. But unlike those previous generations they can face a much steeper climb to reach the point where they can afford to buy and own a home. On the latest data, a house in my community costs around $1.2 million, on average. That is a lot of money. And it is no wonder that young people who are looking to get into the market look at a figure like that and think, 'How could I ever buy a home?' The data shows us how much this picture of trying to enter the market has changed over recent decades. If you were a young couple looking to buy in my community back in 1991, a house would have cost $152,000 on average. Today we have a figure of $1.2 million. On that figure, a young couple looking to buy their first home today is paying eight times what a couple of their parents' generation paid back in 1991. If the couple of today manages to save enough and purchase their first home with a mortgage, they're facing a situation where a household in Victoria earning an average income needs to spend 35 per cent of its earnings on mortgage repayments. That is at its highest level since 1990. When you look at data like that, it is no wonder that parents in my community tell me how concerned they are at the prospect of their kids and other younger people in the community struggling to afford to buy their first home or potentially having to buy their first home when they're much older than they would like. That, again, is why we need initiatives like this one on help to buy. For 40,000 Australian households, it'll be the difference between the status quo we have and owning one's own home. I know that people in my electorate love the area they live in. They value being in Melbourne's north-east, with the trees, the rivers, the parks, the local shops, and the strong sense of volunteerism and community spirit that we see in so many different ways. It's natural, then, that young people who have grown up in my community want to buy in our community. They want to stay with family, friends and areas that they know. Our part of Melbourne is a great place to live, and I am excited at the prospect that Help to Buy will be able to help locals in Jagajaga to buy a home in our community—a place to call their own. I know, as I said, that this is something that many people in my community care deeply about. I hear from plenty of residents who tell me how concerned they are about how difficult it can be for those young homebuyers to get into the market. Alison from Greensborough told me that she feels the young are disadvantaged in so many ways now, and she highlighted the impacts that housing affordability has had on them. Tim from Heidelberg Heights told me in a community survey that I conducted last year: 'Housing affordability is definitely on the top of my list. This is quite a lovely neighbourhood and community, and it's a shame that it's just so difficult to buy into.' Samantha from Eltham shared her concern: as a parent with young adults at home, she worried about their ability to afford their own home. Only recently, I've had a dad from Eltham North get in touch with me and my office, keen to find out about the progress of this very scheme that we are debating. His daughter is now at the age where she wants to move out, and he is keen to see this in place. So again I say to those opposite: get on board. Let's get it through the parliament. With Help to Buy, there will be another avenue for potential homebuyers to consider as they ready themselves for taking the huge step of buying a home. I know that will mean a great deal to families—to potential homebuyers but also to their parents and other people who want to see them have that sense of security. Of course, the Help to Buy Bill is one part of the step forward our government is taking as we deliver the most significant housing reforms in a generation. This scheme will bring homeownership back into reach for 40,000 households, supporting eligible homebuyers with an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes and up to 30 per cent for existing homes. It will be open to applications for four years, with 10,000 places available each year. The support it will provide will give those on low or middle incomes an opportunity to buy a home with at least a two per cent deposit, assisting them to become homeowners, many for the first time. It will mean they gain the short- and long-term stability and economic security that owning a home provides. While they're participating in the scheme, they'll have lower ongoing repayments, so it's not just a short-term help; it provides the long-term relief that people need to get to a point of certainty and stability. It is part of broader efforts, as I said. We've already supported 86,000 Australians right across the country to make that dream of homeownership a reality through the Home Guarantee Scheme. This work has significantly expanded the operation of the Home Guarantee Scheme, and there is more that we are doing as part of this ambitious slate of work in housing. There's the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, delivered by our government last year. The Housing Australia Future Fund is another thing that those opposite told us shouldn't happen. They spoke out against it. They spoke out against work to put more Australians into houses. In fact, our government got on with it, representing the single biggest investment to support social and affordable housing in this country in more than a decade. Only Labor does this work. Only Labor does the real reform that delivers things like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which supports Australians to get into social and affordable housing. Only Labor does work like the Help to Buy scheme, which supports Australians to reach the dream of first home ownership. We are doing other work to support Australians to get into secure housing. There is the $2 billion social housing accelerator, which will deliver 4,000 new social homes across Australia. My state, Victoria, has received almost $500 million of this funding, and I know how important that is to my community and to many communities across Victoria. There is the National Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years, with that number to double thanks to the matched commitment of the states and territories. We have increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, which is the largest increase in more than 30 years. This increase is helping around 6,590 households in the electorate of Jagajaga alone. We're unlocking the $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with homes under construction as a result, and an extra $1 billion to support even more housing. We've provided a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding over this year, alongside our new National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We have a new national target to build 1.2 million well located homes, and we have A Better Deal for Renters to strengthen renters rights. Right across the board, we are doing the work that those opposite failed to do in nearly a decade in government. We are getting on with work that is urgently needed in my community and in communities right across this country, to give people that dream of first home ownership, to allow people to get into social and affordable housing and to allow renters to have the security and rights that they should. This is work that the Labor government is getting on with, without any help from those opposite. We're trying to come back from a decade of missed opportunities. It was a decade where we had governments obviously very focused on internal matters. They were important internal matters, like who was going to be the next prime minister. I'm not saying that's not important, but it certainly didn't seem to result in extra housing for Australians. It certainly didn't seem to result in the federal government investing in social and affordable housing across this country. It certainly didn't seem to be a focus, as I said before, for any of the members opposite who did take part in that ABC series that we've all been enjoying so much over the past few fortnights. Maybe some of the others who we did not hear from in that series were very occupied with housing policy. Maybe there's a whole separate documentary to be made on debates about housing policy within the Liberal and National parties over their decade in government, and I shall look forward to that if it does come forward. But I don't think it's there, because I don't think those were the debates that were happening in that party room. I don't think the focus was on how to get Australians into housing. I don't think the focus was on how to make sure there is social and affordable housing in the communities that need it in our country. I think the focus was on themselves. The Labor government came into office, and we have been very clear that we do want Australians to have access to good housing. We are doing work at a national level with the states and territories. We are investing in a way that national governments have never invested in these types of programs. It is hugely important work. There is a lot of work still to do. I urge those opposite to get on board. Help us do this important work to get Australians into homes and support communities like mine and yours that need affordable housing and that security that comes with having a roof over your head and homeownership. It is the great Australian dream. I'm proud that our government is helping more Australians to realise that dream. 12:39 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I would invite the member for Jagajaga, who I happen to like a lot—we've done a lot together over various courses, and I think most of the time she says sensible things—to hang around for a little bit longer and hear what I've got to say. I come to speak to this bill with a slightly different perspective than most people in this place. I'm a carpenter and joiner by trade. I'm still a registered builder in Queensland. I've been in the building industry for almost 40 years. I had a brain explosion and became a barrister and practised as a construction lawyer for 16 years. Mr Giles 243609 We all make mistakes. Mr WALLACE 265967 Absolutely, we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, the member for Jagajaga has left. I've seen the building industry from a hands-on-tools perspective, from a property development perspective and from a lawyer's perspective when all things turn to custard, so I can probably add some unique insights about where we are in relation to housing policy in this country. There's no doubt that housing is one of the essentials. We need food, we need water and we need shelter. There is absolutely no doubt that housing is in dire straits in this country today in 2024. Whether it's the concept of the great Australian dream or whether it's someone who needs social or affordable housing, the same answer applies: Australian housing policy is in dire straits. I was in this chamber yesterday talking about affordable and social housing. There would not be a day go by where a constituent does not contact my office. Yesterday I talked a little bit about a young man who we were trying to find a home for. He was going to be evicted in just five days—four days today. Every day my office gets contacted with some very sad stories. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country are at risk of homelessness, which is incredibly sad. We have problems in relation to our social housing, but we also have great problems in relation to young people who want to aspire to the great Australian dream. Sadly, for many young people in this country, the concept of owning your own home is so far out of reach that many of them have given up. I've got four daughters. One is buying her own home. For the others, God knows when that might happen. It is unbelievably difficult for young people now, though not impossible—I reject the concept that it's impossible—to buy their own home. Rents have gone through the roof, as a result of this government's financial mismanagement, as have mortgages. We know that for people with mortgages, the average mortgage has gone up by $24,000 a year under this government—and that's $24,000 a year after tax. So people are struggling, with rents having gone up, to pay rent and save for a deposit. That is the greatest impediment to young people getting off the rent race and getting into home ownership. If people can't afford to pay rent and save for a deposit at the same time then it is unbelievably difficult for them. The bank of mum and dad is now, I think, the ninth-largest lender in this country because young people, more and more, are relying upon mums and dads and grandparents to financially assist them in the purchase of their first home. But if mum and dad or grandparents aren't in that situation, then young people are finding it unbelievably difficult to get off the rent race and own their own home. This bill is called the Help to Buy Bill, but the government, in introducing it today, are introducing it over 12 months later than they said that they would. The Minister for Housing, during the election campaign, said that this policy would be up and running by the beginning of 2023. There is a huge source of disappointment in relation to this bill, because, as the shadow minister so rightly pointed out in his speech, there are so many questions that are left unanswered about this bill. As a lawyer—taking my builder's hat off and putting my lawyer's hat on—I know people need certainty. If they are entering into an agreement with the government, they need to know the terms and conditions by which this agreement will operate. This bill provides no-one with any modicum of certainty which would enable them to make a decision to jump into a long-term arrangement with the government. We know that there are a number of these help-to-buy arrangements that the states operate, where the state governments are providing assistance in equity share arrangements with the purchase of homes. We know that they are undersubscribed, and yet this government stand up and say: 'We've got an answer on how to resolve this. We'll give you more of the same.' It is window-dressing. A lot has been said in this place and in the media, and the Greens talk about this, but property ownership is a source of wealth. That's not something that we should be ashamed of. We shouldn't be ashamed of that. I bought my first house when I was 19 years old, as an apprentice carpenter—five years ago. Not quite! Whilst I didn't travel overseas for many, many years, that gave me the ability to buy and sell homes. I was fortunate that I was a carpenter and I was able to improve upon houses when we bought and sold. I know that most people aren't in that situation because they don't have the skills to be able to do that. I was fortunate. But the reality is: if young people can just get a start and get out of that rent race—I just moved my daughter out of a rental over the weekend. The concept of having to hire removalists every 12 months or six months and do the bond cleans and all that sort of stuff—you don't have to worry about that when you own your own home. And, when you own your own home, and the property increases in value, that gives you wealth. That gives you the ability to invest that money or go and buy, God forbid, an investment property to try and get ahead financially and protect yourself for the future. Not only that; you're actually providing somewhere to rent for someone who can't own their own home or who is on the path to owning their own home. The concept of investment homes in this country has become like a dirty word. Mum-and-dad investors are treated like they're some kind of evil people, like pariahs. I haven't sat down and done the sums to see how many of those opposite own investment properties, but I reckon a lot would. I don't criticise them for that, but they should also be upfront and recognise that this is a good thing; it's not something that we should be ashamed of. We're helping others live in a home, when clearly governments have dropped the ball over decades. Governments, particularly state governments, have dropped the ball over decades in social housing, and mum-and-dad investors have picked it up. That's not something we should be ashamed of. Coming back to this bill, this bill does not provide any details to give a young family the information that they need to make an informed decision as to whether they want to enter into a long-term financial arrangement with the government—because that's exactly what they are doing with this bill. I would have thought that this housing minister would have had all these ducks in a row after 13 months of delay in bringing this bill to the House. I would have thought that we would understand questions like, 'What are the eligibility requirements?' or, 'Who is eligible to take part in this Help to Buy Bill?' Another question: 'What will happen if I get a pay rise?' Also, increasingly, more and more Australians are having to take a second job to make ends meet because of this government's financial mismanagement. Unfortunately, a growing number of people are having to get a third. What will happen when an Australian's income increases over the threshold, if they have already entered into this arrangement? Will the government come knocking on the door and say, 'Sorry, old son; you've got to sell your house'? I don't know. The detail is not in the bill. Australians, if you are considering entering into this arrangement, read the detail. Unfortunately, there is not this detail, but you should be aware of the terms and conditions of what you're entering into. If people exceed the income cap, will the government come knocking? How many of these arrangements will be made available across the country? Will it be done on a state-by-state basis? Will it just be a national cap? Will there be a cap on the amount of the purchase price? Will that be different for a house in Wagga Wagga as opposed to a house in Sydney—will there be different treatments done on a geographical arrangement? I don't know. These sorts of details are the details that Australians should have been made aware of by this government. Details matter. It's all in the detail. I can tell you, taking my builder's hat off and putting my barrister's hat on, that's where disputes happen. It's all in the detail. We've gotten this lame response: 'Well, the government will consider all of these things on a case-by-case basis.' Wow. How does the government treat Australians on a case-by-case basis? That just leads to all sorts of inequity arising out of this program—different people, different bureaucrats making different decisions, subjective decisions. You can't run a policy on a help-to-buy scheme, on helping Australians into housing, with no detail and with this kind of subjectivity and with, 'Well, we'll assess each case on its own merits; trust us.' 'Trust us.' Well, I'm sorry: that horse has well and truly bolted for this government, because Australians know that they cannot trust this government. They cannot trust this Prime Minister. They can't trust a word this government says. This is a government led by a man who says, 'My word is my bond,' and who has gone back on the stage 3 tax cuts. He promised us no changes to franking credits. He promised us no change to superannuation. Well, going back to investors, those people who are investing in this country should mark my words—write this down—there will be changes in relation to negative gearing and CGT treatment under this government. (Time expired) 12:54 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Housing, owning one's home, living in one's own dwelling is a great dream and a great source of pride for many Australians, and in particular for those on the New South Wales Central Coast. However, homeownership throughout Australia and homeownership in my part of the world in Robertson, and even into Dobell and a bit of Shortland—the mighty Central Coast—has been in freefall. That's why I'm glad the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is being introduced to the parliament. We are acting on housing. The federal Labor government sees this as a major issue that's affecting our communities—not just in our cities, but within our regions, within our remote communities, within our rural communities—and that is why we're acting. Housing isn't the only thing that we're acting on. Many of us on this side of the chamber—when we're talking to the public, when we're doorknocking, when we're phone banking—are frequently acting on many of the issues affecting Australian and also those on the Central Coast. We're helping with the cost of living through our multibillion cost-of-living packages. Through Labor's tax cuts, we are actively giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut, from nurses to truckies to tradies. You name it, we're all getting a tax cut. We're acting on health through bulk-billing and the urgent care centre scheme. And we are acting on housing through the Help to Buy Scheme, which we're here to talk about today. Whether it's through this bill, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, which has been repeatedly opposed by the Liberal and the National parties, through the Home Guarantee Scheme helping thousands of Australians into homes or through our record investments into housing, it is pretty clear to me and to members on this side of the chamber, and it's clear to members of the public, that the Albanese Labor government is acting on the housing challenges that we face. When Australians talk about who they can trust to deliver a visionary housing policy that will bring Australia into the future they know that it is the Australian Labor Party. Absolutely! Whether it's housing. Whether it's health. Whether it's education. Whether it's the economy. It is this party that will bring Australia forward. What does housing do? Housing provides security, housing provides stability and housing provides dignity to people. Like the member for Fisher, I'm also continuing my previous profession. I'm still practising as a doctor in an emergency department. I see a lot of the stresses that are impacting people during often the worst day of their life. And in the ED that I practise in, patients will often speak about the stresses that are not directly linked to the pathology that they're presenting with. They might be coming in because they've injured their arm and got a fracture or they've got a sore throat—you name it; whatever it might be. But more often than not the other social stressor that they're referring to, that is either part of the reason that they have presented or is exacerbating the reason that they presented, is their ability to locate and/or access accommodation or housing. So whether it's patients who don't have the ability to access emergency accommodation or short-term housing options, whether it's a patient's problems with renting or whether housing is one of their biggest stressors outside of their pathology, it's having an impact on their finances, and that is a major thing that people continue to bring up with me. The reason we're all here is to make sure we can give our regions a voice in this chamber. There are more than 100,000 people in the electorate of Robertson, where housing is a major issue. And because of that, I do want to focus on a few local examples of what's happening with housing and homelessness in my part of the world. But before I do go on to that, I will just reiterate to the chamber that we know from the debate on taxation today, we know from the debate on previous pieces of legislation—the Housing Australia Future Fund; you name it—that the Liberal-National coalition have zero vision for this country. Absolutely zero vision. We know that they have absolutely zero desire to leave a legacy that will benefit Australians and my constituents on the Central Coast. They have no desire to do that adequately and effectively and to meet the challenges of today. Housing is included in those. Like I said, let's look at some of the local examples, because that's why we're here right now. We're here to give those communities a voice. Many Australians living in Robertson and across the Central Coast need help to get into homeownership. Our government is introducing this bill and providing this support so that thousands of Australians can benefit from homeownership. Recently, I was speaking with Patrick by doorknocking in Umina Beach on the mighty Peninsula on the Central Coast—a beautiful part of the world, where I grew up. Everyone in the chamber is definitely invited to come to the beach and have a beer! Mr McCormack 219646 Are you shouting? Dr REID 300126 Absolutely, member for Riverina! After living with his parents for all of his life, Patrick would like to buy a property of his own. He wants to live independently. Patrick is struggling to afford to buy on the Central Coast, as property prices are rising and have increased substantially, not just in the last decade but in decades prior. He would like to buy in Gosford, an up-and-coming major metropolitan centre on the Central Coast, or in the adjacent suburbs. Patrick is saving. Patrick is working hard at multiple jobs in order to get a good deposit together. But he needs a little bit of help to get across the line. He needs a little bit of help to buy his home. This policy will assist Patrick in buying his first home. On the northern end of my electorate—which borders that of the member for Dobell—in the beautiful suburb of Wamberal, Lily, another young member of my community, has spoken to me about her journey of realising her dream of homeownership. Like Patrick, Lily is looking to purchase somewhere on the Central Coast. She would like to be close to her family, her place of work, her friends and the things she that knows best, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like Patrick, Lily has worked hard for all of her working life. She's studied, she's paid her taxes, and she can't wait to own her own home. She was even saying that she can't wait to style it, furnish it and make it her own, for herself and her family. She's saving a deposit, much like Patrick is, but, again, Lily just needs a bit of help to buy and to get across that line. Through our Help to Buy scheme, Lily will be provided with additional support so she can go on to purchase her home in the region. It's absolutely crucial that Australians get their foot in the door and realise, as I said earlier, that great Australian dream of owning a home. Owning a home has many advantages, as I've said. It provides stability, peace of mind, security and dignity, and it's also essential so that people can live healthy, happy and productive lives. But—as I said—concerningly, the issue of housing affordability has reached new heights on the Central Coast. Our region has made the list of top 10 places in New South Wales with the greatest number of homeless people, and the analysis by Homelessness NSW of figures produced by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shines a light on the importance for all levels of government, whether local, state or federal, of really working towards and making a concerted effort at increasing assistance for people looking to access housing. That's what I was talking about before. We are investing billions of dollars into housing in this country to make sure that those people I was talking about, who are sitting in the emergency department or who come into our electorate offices, can get the emergency accommodation they need. It's to make sure that renters are getting a fair go through the state government. It's to make sure that the Housing Australia Future Fund is benefiting Australians—which it is and we know it is. There is also the first home buyer scheme, and now this, the Help to Buy Bill. This is a government that is serious about housing and serious about making sure people can get into the accommodation that they need, because it's the right thing to do. We debate a lot of policy in this chamber and there's a lot of jest and a lot of heckling on occasion, but I believe that we—members on this side of the House—all know in our heart of hearts that housing is one of the most important areas of legislation that we will ever debate in this chamber. Making sure that people have a roof over their head is so paramount for people's physical health, mental health and beyond. What I've been talking about has been the driving force behind why the federal Labor government passed the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation last year, to ensure that we can build 30,000 social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund. We're also making sure that we are earmarking some of those properties for people that really need it in at-risk groups, whether it be women in low-income brackets—which is one of the fastest-growing groups of homeless people throughout our country, particularly on the Central Coast—people escaping domestic violence, our veterans community or those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. It's critical that governments at all levels consider every instrument available to them to increase the supply of housing across the nation, and that is what we are doing today. That is why we are debating this bill, because it is the right thing to do, it was an election commitment and now we are making good on it. As Regional Development Australia Central Coast, the RDACC, said, 'All governments need to get serious about creating more affordable housing on the Central Coast.' That is exactly what we are doing here today. We are making it easy for people to buy their first home, we are making sure that we are building more social and affordable housing and we are working with the states and territories, including the new Minns New South Wales government, to reduce red tape and increase housing approvals right across the country. In summary, the bill that is being debated today in the parliament is one of the signature pieces of legislation from the federal Labor government. This bill shows not only that we are a government who help those that need it but also that we are a government of vision, because that's what Labor governments are. We develop policy and programs that will help thousands, if not millions, of people into the future. Whether it's housing, with the Help to Buy Bill, whether it's the Medicare urgent care clinic, where you can see a bulk-bill doctor if you're too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the emergency department, whether it's the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, whether it's the change of the DPA status for the Central Coast, whether it is acting on the cost of living through our cheaper early childhood education and care policies, or whether it's Labor's tax cuts giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut, that is the job of Labor governments. We are visionary and we do what's right—and that's what this bill is all about. 13:08 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. I've been fortunate to be in this chamber to hear my friend the member for Robertson, who spoke eloquently about the benefits of home ownership. I completely agree with the benefits he articulated. However, the member for Robertson has swallowed a bit of the Minister for Housing's Kool Aid on this. This Help to Buy Bill is not going to assist first home buyers into new homes. There are too many questions that have remained open and unanswered by the minister, and that is why this bill should not be supported. Homeownership in our country is deeply embedded into the Australian psyche. It's referred to overwhelmingly as the great Australian dream. Australia's founders clearly believed that we should be a property-owning democracy. They did not come to this view because they were real estate agents or because property developers sponsored their meetings. They came to this view because they wanted Australia to be better than the United Kingdom. They wanted a society not divided by class. They wanted quality of opportunity for every Australian. And they knew that the line upon which division is most etched is the ownership of property. Therefore, everyone needed to be given the chance to own the home in which they lived. This ideal has lived with Australians to this day, including, for example, in such classical cultural icons as The Castle, where lead character Darryl Kerrigan denounces a large corporation that's trying to acquire his home. In that classic film, Darryl reminds the High Court—indeed, he reminds all of us—that a home is not just bricks and mortar but memories of a life built together and a place in which to imagine your future. I spent my former career in and around the housing sector, in the private and public sectors, as well as in industry bodies. I am absolutely committed to trying to find better solutions, better policies as to how we in this place can make it easier for Australians to own their first home. We have never seen lower rates of homeownership, particularly among the under 40s, than we currently have in this country. Homeownership is in freefall. The government's bill, which I think is probably well intended, it is called the Help to Buy Bill. I'm just going to outline some of the major flaws that I see with this bill. First, it's a shared-equity scheme, where new homebuyers will share ownership up to 40 per cent with the Commonwealth government. But, as always with Labor's policies and legislation, the devil is in the detail, and most of that detail has been omitted. This is a small niche program with up to only 10,000 households per year over four years—so, 40,000 in total—and it will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion. This is a scheme where the government will own almost half of your property. Is this something Australians want? Looking at a history of shared equity schemes overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom, shared-equity schemes are completely problematic, and the issues that have been identified in those schemes have not been properly addressed by the minister and by the government in this bill. The recent House of Lords inquiry in the UK was called Meeting housing demand. It found, 'The government's Help to Buy Scheme cost around 29 billion pounds and inflated housing prices by more than its subsidy value.' The House of Lords inquiry then concluded, 'This funding would be better spent on increasing housing supply'—and I will come to housing supply shortly. So, that's one of the major concerns around shared-equity schemes identified overseas. A further problem is that sometimes these shared-equity schemes may encourage homeownership for some for whom it may not be the best option. It may be pushing them into undue financial risk. What we have heard so far from the minister is that the eligibility criteria for this scheme is a $90,000 income for a single person and a $120,000 for a couple. But there are other questions that are unanswered in this legislation. What happens, for example, when somebody gets a pay rise? Does the owner—the part owner—then need to immediately repay the government contribution? There is no detail on this. What happens with repairs and maintenance? What happens when the government owns almost half of your home? Are you allowed to simply carry out repairs and maintenance? Is the government responsible for the cost of those repairs to the extent of its ownership in the property? This is another unexplained detail, but it's an important detail. It hardly seems reasonable that, if you own a property jointly with the government, all the repairs and maintenance on the home are your responsibility. The legislation clearly sets out that, when you sell the home, the government comes and takes its percentage of the appreciated value. But what happens in the maybe unlikely event that the property decreases in value over time? It may be unlikely, as I said, but this factor has also not been considered. This is a further example of where the policy work has not been fully completed before the bill has been prepared. This is the Minister for Housing grandstanding, making big announcements without having done the real policy work that was required behind the legislation, without understanding how the housing market actually works in our country. It is very clear from this threadbare legislation that the government has failed again to do the hard work on housing. Other questions remain with this shared equity scheme in addition to what happens with improvements. What happens if you earn a cent above the $90,000? Does the government then force the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure that there is no fraud within the system? If you enter into one of these shared equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? How many places will be available in each state and territory? Which lenders will be participating in the scheme? The package as well is completely silent on property price caps. So, in order for me to try to understand what the price caps could be, I turned to the election promises that were made by federal Labor. They said that it would be capped at $950,000 in metropolitan New South Wales. This again shows a clear lack of understanding from the minister about house prices across our cities, in our metropolitan areas. In my electorate of Hughes in southern Sydney, for example, based on data from CoreLogic, as at July 2023, to buy an average house in the suburb of Moorebank costs $1.2 million. In Holsworthy it's $1 million, in Oyster Bay it's $1.7 million, in Jannali it's $1.5 million, in Illawong it's $1.6 million and in Sutherland it's $1.4 million. Therefore, based on the federal government's promise—and we've had a bit to say this week about election promises being broken—that it would be price capped at $950,000, that will not help anybody at all in my electorate in southern Sydney to buy their home. They will not be able to avail themselves of this scheme. Further, Help to Buy relies on the involvement of the states and territories. States are required to pass their own legislation for this scheme to work throughout the country. New South Wales passed a similar scheme well over a year ago. It's called the Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper scheme. It's significantly undersubscribed, as are the Homebuyer Fund in Victoria, the HomeStart Shared Equity Option in South Australia and the MyHome shared equity program in Tasmania. Therefore, if we look at what is happening across those states where they have introduced a shared equity scheme, it shows that Australians overwhelmingly do not want to own their home with the government. They want to own their home themselves. This begs the question: why on earth is the Albanese Labor government seeking to introduce yet another shared equity scheme, when we know similar schemes are not being taken up by Australians? The only answer to that question must be that Labor wants to be seen to be doing something on housing. It wants to be seen to be rolling out big numbers and saying, 'We've got this guys; we're going to do this,' but it's not actually doing anything meaningful to address the underlying factors that have led to the current crisis we have. The coalition took a very sensible housing policy to the last election to enable Australians to utilise their superannuation, their own money, to assist to purchase their first home. This was well received in my electorate of Hughes when I was campaigning. Why would the government not consider this very sensible option? Instead, with some of its other housing legislation, it's quite clear that it will allow big institutional investors and superannuation companies to invest in housing. Why is it that superannuation companies can invest in housing but you can't utilise your own money within your own superannuation fund to purchase your own home? To take a step back, the housing affordability crisis is the result of both supply and demand factors. This bill purportedly addresses the demand components; however, the biggest factor that's affected demand in the past 18 months has been the government's immigration policy. It has been the largest contributor to increased demand—over half a million people in the last financial year alone. What about the other crucial part of housing policy, which is supply? This bill purportedly forms part of Labor's so-called signature policy on housing. Amongst other things, its aim is to deliver 1.2 million new homes over the next five years; however, that means Australia needs to build 240,000 new homes every year. In the most populous state of Australia, my home state of New South Wales, Labor Premier Chris Minns has at least been honest on this issue. He came out a couple of weeks ago and said that New South Wales cannot meet its housing target of 75,000 new homes each year over the next five years. These are targets that he and the other premiers agreed to late last year—targets that must be met for the federal government to deliver its 1.2 million homes. There are other supply factors that Minister for Housing Collins has remained silent about, and these factors also demonstrate that the 1.2 million homes cannot be built over the next five years. We have a record-high number of liquidations in the building and construction industry. We have an acute shortage of construction materials. We have a massive increase in the cost of construction materials. We have a severe shortage of tradespeople across our country. We have red tape delays in releasing land at both state and local government levels. None of these factors have been addressed by the Labor government, by the housing minister, in any of their housing policies. This again leads to the inevitable conclusion that the government, the housing minister, have no idea how to effectively address our housing affordability crisis, no idea of the key drivers of both demand and supply within the housing sector. This bill purportedly helps Australians to buy their first home. I have no doubt that it was well intentioned. However, from the number of consequences that flow from this bill, when you really pursue it in detail and give it some significant analysis, it is quite clear that it will not assist Australians into their first home. Australians desperate to buy their first home deserve far better than this legislation. They deserve far better than a government and a minister who are simply throwing out big numbers and making grandstanding promises without the underlying policy work and effective legislation to back them in. 13:23 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm very pleased to rise to support the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the related bill. I've been listening to the response from those opposite, who opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion investment in housing this country which was to provide support for veterans, people in remote and regional Aboriginal communities, and women and children fleeing domestic and family violence—much-needed assistance. Those opposite say they support making sure we address housing needs, but they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. When we introduced that legislation last year, they teamed up with the Greens in the Senate to delay the reporting date. They now have the chutzpah and gall to criticise us on the legislation being debated today, when they voted with the Greens over there to delay similar legislation. Honestly, don't come in here and give us this criticism. When it comes to legislation about government issues, how about a concept such as delegated legislation, which those opposite should know all about. Of course, in their home guarantee scheme, they didn't put all the criteria in the legislation. When you look at that legislation itself, the criteria are not there. That's done in delegated legislation. That's how government operates. Speaker after speaker has come into this place from the coalition and said that it's not located in the bill. Ministers have responsibility, and they do things like allowable and disallowable instruments. This delegated legislation—that's how those opposite governed. They were in power for nine years. They should have some concept of how government, legislation and delegated legislation operate in this country. What we're doing here with the Help to Buy scheme is very similar to the home guarantee scheme that those opposite did. And we had to fix that, by the way, when we came to power. We had to fix that scheme, because it wasn't operating. It wasn't broad enough to make sure that Australians in their various guises, and their families and extended families, could get access to that particular scheme. As a result of us making the changes to broaden the jurisdiction, the opportunities and the eligibility of that particular scheme, we saw a massive increase in the take-up of the scheme. The Albanese Labor government is taking action on housing, but those opposite are teaming up with the Greens. I just know those opposite are ideologically opposed to federal government doing anything in the area of social and public housing, so I sort of expected it from the Liberal Party and National Party, having grown up in Queensland. That's their philosophical view. They just oppose the federal government taking any steps whatsoever. But to the Greens opposite, can I just say I'd love the member for Ryan to do a mobile office on Moggill Road. She can argue that in Fig Tree Pocket or in areas like Pullenvale, Brookfield and et cetera. I grew up in a household like that, and I know that we represent people from working-class and middle-class communities in the cities, suburbs, regional towns and rural communities that want to get ahead in life. We want to make sure that people in these areas get what they deserve, need and want. That is, their kids should get educated in the best possible schools. They should get appropriate health care, they should have financial security and they should have a house in which to live, whether it's social and community housing or whether they have the aspiration to buy a home and get ahead. If they want to save money in the bank, buy some shares or invest in superannuation—or if they feel that they can get ahead and buy an investment property for their families—they should be allowed to do so in a liberal democracy. The Greens over there scorn the idea of people getting ahead. Working-class people deserve a better go, and a Labor government will give it to them. This legislation is the kind of legislation that the Greens should be supporting. Look at what they do. The Greens cannot find a social or public housing project in their electorates that they will not oppose. They'll come up here, and you'll see their housing spokesman in his actual office, talking about supporting public housing. But there's not a project in his electorate that he won't oppose for some reason or other. The Greens in my community say one thing and do another. It's the same here. I'd like the member for Ryan to actually talk about her own electorate, go into those suburbs I mentioned and argue the case that she did today. I guarantee you she'll get toppled at the next election. She's won one election; I've won a few. I reckon, if she runs in that area and puts that argument up yet again, the people in the working-class and middle-class suburbs in Brisbane that I referred to will vote her out. This legislation is really, really important. It's important for the kinds of people that I talked about, because it's about getting people the housing security that they need. I don't expect those opposite to vote for it, but I do expect the Greens to show a bit of consistency on this issue and make sure that they support people who deserve a helping hand, whether they live in Bulimba, Chapel Hill, Fortitude Valley or those three Greens seats over there in Brisbane. The Greens should be supporting this legislation, because I know that people in their suburbs do support this type of legislation. Those people want to get ahead, and they want security for their families. This particular legislation is really important, and they should be supporting it. I know it's really important for proper housing. I grew up in a working-class family in Ipswich. I know how important it was for my mum, who was a shop assistant, and my dad, who was a cleaner, to keep that house. When we nearly lost it on multiple occasions after the 1974 flood, I know they did their best to keep it for us and my two younger brothers. I know how important it was. I know how important it is for me and my family. I remember the great pride of my wife and I—she was working in a building society at the time, and I was an articled law clerk—when we bought a house for the first time. I know the pride and the satisfaction we had when we decided that we would engage ourselves and actually invest in an investment property because we wanted to get ahead. We were both from working-class families, and that's why this legislation is important. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue his speech, if he wishes to do so, when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Grocery Prices 42 13:30 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to continue the fight for everyday Australians in Dawson—those who get up each morning, send their children to school and work hard to feed their families. However, those Australians are struggling with a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. For over 18 months we've seen fuel prices increase, energy prices increase and interest rates rise, and I could go on for hours about how much it costs for groceries and fruit and vegetables at Coles and Woolworths, while these big guys are paying our farmers less. This is not good enough. It took 100 days for those opposite to appoint an independent reviewer of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, and it was only by being dragged kicking and screaming to the press gallery by the National Party that the Prime Minister finally instructed the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector. The families in Dawson, the farmers in Dawson and all of those struggling around Australia will have to wait 365-plus days for this incompetent Albanese Labor government to just do its job. We in this country deserve a more urgent response to the ACCC inquiry, and we want it. Leiba, Mr Courtney Anthony Reginald 42 13:31 Mr 276714 Bean DAVID SMITH (—) (): Courtney Leiba led a large and impressive life. He was born in Trinidad, where he became an accomplished musician, particularly mastering the steel drums. He was a member of the Esso Trinidad Tripoli Steel Band, playing at the world expo in Montreal in 1967. It was while performing there that the band caught the attention of the great Liberace. The band then toured with Liberace across the United States and even played on The Ed Sullivan Show. They were so well received that Courtney and his band were nominated for a Grammy Award. He brought his talents here, teaching and playing the steel drums around Canberra. Courtney was a committed political activist, first running for public office back in Trinidad many years ago. Here in Canberra, Courtney was a committed trade unionist and a long-term member of the Australian Labor Party. I was proud last year to witness him becoming a life member of our great party. His life was motivated and driven by his values. But the most important part of the story of his life came nearly 50 years ago, when, in Trinidad, he met a young volcanologist and seismologist from Tasmania. Courtney and Marion were married for 47 years and made a wonderful family. My thoughts go out to Marion, Nadine, Kenrick and all the Leiba grandkids. Vale, Courtney Leiba. Financial Literacy 42 13:33 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Last May, I moved a motion to make financial literacy a compulsory part of the national curriculum. This motion is more important today than it has ever been. Last week, the member for Kennedy was told that cash wasn't accepted by our staff right here in Parliament House. The truth is that, since the pandemic, cash use has halved from 32 per cent of in-person transactions to now just 16 per cent. When I owned a restaurant in 1994, 98 per cent of the transactions were in cash. Thirty years later, in that same restaurant, 99 per cent of the transactions are cashless. What a turnaround! While each of us in this room is fortunate enough to understand the implications of a cashless society, much of Australian youth is not, and the problem does not stop here. Many Australian graduates don't understand basic topics such as compound interest, negative gearing and taxation. It is our responsibility to ensure the next generation is set up to make informed personal decisions, especially in finance. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, we need to be empowering youth to take charge and better understand their finances. We simply can't afford to miss this opportunity. Let's make financial literacy a compulsory part of the national curriculum to educate and empower our next generation, especially as we move to a cashless society. Willis, Mrs Elizabeth (Betty) 43 13:34 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I rise today to commemorate the life of a remarkable woman, Betty Willis, who, sadly, passed away this week. Betty joined the Ryde District Historical Society in the late 1990s and her work with them continued for over two decades. She served as secretary and president. Her knowledge of late 20th century Ryde was unparalleled. If ever there was a question about the history of our district, Betty held the answer. Her memory was a treasure trove of information and she always freely shared it with kindness and warmth. In my role as councillor and mayor of the City of Ryde, I was lucky enough to have the opportunity of working alongside Betty countless times in committees, meetings, events and projects. Her involvement as a committee member on the City of Ryde's Centenary of Anzac and Commemoration of World War I Committee was invaluable and something that her friends and her family should be very proud of. Her knowledge and advice helped the council install new memorials and appropriately commemorate the centenary of World War I. Before Betty's involvement, Anzac Park in West Ryde did not have an Anzac memorial, and now it does. Anzac Park's annual 9 am family Anzac Day ceremony exists because of the contributions of Betty Willis. Betty is survived by her husband of over 60 years, Michael; her children, Libby and Matthew; and her five grandchildren. Betty, thank you for your dedication to our community. We are much better because of your service. Vale. Community Services: Youth 43 13:36 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Despite the rorting and controversy around the former government's Safer Communities Fund, there were still many worthy organisations that received funding. This is particularly the case where organisations were dedicated to supporting vulnerable young people to help them engage meaningfully with society, their schools and families. Two such organisations are active in Warringah and in the northern parts of Sydney. Youth Up Front has a history of over 40 years of helping young people contribute to society through a range of programs, with its successes including decreased substance abuse, reduced negative referrals at school and less truancy. StreetWork also undertakes critical work. Working with young people who have convictions, it has a mentoring program that has resulted in 82 per cent of participants not reoffending. These organisations are now at risk of closure as a result of the current government ending funding and providing no alternative grant opportunities, including no opportunities under the Proceeds of Crime Act. I have approached the Treasurer and the Attorney-General for support in this respect and I'm waiting—and hoping—that the government will see the sense in supporting such important organisations and ensuring they have ongoing funding. We can't let young people down. We must keep programs like Youth Up Front and StreetWork going. Ash Wednesday Bushfires: 41st Anniversary 43 13:37 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Tomorrow is a 41st anniversary of the Ash Wednesday bushfires, some of the deadliest bushfires in Australian history. It is a tragedy seared into the landscape and into the memories of Victorians and South Australians. Ash Wednesday came about because of some of the driest conditions on record at the time. Seventy-five people died that day. Some were found having tried to escape these fast-moving bushfires, others defending their homes. Of the 75 people who died, 41 were Victorian CFA firefighters and three were South Australian firefighters. I want to pay tribute to the five members of the Panton Hill CFA who lost their lives in the service of our community: Bill Marsden, 39, Peter Singleton, 41, Maurice Atkinson, 39, Stuart Duff, 24, and Neville Jeffrey, just 18. On the eve of this anniversary I want to encourage members of our community to join me tomorrow in visiting the Panton Hill memorial, where the names of the fallen have been fittingly immortalised. Especially this week, with fires and storms raging across our beautiful state of Victoria, I want to pay tribute to all of our emergency services workers who put their lives on the line for us. I've talked before in this place about their bravery and their heroism. These average Australians rise to become heroes who protect us and protect our communities. To those who have left their families to serve today and to those who responded on Ash Wednesday, the members of Albanese government say thank you. Middle East 44 13:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The situation in Israel and Gaza since 7 October is a tragedy on a truly shocking scale. Over 1,200 Israelis have been killed in the most appalling circumstances, including children, and 28,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including a staggering number of children. While the conflict is far from our shores and our impact is small, the least Australia can do is to act morally and in accordance with international law, and this must include respect for both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, because there's no doubt Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and will unleash even more horrors in Rafah. No wonder the ICJ has ruled it plausible that Israel is committing genocide, which surely places an obligation on Israel and the international community to prevent further abuses and to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. All of this makes the Australian government's decision to pause humanitarian funding to UNRWA a shameful subversion of the ICJ and, to be frank, makes Australia complicit in the collective punishment of Palestinians. Consequently, I again call on the government to restore this funding, properly assist evacuees to Australia and contribute towards a lasting peace through support for a permanent ceasefire and a two-state solution. Taxation 44 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson As every member in this chamber knows, the Albanese Labor government is helping to ease the cost of living for thousands of Australians living on the Central Coast. From 1 July this year, our Labor government will give every Australian taxpayer a tax cut. We want people living and working on the Central Coast to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This will see 66,000 taxpayers in Robertson receive a tax cut equivalent to $1,580 on average across the electorate. This is cost-of-living relief that will make a huge difference to thousands of individuals, couples and families across the region. If you are a nurse working at either Wyong or Gosford hospital and on a yearly salary of $75,000, you will receive a tax cut of over $1,500; if you're a teacher at Umina Beach Public School or Woodport Public School in Erina on a salary of $80,000, you will receive a tax cut of over $1,600; and, if you're a tradie in Kincumber or Kariong earning $110,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut of over $2,400 a year. Eighty-five per cent of taxpayers in Robertson will now be better off under the Labor tax cuts than they would have been under the Morrison legislated tax cuts. Our economic plan delivers tax cuts that benefit more Australians, and we are doing it in a way that is fair and responsible, because we have a vision—one of economic stability and progress where every Australian benefits—unlike that Liberal-National coalition of no, who will consistently let you down. Safer Communities Fund 44 13:42 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe There's a saying that youth are our future, but, sadly, not every young person has the brightest and best future. Those who go down the wrong path need support, and the previous coalition government put in place a program called the Safer Communities Fund for high-risk youth. It was to keep young people at school rather than leaving the education system; if they fell out, it was to get them training and support and to get them a job; and, if they were incarcerated, it was to get mentors and support so that, when they left, they would have a helping hand. To me, the most disgraceful decision by the Albanese Labor government is to cut the funding this year, which will see 133 organisations have their funding cut. These are the people on the ground, grassroots organisations helping young people in their time of need to make sure they go down the right path. It is a heartless decision, and I have no idea why you would do that. Their friends and families are in great distress. In the electorate of Blair, the Queensland African Communities Council are losing their funding. There is Fusion in the Swan electorate. Then I come to the Treasurer's own electorate, where YFS is located. There is the Migrant Information Centre in the Chisholm electorate. There is Fearless Towards Success in the Blair electorate. This is a shameful decision. I say to the Labor members: stand up to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and demand you get this funding back for your electorates. Workplace Relations 44 13:43 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins We want Australians to earn more and keep more. Making it a reality means fixing the decade of wage suppression under the Liberals, shoring up job security and closing loopholes in job contracts that have caused the leakage of hard-earned wages like the thief in the night. We have criminalised wage theft, stopped the chronic undercutting of workers through labour hire—think Qantas—and improved the bargaining system to help workers, including women, get a better deal by sitting at the table rather than going cap in hand to their bosses. We have banned pay secrecy because silencing women denies them economic progress. It is an oppressive measure incompatible with modern Australia. Casuals can now convert to permanent work if they desire, giving them the freedom to spread their wings, because permanent work opens the door to other opportunities such as taking out a business loan, undertaking extra study or taking out a home loan. Dialling down casualisation also dials down precarity. People with good wages have better buffers against those economic shocks like pandemics. Plugging these gaps builds upon our tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, enabling them to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Longman Electorate: Australia Day, International Relations 45 13:45 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman On Australia Day, I celebrated our great nation along with many of my Longman constituents. First up was a quick stop at the Caboolture Historical Village to, unfortunately, back a loser in the cane toad race hosted by the always hardworking Caboolture Rotary Club. Then I was off to the Morayfield Sport and Events Centre for the annual Australia Day citizenship ceremony, where I was privileged to be part of an event that saw 450 people make the very intelligent decision to become Australian citizens. Attending these events caused me to reflect on how great our country is: the diversity, the respect we have for all the different cultures that have contributed to making us who we are today, and most of all the freedoms we enjoy, which must be protected at all costs. Although we are part of a global community, we must protect Australia's sovereignty, no matter the price. Organisations such as the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the like may have opinions and suggestions on how countries interact with each other on the global stage, but that's all they should ever be—suggestions. We should never sign binding agreements or treaties with organisations such as these, because Australia must always be governed by Australians, for Australians, by Australians. Let us never take for granted the freedoms so many have fought for and the price paid for those freedoms. Western Australia: Taxation 45 13:46 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I'm a proud Western Australian and I'm a proud Australian. WA is small in numbers but rather mighty, and I'm proud of our economic contribution to the country. While I appreciate the interest from others in the GST debate, comments from people via the eastern-states lens make no sense. No state is worse off under the agreement, and the agreement is ironclad. The GST formula is in place, and it's here to stay. The Prime Minister said it on the record, it's a National Cabinet agreement, and we have it in writing. East coast economists are manufacturing a bizarre interstate drama that's simply not there. The Albanese government is known as a government that listens and acts, and that's exactly what we're doing on the cost of living. My community spoke, I heard, and my government is acting. In WA, 1.5 million taxpayers will get a tax cut thanks to Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts, and 1.2 million people in WA will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's plans. As a Western Australian MP in the federal parliament, I work hard every day to ensure that our interests are heard. I will stand up for our fair share of the GST and Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. I will stand up for WA. We're putting more money back where it belongs—in people's back pockets. Petition: Health Care 45 13:48 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I present a petition that has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. The principal petitioner, my constituent Barbara Shearer of Cleve, has collected 144 signatures to support a petition urging the government to reconsider its decision to introduce 60-day dispensing, which disproportionately impacts regional pharmacies. The petition read as follows— Save our local pharmacies and local health issues. The Government's policy to allow 60-day dispensing will place millions of Australians at risk. This policy is rushed and the negative impacts far outweigh the benefits. With over 20,000 jobs in jeopardy, over 600 pharmacies at risk of closure, and the inevitability of reduced opening hours, the fallout of 60-day dispensing will be nothing short of devastating. This is not scaremongering, it is a heartbreaking reality. The government claims 60-day dispensing will be more convenient, but what's convenient about a local community pharmacy forced to reduce its hours or worse, close down entirely? Another impact is if a medicine is dispensed for 60 days, and that medicine does not agree with the patient, the medicine is thrown out creating another issue. Convenience quickly turns into a crisis when you're left without accessible healthcare in our community. Our most vulnerable—the elderly, aged care residents, children and those in regional areas—who rely heavily on their local community pharmacies stand to suffer the most. They're the people at the frontline of this policy's devastating impacts. When it comes to 60-day dispensing, some people will benefit, but there will be a cost. NOTE: Please sign the petition and demand the government rethink and renegotiate its position. Stand up for the healthcare rights of all Australians. The government rushed through 60-day dispensing without consulting experts, and must reconsider its position before millions of Australians are impacted. We therefore ask the House to reverse its 60-day prescription dispensing. from 144 citizens (Petition No. PN0573) Petition received. Mr RAMSEY HWS To add to that, I would say that Barbara comes from a neighbouring community to mine. The Cleve, Cowell and Kimba communities have up until recently been run as one business; they are now run as two. They all service communities of less than 2,000 people in the entire council area. They are very concerned. Anything that erodes the financial viability of these community pharmacies is a great threat to the town. It is very difficult to keep doctor practices open and keep your hospital supplied if you don't have a local pharmacy. There are a number of issues at play here. They have also been able in the past to operate a remote dispensing system, which meant the pharmacists could use the local staff to dispense over a video link system. There were eight pharmacies in South Australia operating on this system, all in my electorate, and that was disallowed by the government back in July. I have written and spoken to the health minister. I'm hoping he's going to come around and revisit that as well. Young Australians 46 13:49 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck When arriving at the decision to find a better way to deliver meaningful cost-of-living relief, through the tax cuts passed here this morning, the Albanese Labor government listened to the voices of young people. The voices of youth are vital to ensuring their aspirations are realised. I'm currently hosting a young intern, Luis Parkinson, at my electorate office and I listen to him. Luis has reminded me of the great examples of success of youth advisory groups in representing young people at the local government level in Hasluck. In Mundaring, this representation guides the Youth Engagement Partnership Fund, which supports community groups with grants of up to $25,000 to implement youth driven initiatives aligned with the shire's youth services model. In Kalamunda, the stunning Stirk Park redevelopment, which I was pleased to open last year, was informed in its design by the voices of young people. Minister Aly, our Minister for Youth, is an extraordinary person who sees the power of engaging and listening, and so created the youth advisory committees that create a now permanent structure for voices to be heard. When young people in Hasluck and around Australia spoke up about their cost-of-living challenges, we listened and we responded with the cost-of-living tax cuts. A young person working in retail in a supermarket in Midland on a taxable income of, say, $45,000 will now receive a tax cut of around $804. A young childcare worker in Ellenbrook just starting out on an income of $55,000 will now receive a tax cut of $1,054. To Luis and to the youth of Hasluck, we listen to the views, we hear you, you're valued and we've got your back. Rijs, Mr Richard Cornelis 46 13:51 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland During the summer parliamentary recess, Gippsland lost a giant and I lost a dear friend. Richard Rijs was a business visionary, a pioneer, a great family man and also an incredible community leader in the region of East Gippsland. The Rijs family's story is quite remarkable in Australia today. A family owned cake shop in a little town called Lakes Entrance, it grew to become the biggest bakery in the world—quite an incredible achievement by the Rijs family. Patties Foods at Bairnsdale actually own the iconic Four'N Twenty brand and have built a workforce there. There are now more than 500 people based in that regional location. Richard and his brothers grew the company to be the biggest private employer east of Traralgon in my electorate. Richard was a huge supporter of community activities as well as being an incredible businessman. Richard's contribution to my community extended from support for our local surf lifesaving club to helping with the establishment of a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, and also nurturing and mentoring other businesses in the community. He was a very generous man and one who made an enormous contribution not only through his activities in the business community but, obviously, through his activities throughout the broader region of East Gippsland. My thoughts are certainly with Richard's wife, Marlene, and their children and grandchildren, and I extend my condolences to all who knew and loved a quite outstanding Australia. Vale, Richard Rijs. Taxation, Workplace Relations 46 13:52 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This week parliament has passed the second instalment of the closing loopholes legislation, which means a safer trucking industry, pathways to more secure employment conditions. With wages moving in the right direction, Australians will be earning more and they will be well on their way to keeping more of what they earn. Speaking of keeping more of what you earn, 91 per cent of taxpayers in Spence are better off under Labor's bigger, better and fairer tax cuts. That means 67,000 taxpayers in Spence will experience a tax cut, on average, of $1,217. Moreover, 74,000 taxpayers in Spence will receive a tax cut from 1 July this year. If you're a truck driver in Spence, you will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's tax cuts. If you're a nurse working in Spence, you will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plans. If you're working in retail, and hopefully a member of the SDA, you will be receiving a bigger, better and further tax cut under this Labor government. That is something that you can count on. More than 13 million Australians are counting on Labor to pass these tax cuts. They know that the Albanese Labor government wants them to keep more of what they earn, and they know deep down that the Leader of the Opposition is hell-bent on seeing them work longer and get paid less. Godfrey, Mr Lyndsay Thomas 47 13:53 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Today I rise to honour the life of a wonderful man, Lyndsay Godfrey, who passed away earlier this week. Lyndsay was born in 1947 in Western Australia. He joined the RAAF in 1963, spending two years in Malaysia before returning to Western Australia and joining their police force in 1972. In 1978, Lyndsay moved to Tasmania and joined our police force, serving for 30 years until his retirement in 2009. He spent a significant amount of time involved in police search and rescue, receiving commendations for his conduct. It was during this time, through search and rescue, that he met Di, an avid bushwalker. Di fondly remembers the two of them undertaking a lot of bushwalks in the early days, and converting Lyndsay from a hockey player to a golfer. Lyndsay was a dedicated member of the RSL sub-branch in Lilydale for 18 years, serving as president from 2017. He is remembered as being a great mentor for the younger generation and an advocate for mental health support for emergency services workers and military personnel. Lyndsay was married to Di for 28 years and was a beloved father to his two sons and the daughter he reconnected with 20 years ago. I knew Lyndsay to be an incredibly kind, generous and gentle person, and he is remembered as being so proud of his children's and grandchildren's achievements and for his wicked sense of humour and infectious smile. When reflecting on the love they had for each other, Di reflects, 'He accepted me for who I was and what I was.' Vale, Lyndsay. You will be missed. Taxation 47 13:55 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke We're gathered here today to celebrate the consummation in this House of tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer. That's 13.6 million people right across the country who will have more money in their pockets to deal with the cost of living. It's part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to have Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Unfortunately, despite the Leader of the Opposition vowing to support these changes, those opposite are entirely divorced from the needs of working people and fought these tax cuts until the very end. Under the Liberals, working Australians will always be the bridesmaid and never the bride. That's why those across the aisle spoke so fervently against allowing working people to keep more of what they earn. The cowardice of the Liberals was on full display as speaker after speaker expressed their disapproval of rewarding Australian workers with a tax cut—before they begrudgingly waved it through. The Liberals know that the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts will provide the cost-of-living relief that Australian households need, but they're more interested in playing politics than helping people. There are plenty on the other side of this House who may have waved this through today but sit there quietly planning to repeal these tax cuts, as has been flagged in public. I say to those who are sitting there dishonestly: speak now or forever hold your peace. Fruit Industry 47 13:56 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls It's a very exciting time in the Goulburn Valley. We are reaching the peak of the fruit harvest season. It kicks off in December when the apricots come off, then the peaches. Now we're into the pears—the packham pears and the williams pears, which go to SPC to go into cans and snack packs. Soon enough, the apples will be ripe, and the pink ladies, the galas and the granny smiths will be going into the stores for all Australians to enjoy. It's a great industry and it leads to a lot of employment in my region. We have backpackers, PALM workers, all sorts of people, coming in to help harvest the fruit. It's getting a lot harder to be a fruit grower at the moment, because of a lot of forces. Some of them come from the government. There is a lot of insecurity around irrigation water at the moment. IR laws make it much more difficult to run a small business, which most orchards are. And the changes to the PALM scheme are unworkable, as a lot of orchardists have told me. Also, supermarkets are not paying fruit growers enough. Their costs are going up, but their prices are going up, so it's very difficult. The fruit growers in my electorate are working really hard to try and put clean fruit on the tables of Australian people. How about the Labor government and the supermarkets support them and give them a hand? Labor Government 48 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I was cleaning up some of the rubbish in my electorate office over the break, and I found this document. It is the back of the Liberal how-to-vote in 2022. Do you remember this document? It was called 'A clear choice'. It had a nice picture of the member for Cook on it. To be honest, I've seen better pictures of the PM. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Parramatta will not use props during the 90-second statement. Dr CHARLTON I8M It compared the Liberal record in 2022 with the record of the Labor government from 2013. Dr CHARLTON I8M I thought—for the benefit of the shadow Treasurer, who is interjecting—it would be a good opportunity to update this document with the more recent numbers of the record of Labor government. The first point is unemployment. It compares Labor in 2013 with the Liberals in 2020, at 4.2 per cent. Well, I'm happy to update this one. Labor's unemployment rate is now lower, at 4.1 per cent. In fact, we've been lower, on average, at 3.6 per cent, than them, at 5.6 per cent. So the clear choice now, friends, is Labor. The second point on the Liberal how-to-vote compares youth unemployment. On the OG document, the Liberals were at 12.4 per cent during their time. Now Labor has delivered an average of 8.4 per cent. So the clear choice is Labor. On tax—it was a big mistake including that one!—now again the choice is Labor. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all members about the use of props during statements and question time. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 48 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Ukraine 48 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The date of 24 February is an anniversary we wish did not exist, but it is one that this chamber should recognise: 24 February 2022 was the date of Russia's illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After 24 February, it's clear that this illegal war will enter its third year. I do look forward to the day when this House can celebrate that Ukraine is at peace, the work of recovery and rebuilding is under way and the process of justice is running its course. Regrettably, today we instead acknowledge that Vladimir Putin's invasion is about to enter its third brutal year. Australia strongly supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity—a position which has been taken by every member of this House. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is of course a gross violation of international law. I often think back to the great privilege I had of visiting Ukraine early on in this war, in 2022. I was awed by the immense courage of the Ukrainian people—courage embodied by my host, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While I was there, I got some sense of what Ukraine is up against. There are things I saw in Ukraine that will stay with me for the rest of my life. Australia stands with Ukraine. It is an unwavering support that has so far included the provision of Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, heavy artillery, critical ammunition and contributions to the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund. It has also included the deployment of a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail aircraft to Germany, helping to protect a vital gateway of international humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine. I believe all Australians are also proud of the fact that members of the Australian Defence Force continue to train recruits from the defence forces of Ukraine in the United Kingdom. Today I'm pleased to announce the government will provide an additional $50 million grant to the International Fund for Ukraine. The IFU is a crucial funding mechanism that draws on contributions from international partners to procure military assistance for Ukrainians. This grant will bring Australia's total military assistance to Ukraine to approximately $780 million, and overall Australian government assistance to $960 million—support that's come from the former government as well as this government. We do this because Australia has always been willing to step up, we do it because we're steadfast in our commitment to global security and the international rule of law and we do it because the strategic reason is also so compelling. The outcome of this war matters for the people of Ukraine and for the international rules based order, and that matters to all of us, including to us here in Australia. Working in coordination with partners, Australia will continue to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have introduced a range of trade sanctions and tariffs that impose further costs and limit Russia's ability to fund its immoral war. We have imposed targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on over 1,100 individuals and entities. The Ukrainian people have known the cruelty of tyrants before. Those tyrants have gone, but Ukraine goes on. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. I know that this will be a bipartisan commitment, as it has been from the first day—tragically, almost two years ago. I thought it was important for us to make this statement here, given that parliament won't be sitting between now and the anniversary date. I acknowledge also the leadership of the member for Cook and the Morrison government for the support that occurred, including inviting President Zelenskyy to in a virtual sense to address this chamber. I table the media release from me, the defence minister and the foreign minister that we released earlier today. 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his fine words and join with him and associate the coalition with the sentiment. When Russian troops poured across Ukraine's border on 24 February 2022, many in the West finally awoke from a naive dream of the end of history. The cruel reality of a return of history hit home. Russia's invasion was illegal and it was immoral. It was unprovoked, it was unjust and it was unacceptable. It was a reminder that the days of despots are not gone, that the age of autocrats is not behind us. Putin, of course, expected a quick victory. He thought the people of Ukraine would swiftly surrender, and his appetite would only have grown with territorial eating. But Putin miscalculated. He underestimated. He was wrong. For the people of Ukraine did not acquiesce; they resisted. They did not lay down their arms; they took aim. They did not cower in fear; they fought back with courage. Amidst the heartache, the horror and the heroism of war, a man has continued to inspire his people and, in turn, imbibe their collective spirit. Volodymyr Zelenskyy—the Churchillian President Zelenskyy—reflected that Ukrainians made a choice on 24 February 2022 when he said 'not a white flag, but a blue and yellow flag'. And in the past two years, we've heard their stories, stories of Ukrainian defiance and stoicism, of bravery and resolve, of triumph and sacrifice. President Zelenskyy has said that evil cannot overcome any distance and any barriers, and he has importantly stated that the military assistance provided to Ukraine is not charity; rather, it is an investment in global security and democracy. Ukrainians are not just fighting for their freedom. They are on the front line of the battle for civilisation itself. Ukraine still needs our help. Australia and all those countries who believe in law and liberty, in sovereignty and security, and in peace and prosperity must continue to provide that help to Ukraine. It is not enough for countries to say that we stand with Ukraine through our words; we must show that we stand with Ukraine through our deeds. At Amberley airbase, as defence minister, I stood with the Ambassador of Ukraine, who himself is an incredibly brave man, and we gifted the first of the Bushmasters. I want to congratulate the ambassador for the work that he has done in his country's name here in Australia, the funds he has raised, the community networks he has created. I also want to acknowledge, as the Prime Minister graciously did before, the work of former Prime Minister Morrison. It was a particular focus of the Morrison government and I want to congratulate the government for the announcement today and for the extension of that support to the people of Ukraine. It is needed more now than ever. Prime Minister 49 14:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Can I extend to the Prime Minister and to Jodie, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, our congratulations and best wishes to you. We look forward to our version of the royal wedding sometime in the near future. Mr Albanese R36 Keep checking your mailbox. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I will be there throwing roses out in front of you, Prime Minister—whatever it takes to get an invite to the gala wedding. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 49 14:08 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Earlier today I spoke to Andrew, a member of the family whose mother, Svetlana, was brutally murdered by Tony Kellisar, one of the 149 criminals the minister released. He is disgusted that, despite the minister's undertakings, no-one has contacted the family. They fear the murderer turning up at their home. Why hasn't this family been contacted, as the minister and Deputy Prime Minister promised? 14:08 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question. I acknowledge, all members of this place acknowledge, that the decision of the High Court to release those individuals, including the one the Leader of the— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition will raise a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance, the minister continues this point about 149 being ordered by the High Court to be released. One person was ordered by the High court to be released. You released another 148, including— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General and the member for Moreton will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW I just raise the earlier rulings you've given with respect to abuses of points of order. The SPEAKER 53517 We've been pretty clear on this point during the week. Members will get the call to raise points of order on relevance or other standing orders. It is not a time to then add additional questions or additional statements to the House. As we saw yesterday, that is not going to be tolerated and action will be taken. The minister has been going for 16 seconds, so there will be no more points of order on relevance, because under the standing orders only one can be taken and that has now been taken. I give the call to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Mr GILES 243609 The Leader of the Opposition's question raises a very important issue, which I will turn to, but it is equally important that we conduct ourselves on the basis of facts and the law. As I have stated repeatedly, I think we have to acknowledge the effect of the High Court decision. Now, the government is committed to ensuring that all victims and their families are supported, noting, of course, the privacy restrictions and the fact that the vast majority of these victims are victims of breaches of state and territory laws, not Commonwealth laws. That is why— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom and the member for Bowman. Mr GILES 243609 This is a very serious issue, and that is why the Department of Home Affairs Victim Link service was set up. It coordinates contact from victims and their families, ensuring that they are connected to law enforcement and essential support services in their state or territory so that they can feel safe and supported. Victims and their families who engage with the Victim Link service will be connected with state and territory police, victims of crime support services and, of course, 1800RESPECT, the government's national online— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr GILES 243609 This is a very serious issue. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Member for Barker. The Leader of the Opposition is asked for courtesy. The Chief Government Whip will cease interjecting. Mr GILES 243609 This is a very important support service, which can also be accessed by calling the Home Affairs global service centre at any time on 131881. Community safety is our No. 1 priority, and we've put in place mechanisms to enable us to support victims. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition is going to cease interjecting. There's far too much noise. I want to hear from the member for Newcastle. Taxation 50 14:12 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Prime Minister. How will Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts help Middle Australia and what is standing in their way? 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Newcastle for her question and I look forward to being back in Newcastle tomorrow with the member at an event there in the great industrial city of Newcastle. She knows that the people of Newcastle and the Hunter will benefit from the fact that the tax cuts that passed this chamber earlier today will benefit every single taxpayer in Newcastle. How do we know that? It is because they'll benefit every single taxpayer right around the country, all 13.6 million of them. We want people to earn more, and we want people to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people to work longer for less. We are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Mr ALBANESE R36 I note the interjections from the shadow Treasurer. This is the bloke who, earlier today, had backbenchers moving amendments that were in his name while he sat there in the chamber, and those amendments were to remove any reference to the cost of living when it comes to tax policy and any reference in the title to the cost of living. Then, of course, he voted for his second reading amendment. The second reading amendment said this: the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts … Rollback is back! It was moved by the shadow Treasurer. They then went on to vote for our legislation. The big tip is: if our legislation doesn't get carried, then their Morrison tax cuts from way back in 2019 would of course stand. So if they're better, why did they vote for our plan? They voted for our plan and changed their position because our plan is the right plan. Our plan is the one that addresses living standards for low- and middle-income earners. There have been 70 questions in this place this week so far—72 now. Ms Ley 00AMN And 100 lies! The SPEAKER 53517 No. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that language is unparliamentary. I will ask her to quickly withdraw so we can continue on with question time. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 Seventy-two questions in this place, and not a single question from the opposition about cost of living. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 It says everything about where their priorities are. It's all about the politics, never about the people. It's never about assisting people. We on this side of the chamber will continue to stand up for the interests of people. Immigration Detention 51 14:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Despite the Prime Minister's suggestions earlier that this is not a worthy question, I ask the minister for immigration why the family I referred to earlier—the family who lost her mother and mother-in-law to a murderer, Tony Kellisar—hasn't been contacted? 14:16 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I say again that my thoughts are of course with all of the victims, all of those affected by the orders. In terms of that family, I've spoken a little bit about the VictimLink approach, but if the Leader of the Opposition has the relevant contact details, I would be very pleased to speak with any affected family members immediately after question time. Employment 51 14:17 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Treasurer. What does the passage of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts mean for working Australians and our economy? What obstacles were overcome? 14:18 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Corangamite not just for her question, but for voting this morning to ensure that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut on 1 July. And more than that, for ensuring that 85 per cent of taxpayers in her own community get a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living. I'm very pleased and proud to say that today Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts passed this House. This means that Australian workers are now one step closer to a bigger tax cut for more people to help with the cost of living. It means all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers can now look forward to a tax cut on 1 July. It means 11½ million of them can look forward to a bigger tax cut on 1 July. We did this for the truckies and for the teachers. We did it for the steelworkers and the health workers. We did it for the nurses and the plumbers. We did it to support every Australian who works hard to provide for their loved ones and to get ahead. And we did it because we know people are under pressure from higher interest rates, persistent inflation and global economic uncertainty. We saw the consequences of those three things in the job numbers that came out this morning. We saw unemployment tick up to 4.1 per cent. Nobody likes to see that, but we need some perspective here. As the member for Parramatta said in his contribution a moment ago, average unemployment under this government is 3.6 per cent. Average unemployment under those opposite was 5.6 per cent. Two percentage points different. We've had 650,000 jobs created under this Prime Minister—the fastest job growth compared to any major advanced economy in that period. What we're seeing in the economy is unemployment, which has ticked up today but which is still extraordinarily low by historical standards. What we saw today in the unemployment data makes our strategy even more important. We will ease the pressure on people, repair the budget and invest in the future of the economy. The tax cuts are central to this strategy. They are relief, they are reform, and they are responsible. They're better for Middle Australia and better for the economy. They lay bare the main difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. We want more people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people working longer for less. After all of their whimpering and whingeing, that's what this boils down to. First, they rolled over, and now they want to roll back. The difference is that we genuinely care about the cost-of-living pressures that people confront. We're doing something about it, even if they couldn't give a stuff. The SPEAKER 53517 Before we move any further and the member for Warringah gets the call—I know it's Thursday, but there's far too much noise. In that answer, the member for Casey interjected eight times continuously. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). He's been continually interjecting for the last two weeks. It is simply not acceptable for people not to show some restraint and to just continually interject during a question and an answer. If this continues, more people will leave the chamber. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Imbert, His Excellency Pierre-Andre, Ximenes, His Excellency Expedito, Belo, Mr Jose 52 14:21 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Warringah, I'd also like to welcome some guests to the parliament. I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the new ambassador of France to Australia, His Excellency Pierre-Andre Imbert. I'm also pleased to inform the House that there is a group visiting from Timor-Leste that includes the Secretary of State for Social Communication, His Excellency Expedito Ximenes, and the president of Radio and Television of Timor-Leste, Mr Jose Belo, as guests of the assistant foreign minister. Welcome to you both. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Parliamentary Conduct 52 14:22 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Numerous workplaces in Australia have random alcohol and drug testing to help ensure a safe and respectful working environment. Will you commit to legislating for random alcohol and drug testing of MPs, senators and staff in the federal parliament due to the apparent ongoing issues with too much alcohol consumption? 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question, and I recognise that it comes from a place of genuine concern. There have been, of course, issues from time to time in the parliament. One of the things about our jobs is that we're accountable. Every three years at least, we go to the Australian people, and we're accountable for what we say, what we do and how we act. That is a democratic process that is appropriate. I would have thought that we were all responsible adults, and we should act appropriately out of respect for the people who vote to put us here. It is a great privilege to be a member of parliament, and many people try. Not as many succeed. I've had the privilege of being elected to this parliament 10 times, and every day I feel grateful and humbled to represent the community where I've lived my whole life, in the Inner West of Sydney, and to be able to occupy the extraordinary position of being Australia's 31st Prime Minister. I don't want to see us in a position where we say that we are unable to act like adults and where we have that suggestion made. So I understand why the member for Warringah makes it, but it's not something that I have supported. I think that people need to act responsibly at all times and to bear in mind the great privilege and honour that we have of being in various positions in this chamber, whether they be on the front bench of either side, whether they be backbench members or whether they be crossbench members, as well. I thank the member for Warringah for her question. Defence 53 14:24 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering key defence outcomes and cleaning up the mess of the last decade? 14:25 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his service. Shortly the government will be releasing its response to the independent review of our surface fleet. This will be a blueprint for building the most capable Australian Navy in almost a century. But it's important to understand where we're starting from. We inherited from those opposite the oldest surface fleet since the end of the Second World War. We will fix that, but it will require money and resources. We've heard a lot of noise from those opposite when it comes to defence spending. But they have a record which is plain to see. If we're to take them at face value, one point they're making is that where they left the defence spend was inadequate. In last year's budget— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. Mr MARLES HWQ we increased defence spending by $30 billion of real money over the course of the decade— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is warned. Mr MARLES HWQ taking the projected defence spend from 2.1 per cent to 2.3 per cent of GDP. When the shadow minister for defence and the shadow Treasurer have been repeatedly asked whether they will match our increases, they have consistently said that they can't commit. The policy of those opposite is stuck in 2022. What's worse is that the Defence Strategic Review revealed that in the last five years of their government they effectively cut $20 billion from defence— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert was on a warning. He's tried his luck too many times this week. He'll leave the chamber under 94(a). If you're on a warning—here's the tip—I'll be looking at you to see if you continue to interject. The minister will be heard in silence. The member for Herbert then left the chamber. Mr MARLES HWQ secretly stripping billions of dollars out of defence through a strategic reserve adjustment. When you take it all back, they cut defence spending; we're increasing it. The empty hypocrisy of what they say has also been revealed with the Red Sea. For the past few months they have been saying that, if ever asked, they would send a ship to the Red Sea. But it turns out that when they were asked, when the Leader of the Opposition was in charge, they said no—and his excuse is that he didn't know a request had been made. He's asking the Australian people not to blame him; he was just asleep at the wheel. Well, at least over the past two weeks on the ABC the shadow minister for defence has revealed himself as a man of the future. I mean, here we were thinking we needed to be investing in AI and quantum, and all the while the shadow minister for defence had been preparing to overwhelm our adversaries with overhead projectors and a slide! They were hands-down the worst defence government in our nation's history. The Albanese government is willing to stand up and lead and make difficult decisions to keep Australians safe. Immigration Detention 53 14:28 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Last year the minister and the then Acting Prime Minister gave an undertaking to contact the victims of the 149 criminals the Albanese government released onto our streets. Can the minister confirm how many victims or families of victims are yet to be contacted? If he cannot, will the minister do the right thing: apologise and resign? 14:29 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I've outlined, of course, the mechanism we've put in place to enable those affected to make contact. I say again that my concern, and the concern of every member in this place, is for those who are affected. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance: how is it conceivable that the minister does not have the answer available to him? How many people have not been contacted? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr DYW Why so angry, Peter? Mr Sukkar 242515 We're angry for the families. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is just going to cease interjecting so I can deal with the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, please. The Leader of the Opposition needs to state the point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a tight question. He can answer the question as long as he's being directly relevant. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of page 567 of Practice, regarding content of answers and being directly relevant. Twenty seconds into the answer, the minister has begun to explain his answer. I'm going to remind the minister that, when there are tight questions, he'll need to make his answer directly relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lindsay can leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I can't be clearer. When I'm dealing with points of order and directing ministers, that is not the free-for-all time. The minister will be heard in silence. Mr GILES 243609 I have contacted those victims who have contacted me. As I said with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I would be very pleased to speak with the family that he referred to if I had their contact details, and I have asked my office to seek those details. Department of Home Affairs 54 14:31 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What have we learnt this week from the release of the Richardson review? 14:31 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I want to thank my friend the member for Wills for this really important question. I have spoken to the parliament this week about the release of the Richardson review. This is a review that was called when really significant integrity questions were raised about the history of offshore processing contracts in the Department of Home Affairs. This landmark review shows for all to see that, under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, his department paid hundreds of millions of dollars to companies and individuals who are suspected of arms dealing, drug smuggling, undermining international sanctions on Iran, money laundering, bribery and human trafficking. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 I'm sure there are people in the gallery sitting there thinking, 'How on earth did something like this happen in Australia?' The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 'How on earth, in our great country, could the federal government have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in the direction of companies that would do things like this?' We learned a bit more about how this happened in estimates this week. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Ms O'NEIL 140590 We learned that the home affairs department actually raised their very real questions with the minister. They sent up to the minister a report which raised concerns about a specific contract, worth half a billion dollars, that was going to manage an offshore processing centre, and it was being awarded to a company that had never been assessed for its ability to deliver that service. In fact, we learned later that this is a company that was headquartered in a beach shack on Kangaroo Island. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom's going to be silent for the remainder of this answer. Ms O'NEIL 140590 They got half a billion dollars. These questions were raised with the minister. What would any minister worth their salt do when they received that? They'd ask more questions. But that's not what the Leader of the Opposition did. Instead, he sent back a one-word response: 'Noted'—no follow-up, no questions, no investigation and no integrity. What it looks very much like from the outcomes of the Richardson review is that, despite all of the questions that have been raised over a period of a decade about the integrity of these contracts and the links to criminal wrongdoing, our supposed tough cop on the beat didn't ask a single thing, ask a single question or launch a single investigation. So, when it finally came— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Member for Groom, I'm sure you have done this deliberately now, so you can be removed under 94(a). This is not a contest. When you get warned and told not to interject, don't interject. The member for Groom then left the chamber. Ms O'NEIL 140590 We've heard an awful lot this week from the Leader of the Opposition about his so-called concerns about crime. But, when it came time for the tough cop on the beat to do something to fight wrongdoing, did he do anything about it? Absolutely not. He looked the other way. That's how you end up with a situation where the Australian government collected taxpayers' money from everyone who is up in the public gallery and sent it in the direction of companies that were undertaking criminal activities. What I would say to the parliament is that the Richardson review shows that, if the Leader of the Opposition were half as tough on crime as he pretends to be, we wouldn't have needed a Richardson review, because he would have commissioned it years ago. National Security 55 14:35 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Since the minister released 149 hardcore criminals into the community there have been 27 reports of further crimes committed by them, according to AFP evidence at Senate estimates. Minister, isn't this clear proof that the minister's so-called continuous monitoring is completely ineffective at keeping Australians safe? When will the government take effective action to keep Australians safe, including obtaining community detention orders? 14:35 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the honourable member for his question, although I think I've already answered that question on previous occasions. I say again that it was a decision of the High Court that required the release of those individuals. And I say again that, in response to that, we put in place four layers of protection to keep the community safe, including, through Operation AEGIS, the capacity for state, territory and Commonwealth agencies to work together. We also, as I've discussed on many occasions, as one of those levels of protection, put in place a legal regime to enable preventative detention applications. Those applications, I can assure the House, are underway, noting the concerns that have been expressed, including by the member for Wannon, about the high threshold that is required to succeed in such an application. Taxation, Medicare 55 14:36 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help healthcare workers keep more of what they earn? How is the government delivering on its commitments to strengthen Medicare, and why is that needed after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:37 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Bruce. There are 78,000 taxpayers in the electorate of Bruce, and on 1 July Labor will deliver every single one of those taxpayers a tax cut to help with the cost of living. I know the member for Bruce is also keenly interested to hear that every single one of the 73,000 taxpayers in the nearby electorate of Dunkley will also receive a tax cut. A second-year registered nurse at Frankston Hospital will receive a tax cut of more than $1,550, double what she would have received under those opposite. A hospital orderly will receive a tax cut of $862, compared to just $58 under the plan that those opposite had—or just $1 a week. These bigger, better tax cuts from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister build on all of the other measures that we've been putting in place to make it cheaper and easier to see a doctor in Dunkley—like the Frankston urgent care clinic, which has already seen 11,000 patients fully bulk-billed; or the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive delivered in last year's budget. I'm asked about the last decade. I noticed the Leader of the Opposition out in the last couple of weeks boasting about his record of bulk-billing, that it was over 80 per cent when he was the Minister for Health. Of course, he didn't mention that he then tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He didn't mention that he then froze the Medicare rebate, ripping billions of dollars out of general practice. That's only one recent example of the Leader of the Opposition not being quite straight about the last decade in health policy. There's also an ad circulating called 'Peter Dutton delivers as health minister'. It only has two engagements so far: one like and one laughing-face emoji—I'm not sure whether it's laughing at you or with you, but it's fair to say it hasn't exactly gone viral so far. Another remarkable thing about this ad is that Leader of the Opposition has a very big smile on his face, which made me think immediately that it's of those deepfake AI thingamajigs—I'm not sure! But the most remarkable thing about this is that the Leader of the Opposition appears to be taking credit for there being 100 headspace services in place when he was the health minister, which sounds pretty impressive—if you ignore the fact that 90 of them had been funded and rolled out years before, by the Gillard government! The truth is: the only things this man delivered as health minister were cuts and chaos. And every Australian remembers it. Immigration Detention 56 14:40 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The minister has released 149 hardcore criminals from immigration detention. The minister on Tuesday stated that 'all individuals in the cohort are being continuously monitored'. Eighteen criminals have been able to commit crimes serious enough to be arrested and charged by state and territory police, while apparently being 'continuously monitored'. Minister, what were those crimes? 14:40 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the honourable member for their question, and I say once more, for his benefit and the benefit of all members of the House: it was the decision of the High Court that required the release—a decision that would have applied to any government, as he well knows. I say also this: because of the strict visa conditions—including reporting requirements, and electronic monitoring for many—the location of every individual in this cohort is known. I say to those opposite: I want to do everything I can to support our agencies to do their job, to keep communities safe, within the framework—the four layers of protection—we have put in place. I say, as I said earlier, what the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police said earlier this week in estimates: 'I don't think there is any difficulty in knowing where they are. They're monitored through the mechanism of those clauses which are placed upon them, which are quite restrictive.' On this side of the House, we trust our law enforcement, and we thank them for keeping Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has concluded his answer. I give the call to the member for Reid. Taxation 56 14:41 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How will Australian scientists and researchers benefit from Labor's tax cuts? And are there any risks to Labor's plan? 14:42 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Reid for that question. Her electorate is home to many scientists and researchers who are employed in terrific businesses within the electorate. The member for Reid knows, like many of us do, that Australian science and research will be the key to unlocking a lot of opportunity for Australian industry—a future made in Australia, where we see advances in manufacturing, clean energy and agriculture through to critical technologies. We want Australian scientists and researchers to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and Labor's tax cuts, that passed the House today, will help terrifically. A scientific assistant working in South Brisbane earning $63,400 will get a $1,264 tax cut. An earth science lab technician working in Perth earning $70,000 gets a $1,429 tax cut. Also, a lab technician working on soil testing in Adelaide earning $60,000 will get a $1,179 tax cut. The contrast couldn't be clearer. This side wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That side wants them to work longer for less. It is a clear contrast. Now, I'm asked about risk. The biggest risk to our plans is the confusion and chaos of the Liberal and National parties, who wanted to talk about literally anything else other than the cost of living. When it came to forming a position regarding our tax cuts, they were everywhere and nowhere at once. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition committed to absolutely rolling back our tax cuts, before she was rolled back absolutely! And the member for Hume—boy, you've had a good week! The member for Hume, our good friend, was breathlessly attacking us on Sky News, including a bizarre reference to the PM studying Marxist economics. The star of Lenin, friends, goes to this man, who has socialised the means of overreaction! Fantastic! Meanwhile, on Nemesis, Tony Abbott blames Malcolm Turnbull; Malcolm Turnbull blames Scott Morrison—oh! The serial censor! The 53517 The minister will pause. He will also direct his remarks through the chair, under standing order 65(a), rather than using the term 'you'. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance—I think you can probably guess what I'm going to say. There is no basis in the terms of the question for the territory that the minister is now in. The SPEAKER 53517 I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business. The minister was asked about risk; that did not allow him to go into the topics that he was going into. I ask the minister to return to the question and to refer to the risks as part of the question, and not make a general commentary. Mr HUSIC 91219 I understand. I note the presence of the member for Cook, who I understood had resigned. He's 'Schrodinger's Scott': both the member for Cook and not the member for Cook at the same time. Well done, right there! What the mockumentary pointed out was the complete and utter absence of accountability: no responsibility, absolutely no ownership— The SPEAKER 53517 I appreciate that the member for Petrie is trying to assist the House. The minister has concluded, so he can conclude back to his seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I call the House to order. Members are entitled to raise points of order; the member Petrie did so. We will move to the next question. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 57 14:47 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, a great many Australians would have been thrilled by the House of Representatives, including you and your government, voting yesterday in favour of my motion stressing the importance of bringing the Julian Assange matter to a close so he can come home to his family. Prime Minister, what is the significance of this? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Clark for his question and for his genuine engagement over a considerable period of time on this issue, which is of concern to so many Australians. We supported the motion yesterday because it is the right thing to do. I have spoken and conducted myself in the same way as Prime Minister as I did as Leader of the Opposition in advocating on behalf of the view that I believe Australians hold. Across the chamber—including some members of the National Party and Liberal Party over a period of time, crossbenchers, the minor parties and, of course, members of the Australian Labor Party—people would have a range of views about the merits of Mr Julian Assange's actions. They have come to the common view—a view that has also been put by the Leader of the Opposition—that enough is enough and that it is time for this to be brought to a close. From the very first occasions where I had an opportunity as Prime Minister, I have raised this issue at the highest levels with the United States and with the United Kingdom—with people at the highest levels and throughout the structures. It has been raised by our diplomats as well, including the ambassador to the United States and the high commissioner to the United Kingdom, who has visited Mr Assange in prison as well, to check on his welfare. People will have a range of views about Mr Assange's conduct. You and I mightn't agree, frankly, on the nature of that conduct. But, regardless of where people stand, this thing cannot go on and on and on indefinitely. The Australian government, in my view, always has a responsibility to make representations to governments, as we have for Cheng Lei, for example, in China, and as we have with the range of people who find themselves in difficulty—with successes, it must be said, also in Vietnam and Myanmar in recent times. It is important that we have a calibrated and deliberate approach to this engagement. We are continuing to do that, including the discussions that have taken place over a considerable period of time with Mr Assange's lawyers. But the resolution is important. I congratulate the member on bringing that resolution before this parliament, because it's important to send that message. In the coming days, there'll be a critical period as well. I hope this can be resolved. I hope it can be resolved amicably. It's not up to Australia to interfere in the legal processes of other countries, but it is appropriate for us to put our very strong view that those countries need to take into account the need for this to be concluded. Aged Care 57 14:50 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the horrific findings of the aged care royal commission report and rebuilding the workforce to ensure some of our most vulnerable Australians are receiving the high-quality care they deserve after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:51 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and acknowledge his continued and ongoing advocacy both for the aged-care workers that he represents and for the residents that they care for. In two weeks, it will be the third anniversary of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety—a 2021 documentation of disaster. It's a blunt, black-and-white description of failure. It's a report that described the aged-care system under the coalition's lead as a shocking tale of neglect and one which was unkind and uncaring. Among the many dark themes that were to emerge was that workers were systematically underpaid and undervalued, that low wages and poor employment conditions meant that the sector struggled to attract and retain well-skilled people and that, in turn, led to unacceptable staffing levels that created substandard care. On day one of cleaning up their mess and of restoring dignity, following nine years of neglect, the Albanese government got to work to make sure that aged-care staff were valued again, and we have delivered. We have delivered an $11.3 billion increase to minimum award rates for more than 250,000 workers across our country. It's the biggest pay rise for this sector ever. We have delivered a funding package that is 10 times more than the previous government's investment in their workforce pillar. Now we are providing even more cost-of-living relief and even more value. From 1 July, Labor's tax cuts will also deliver these registered nurses in aged care a $1,679 tax cut—almost double what they would have received under the coalition. Ninety-seven per cent of aged-care workers—from personal care workers to lifestyle to kitchen hands to nurses—will be better off under Labor's tax cuts. This cost-of-living relief will help close the gender pay gap, as the aged-care workforce is more than 85 per cent female. Our reforms have also seen a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, a reduction in the number of physical restraints and significant unplanned weight loss, as well as improvements in star ratings data with fewer one- and two-star rated facilities and more four- and five-star rated facilities. Change happens when the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of making a change. Yet those opposite refuse to acknowledge the pain that they were causing workers, while our government recognised the need to change and recognised that we can do more to help. That's the key difference between them and us. They provided platitudes; we provided pay rises. Australian taxpayers do not want more of the coalition's chaos and cost-of-living confusion; they want stronger, fairer wages for their hard work. (Time expired) Aged Care 58 14:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Does the minister rule out any changes to the treatment of the family home in aged care assessments? 14:54 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the deputy leader for her question and for some welcome and newfound interest in the future of aged care and in constructive reform in a sector that, as I just elaborated on for two minutes and 59 seconds, was neglected for nine long years under her watch—including, I would note, the deputy leader's time as Minister for Health herself. She failed to do anything substantive about aged-care reform. I would also note that the thrust of the question she asked was on a reform that they, the coalition, brought in themselves in 2014 and left completely untended and neglected until the time when they were turfed out of government for their neglect of aged care. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister has resumed her seat. That's not called for, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Has the minister concluded her answer? No. So I will take the point of order. The deputy leader will state the point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN On relevance: it was a very tight question relating to whether the minister rules out any changes to the treatment of the family home in aged-care assessments. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is on topic. She's talking about the policy. The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, immediately before you gave the call, the comment that was made by the deputy leader was unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The SPEAKER 53517 I only heard the end part of it, but I agree. Those sorts of comments are not necessary when the minister had paused and taken my direction. To assist the House and to get to the answer, I'll just ask her to withdraw that statement quickly. Ms Ley 00AMN I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will now return to the question and be directly relevant. Ms WELLS 264121 I appreciate that those opposite would love to run an unfounded scare campaign on something like the family home. I appreciate it must be very tempting when they have nothing else to talk about. But what Labor believes is that we actually need to do something about aged care. That is an equitable, sustainable and trusted sector that puts people, including older people, back at the centre of aged care. That's what we need to do. So we are not going to rush the release of the report that the deputy leader refers to, nor are we going to pre-empt any decisions of the report until we have taken the time to do this properly. This is something that they neglected for nine long years on their watch. In fact, the deputy leader, when she was Minister for Health, cut funding from residential aged care and starved them of the funds that they needed to care for older Australians. After a decade of neglecting the sector for older Australians, after nearly a decade of neglecting this important reform, if they are now showing an interest in care, I welcome it. If they want to work together on this, I welcome it. But, if they want to go scaremongering, they're going to need to go elsewhere, because we are focused on options to make aged-care funding simple, fair and sustainable. This was the taskforce's job, and we are doing this in an open way and in consultation with the sector, with older people, with the public and with experts—something they never had the guts to do themselves, I might add. This is about government investing in quality care that older people want, need and deserve, and we will continue to do just that. Workplace Relations 59 14:58 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn, and are there any threats to this? 14:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Chisholm for the question. The member for Chisholm is somebody who is committed, as are all on this side, to making sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. In fact, the members on this side started the week voting for people to earn more, on the legislation we dealt with on Monday. Those opposite voted no and were really angry about it. Today we had legislation for people to keep more of what they earn. Those on this side were proud to vote for it. Those opposite voted yes but were still really angry about it. Do you expect people to believe, when you're that angry about a reform, that you're not serious about winding it back? Do you expect when you move an amendment that says that should be wound back, which is what they all voted for today, that the public's not going to notice? Mr Taylor 231027 Liar! Mr BURKE DYW That should be withdrawn. The SPEAKER 53517 Leader of the House, I'm going to deal with this issue. That term is getting more and more of a run. The practice of this House, since 1906, has been that that term is unparliamentary. Speaker Wallace on three occasions, Speaker Smith on 11 occasions and Speaker Bishop on 23 occasions all followed exactly the same practice that I have, so, every time it's mentioned, it will be withdrawn immediately. Here's another tip for today: make sure that term is not being used in this House. The member for Hume will come to the dispatch box and withdraw that comment. Mr Taylor 231027 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House will continue with his answer and be heard in silence. Mr BURKE DYW We now have the change from what was predicted by those opposite, with their spokesperson Senator Cash, when they predicted that our reforms would close down Australia. What have we seen? When you no longer have low wages as a deliberate design feature of how you manage the economy, what happens? Wages, which under them were tracking, on average, at 2.1 per cent, are now at four per cent—two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. We're making sure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. This government has delivered pay rises through two consecutive submissions to the annual wage review; minimum standards for the gig economy, now law; minimum standards for road transport, now law; job security for casuals, now law; the labour hire loophole closed, now law; wage theft as a crime, now law; banning pay secrecy clauses, now law; and sunsetting those zombie agreements I referred to yesterday, now law. But, in response, those opposite have made a promise—promised from the very person who might not be able to get a question but occasionally stands up to withdraw his interjections, the shadow Treasurer. No-one asked him to use this word, but on the weekend he said their package of repeals would be 'targeted'. We all know exactly what the word 'targeted' meant—targeted against your wages, targeted against your job security, targeted against your safety at work, targeted against measures to close the gender pay gap. The Leader of the Opposition confirmed on the weekend that they're targeting your time off. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition confirmed right from the start that they'll be targeting your tax cuts. And the shadow Treasurer has confirmed that they're targeting your pay and security—a party over there that wants people to work longer, for less. Housing 59 15:02 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Housing. Minister, regarding housing, how are negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts good? Mr Perrett HVP Here it comes! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a). The time to interject is not when a minister is approaching the dispatch box. The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, this is the second one that we've had today where a question is going to not the portfolio minister. The question doesn't actually go broadly to housing policy. It's very specifically on tax policy. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. People are entitled to make points of order. Just as the opposition have, the crossbench are entitled to make points of order. I'll hear from the Leader of the Australian Greens. Mr Bandt M3C Speaker, on the point of order, I have two points. Firstly, the opening words of the question were 'regarding housing'. Secondly, if it's the government's contention that negative gearing and capital gains tax discount do not have an impact on housing, then that is an extraordinary admission. That is an extraordinary statement. The SPEAKER 53517 I don't want to get into a situation where I'm ruling questions out because they're not directed to the relevant minister. But simply a broad statement about something that is not directly related to the minister's portfolio—it may touch on the work that happens in the portfolio, but, on the policy itself, under the standing orders that sort of question should go to the relevant minister responsible for that policy. The minister can answer the question if she wishes to. If she wishes to direct it, under the standing orders and practices, she may, to the minister who is relevant, which is not this minister. But she can take the first part of the question, as it was relating to housing. 15:04 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do appreciate the question from the member for Brisbane. I would say to the member that all of the experts say, when it comes to housing, the real issue we have is about supply. Every time I ask the experts, they say, 'The answer is supply, supply, supply.' That's what we're getting on with doing. We have invested over $25 billion over the next decade of new money into housing and homelessness support because we understand that the answer is about supply. Indeed, the Housing Australia Future Fund is now up and established despite delays from those opposite taking their time to support the Housing Australia Future Fund. It will supply around 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years of the fund and comes on top of the National Housing Accord, which is a further 10,000 affordable homes from the federal government, to be matched by the states with another 10,000. That's on top of the $2 billion in the Social Housing Accelerator, which will provide 4,000 new social homes right across the country. Indeed, our investments are around 50,000 additional homes that will be funded from the federal government as well as of our ambitious commitment to 1.2 million homes for which we are providing $3.5 billion for the states and territories to incentivise them to make the changes they need when it comes to planning and zoning reform to get more homes on the ground more quickly. We know that we have an issue with housing supply. The answer here is about adding to supply, and that is what we are getting on and doing. Tertiary Education 60 15:06 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting students and workers in the higher education system and setting the system up for the future? 15:06 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the marvellous member for Macarthur, the great Dr Freelander, for his question. Our universities are one of the great engines of our economy. Every year they produce thousands of engineers, doctors like Dr Freelander, nurses, teachers, paramedics and lots more. Every one of them will get the tax cuts that were passed by this House today. A nurse on 75 grand will get a tax cut of more than 1,500 bucks. A paramedic on 80 grand will get a tax cut of more than 1,600 bucks. An engineer on 90 grand will get a tax cut of more than 1,900 bucks. The people who make all of this possible, the lecturers and the tutors and, before them, the school teachers and the early educators, will get a tax cut too. Unlike those opposite, who think that aspiration starts at 190 grand, we think it starts in the classroom. We want everyone to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We want all Aussie taxpayers to get Albo's tax cuts. That is what they'll get after the tax cuts passing through the House today. The fact is that we need more teachers, more nurses and more engineers. We need more TAFE and uni graduates. In the years ahead, nine out of 10 new jobs will require you to finish school and then go on to TAFE or uni. In the next few weeks, I will release the Universities Accord. It's a blueprint to set up our higher education system for the next decade and beyond. It looks at how we can build the skills that we are going to need, how we can give more people from poor families, from the outer suburbs and from our regions a fair crack at going to university and how we can help students with the cost of living. It also looks at how we can keep our students safe. Universities are places where people study and work, but they are also places where people live. The horrible truth is that one in 20 students report being sexually assaulted since they started university. One in six have been sexually harassed. Next week, education ministers will meet to consider the establishment of an independent national student ombudsman with the powers to investigate complaints made by students and resolve disputes with universities. I want to thank the people who are fighting for this and who have fought for this for years and years, people like Sharna Bremner from End Rape on Campus, Camille Schloeffel and Audrey Mims from the STOP Campaign, Renee Carr from Fair Agenda and many more. The truth is that they are the change-makers, and change is coming. Immigration Detention 61 15:09 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. On 5 June, the Attorney-General received advice from the Australian Government Solicitor of the prospect that the government would lose the NZYQ case in the High Court. Can the minister inform the House as to when this advice was communicated to him? 15:10 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for his question. What I can say to the shadow minister and all members of this House is that I took every step to keep the community safe throughout this, including fighting this case all the way to the High Court. Taxation 61 15:11 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Prime Minister. How is Albanese Labor government helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn? What have been impediments to this, and why is it important that members promote responsible policy? 15:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The legislation that passed in this House today is about people earning more, but also about them keeping more of what they earn. That is important. It's a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer. Those opposite, of course, said a range of things about it before they voted for it. They said that it was an egregious error, trickery and Marxist economics, and it would crush confidence, undermine the strength of the economy and obliterate opportunity. They said all that before they voted for it. But it's not the first lot of catastrophising we've seen. Remember on foot-and-mouth disease, the Leader of the Opposition said that the border with Indonesia should be closed immediately otherwise we'd be overrun. That would have done enormous damage to our relationship with Indonesia as well as to the cattle industry. The shadow minister said that the safeguard mechanism would lead to deindustrialisation and decapitate the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said of the methane pledge that farmers would have a mass cow cull that would send our country broke. With the IR legislation, the Leader of the Opposition said that it would revive the crippling economy-wide strikes, but Senator Cash went further. She said that it would lead Australia to the Dark Ages, and the economy would close down. Then there was the energy price relief plan. It was 'reckless, 'destructive', 'communism', 'a Soviet-style policy', 'catastrophic', 'one step short of nationalisation' and 'gas market Armageddon'. That was before it worked. On refugees, the then shadow minister, who's now up the back, said that it would lead to an armada of refugee boats on their way. Search out there for that. And on aged care today, we had the only political party that's been talking about a change to the family home, when they know that there is no change to the treatment of the family home in any of the documents that are before the government. None! This Leader of the Opposition projects all the time. But Malcolm Turnbull summed him up in just one syllable, and he got it right. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's time has concluded. An opposition member interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 I don't need people to move my amendments that are in my name, sunshine. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 61 DOCUMENTS Presentation 61 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 61 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 61

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

15:15 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Speaker, I have a question for you. The Notice Papers of 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 February 2024 record that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 is yet to be reported from the Federation Chamber to the House and that this bill has an unresolved question from 7 December 2023. Under standing order 152, the Speaker is required to report the bill when other business is not before the House, which, over the past four days, has occurred on a number of occasions. I ask if you can advise the House when you intend to report this bill. 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall investigate as soon as possible and report back to the Manager of Opposition Business. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 62 15:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's incompetence and breaches of trust which are harming the Australian people. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Normally at the end of a double sitting week the Prime Minister will want to take the opportunity to do a summary to provide a snapshot of his beliefs on the messages that the government should get out after two weeks in this place. He was going pretty well, I might say. He was going through different quotes and comments. Then it came to the point where he let his guard down, and we saw a little snippet of 'the word is my bond' Albo. When he was referring to the question, 'Would the treatment of the family home change in relation to aged-care assessments?' asked very ably by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he said this: 'There are no papers before the government.' Do you know why there are no papers before the government? He knows that there is a report that the government is holding back because the Dunkley by-election is on 2 March. I suspect that on 3 March there may well be some papers before the government which talk about whether or not the family home will be taken into consideration to try to exclude some Australians from access to aged-care support as they age in this country. What it quite ably shows is that this Prime Minister is prepared to do or say anything. Before the election he looked the Australian public in the eye and said on 97 occasions: 'We know that you're hurting. We know that the cost-of-living pressures are mounting and that you want support. I'm here. I'm Albo. I'm here to support you.' He promised on 97 occasions that $275 would be the amount that your power bills would be reduced by. He didn't say that it was a one-off occurrence. He didn't say that, over the course of the three years, you'd get a $275 reduction in your power bill. It was each and every year. As I move around the country, I have the great honour of meeting literally thousands of Australians in the cities, suburbs and regional towns of every state and territory. At a time when this Prime Minister says that his word is his bond and that he can be trusted, I cannot find one person in this country who has received a $275 reduction in their power bill. How can he be trusted when he's never mentioned the figure of $275 since the election? He said one thing to one audience before the election. He got elected. Australians reasonably believed that he would deliver on his word. Having made the promise on 97 occasions, he has never mentioned it. Somehow it's slipped his mind that he promised the Australian public that he would give this support to them and to their families, and he's completely and utterly backtracked on that commitment. It shows that this Prime Minister can't be trusted. It shows that he leads an incompetent government. It shows that he is a weak leader, at a time when our country needs a strong leader to make the decisions not just for today but for tomorrow as well. So, it is the case that this Prime Minister has breached the trust of the Australian people. How can he go around the country looking people in the eye and on 100 occasions promising he would support them with tax cuts and then turn around and say he will not provide those tax cuts to Australians? We know that the government, over the course of the next decade, will reap about $28 billion worth of extra tax revenue as a result of what the Prime Minister has now promised. Now, we support tax cuts for all Australians. When we were in government we supported stage 1 and stage 2. Stage 3—here's a tip for the Prime Minister—wasn't the start of tax cuts for Australians. Do you know what gave it away? It's No. 3, right? So, there was a stage 1 and a stage 2. When we were in government we legislated tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes. There was $200 billion worth of tax cut support to people on low and middle incomes. We put in place the low and middle income tax offset so that people, at a time when they were feeling pressure, would be able to receive those additional dollars in their pockets, because they worked for it. They worked hard for it. And the harder they work, the more of their money they should keep—but not under this government's approach, not for this Prime Minister. This incompetent Prime Minister, this incompetent government, have gone about their business in a way that's actually harmed Australians. They've now had two budgets, where they know that inflation is a problem. As the Reserve Bank governor points out, it's a problem not just of the international factors—of what we've seen in the Middle East, of what we've seen elsewhere, in Ukraine. It's home grown, which is why core inflation in this country is higher than in the other G7 nations—comparable economies that have seen a reduction in their inflation rates and therefore their interest rates. It's higher here, because Labor can't manage the economy. Labor have made decisions in two subsequent budgets, where Australians reasonably thought they would see support to help them get through. But what has happened is that this Prime Minister has presided over economic decisions that clearly have made it harder for Australians—those Australians in Dunkley, who at the moment, in places like Frankston, are really doing it tough on this Prime Minister's watch. They believed he was on their side, but they can't trust him anymore. They know that the tax cuts he's now implementing don't start until 1 July. He forgets to tell them that in the literature he puts into the Dunkley electorate. They're not getting that support until July. And when they look at what they are being told by the Prime Minister—that this is job done, that victory is declared, and here's your $15 a week—people are paying $24,000 a year more for their mortgage, in after-tax dollars. That's $40,000 gross. You're talking about $800 a week of gross income that they need to find to break even just on their mortgage repayments under this government. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The very willing participant in public debate at the moment sitting opposite me here, our good friend the member for Shortland, will be there tomorrow morning on the Today show with me, because his good friend the member for Corio—once he leaves here nobody sees him again; he goes MIA. In the 2019 election the then Leader of the Opposition was there promising tax cuts and promising tax changes and, as it turns out, it wasn't that productive for him. I hope the current Prime Minister learns the lesson, because taxes on the family home, which is what this government is considering, as well as changes to negative gearing and a ute tax, a car tax, at a time when families are suffering, and taxing families when they want to go into aged care, which is an effective death tax, is not what they voted for. The most recent example of this government's incompetence, the most recent example of the break of trust with the Australian people, is in relation to the release of these 149 individuals. I take very seriously the responsibility that we all have in this place, and I know all my colleagues do. We speak to victims of crime every day. People who work hard, many older Australians who've worked all their lives and paid taxes, want to be safe in their own homes, and many of them don't feel safe at the moment. The government promised that they would keep Australians safe, that they would implement and adopt policies that would go to providing a safer society. Instead, they took a decision to release 149 people, hardened criminals. Seven murderers, people who had committed rape and paedophilia, people who had committed domestic violence and other serious crimes—they released those people into the Australian community. And have they committed crimes since they've been released? Yes, they have. Yet this incompetent minister comes in here and says that he promises— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sorry, Leader of the Opposition. Member for Hasluck, is this on a point of order? Ms Lawrence 299150 Yes. I just think that there's misrepresentation of what— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You need to state the— Opposition members: That's not a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! Are we all deputy speakers now? Let me listen. You are interrupting your own leader's speech here. Member for Hasluck, you need to state the point of order up-front. Ms Lawrence 299150 It's the inference that the minister made the decision, when it was the High Court's decision to release— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I can't take that as a point of order, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to proceed and just be respectful of our debating chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. This incompetent minister comes into this place, gives a commitment to the Australian people, and says: 'Trust me. I will contact those victims of crime and the family members of the murdered victims, who have been horrified by the release of these 149 people.' He gave that commitment in December in this chamber. The then Acting Prime Minister, the member for Corio, gave a similar undertaking, and yet we find now, in February, that those people have not been contacted. They've not been contacted, which only compounds their grief. There are many horrific crimes that have been committed, and this incompetent government—I've not seen an act of incompetence like it in my 20-odd years in this parliament—has put Australian citizens at risk, because this minister was happy for these people to be released. That's the reality. This minister stands condemned for their incompetence and their breach of trust with the Australian people. (Time expired) 15:27 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I'm really pleased to be speaking on this matter public importance on trust. I don't think the irony is lost on anyone that it's coming from the opposition leader. This is outrageous. Ask any of his colleagues, or, better still, let's revisit Nemesis. There we had the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull describing him as a thug. We look at Nemesis, and what do we see? A litany of incompetence, infighting, cuts and chaos. We can see it all on your faces today. There wasn't much support for him at all, and the cuts and chaos continued. We saw that incompetence over—what?—three leaders and nine years. There he was, the opposition leader, always lurking about and plotting lots of cuts and chaos in all his ministerial roles. Of course, Nemesis shows us they were totally consumed with themselves, whilst also there were a whole series of harsh cuts and failed policies. All we get now from the Leader of the Opposition is negativity—whinging and negativity, constantly. There are no positive policies. We never hear any of them, just non-stop whinging. They haven't got a plan to relieve the cost-of-living burden on Australian families. They've got nothing to offer the country except negativity and division. What we do know is that the Leader of the Opposition wants Australians to work longer and get paid less. That's what we know about him. The fact is the Leader of the Opposition is out of touch and cannot be trusted. In contrast, our government, the Albanese Labor government, is focused on delivering for the Australian people. Our No. 1 priority is addressing cost-of-living pressures. We know people are doing it tough; we understand that. This government is proudly delivering a tax cut to all Australian taxpayers, and a bigger tax cut for Middle Australia to help with the cost of living. This builds on our targeted relief that's already in place. That includes electricity bill relief. It includes making medicines cheaper—this has made a huge difference—and making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor. It includes cheaper child care and expanding paid parental leave. We're building more social and affordable homes and increasing rent assistance. We've also delivered fee-free TAFE, which has made a huge difference for training opportunities for people right across the country. As I've said, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he doesn't believe in tax cuts for Middle Australia. We know that. They've had so many different positions and policies right across the board. The fact is these tax cuts are good for Middle Australia. They're good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. Our tax cuts mean that 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. That's the reality. Nurses, teachers and police are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of these taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Let's look at this in the context of how strongly Labor supports Australian workers and improving working conditions right across the board, whether it's job security, working conditions or tax cuts. It's only Labor that supports all of these initiatives. As I said before, the opposition leader wants Australians to work longer and get paid less. He even applies that to our brave and hardworking police officers. Let's have a look at that in terms of Labor's right-to-disconnect laws. They're so vitally important for workers across the country and especially important for our police and emergency services personnel. I'm a former frontline police officer and I know how important it is for police to have incredibly good working conditions, especially the right to disconnect. They need to have that work-life family balance. But the opposition leader is opposed to the right to disconnect—of course he is; he's so negative. Unbelievable! A lot of police have contacted me saying they are absolutely appalled that the opposition leader has taken this stance. Our police do an incredible job, and Labor back them; we do. We know they've got to have protected working conditions, but the opposition leader is so out of touch he wants to get rid of all these laws that protect their working conditions. In fact, it was only a couple of days ago that the Police Federation of Australia came out and condemned the opposition leader for this. I'll quote what they said in relation to the opposition leader's actions, which is that they are 'disrespectful and wrong'. Even they're onto him. Everybody's onto him. We're all onto him. He can't be trusted. I stand with the Police Federation of Australia. I stand with the police across the country. I stand with workers across the country—with Middle Australia, who are doing it tough. They're onto you and they're onto the opposition leader. They know that he cannot be trusted. That's just one of the many examples we see when it comes to the policies the opposition. In fact, we finally have seen an election policy from them: they want to take away more of workers' rights; that's all they want to do. I would like to focus on the record of the opposition leader when he was health minister. I remember it. I was here, and we saw this. Every day we heard from our local constituents about what he was doing, and particularly about how he was destroying the health system in this country. Let's have a look at what he did in trying to dismantle Medicare. An opposition member interjecting— Mrs ELLIOT DZW That's right; you remember him dismantling Medicare by forcing all Australians to pay a $7 co-payment, the GP tax. That was appalling, especially for our senior Australians, the people who built this nation. This is what he wanted to impose and tried so hard to do it. He said at the time: … we believe very strongly in having a price signal. There's no sense me pretending to Australians that when you walk through the door of your GP that everything can be for free. How out of touch can you get? Australians remember that. They know; don't worry. He also wanted to jack up the prices of essential medicines by $5 a script, making them unaffordable. What have we done, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon? We have made medicines cheaper. We know that people need to be able to access them. He also wanted to charge Australians who needed to access public hospital emergency departments. How catastrophic would that be? He said at the time: The government will also remove the restrictions on state and territory governments that prevent hospital emergency departments charging a modest fee for presentations. Absurd! He froze the indexation of the Medicare rebate, undermining the viability of our great GP practices and increasing out-of-pocket costs. What have we done since we've been in government? We've tripled the Medicare rebate to make accessing bulk-billing easier—so important—because we understand that Australians need to have that cost-of-living relief. We also saw the opposition leader, when he was health minister, rip more than $50 billion out of our public hospitals. Of course, we inherited this absolute mess, which our government is fixing with a massive investment in Medicare. The damage that was done was so wide ranging, impacting people and their health and wellbeing over the nine years they were in government. In fact, the opposition leader was so bad as health minister that he was named the worst health minister in 35 years in a pile of GPs and specialists. That is the reality, and that was just one of the many, many bad, bad policies that we saw from this government with all of their failures. Let's not forget when he was the Minister for Home Affairs as well. The opposition leader as minister then wrecked Australia's system of immigration and border security. We saw this in the Richardson Review. You have all seen it and read the details. He left our borders wide open, our communities less safe and our economy weaker. This has all been detailed very, very clearly in the Richardson report. We had that nine years of chaos. We had the three leaders. We are all seeing it played out in Nemesis, every detail of it, all the infighting. It is because those opposite were so focused on themselves and their infighting, and there was always the opposition leader there lurking about, undermining all the time. Their focus was completely on themselves. We on this side are focused on the Australian people and delivering for them right across the board, particularly delivering the really important cost-of-living relief. But those opposite will keep on with their infighting. We are all waiting for Nemesis part 2. It will be good to hear about the Dutton years in opposition. It will be Nemesis part 2. Mr McCormack 219646 The Dutton years when he's Prime Minister! Mrs ELLIOT DZW I don't think so. I don't think that is going to happen. Nemesis part 2 will be about the opposition leader and the infighting that keeps continuing. Clearly it does. You can see them sitting there today, completely devoid of any interest and enthusiasm when he speaks. It was pretty bad. No wonder. We know from Nemesis that they didn't trust him then. We can see it now on their faces that they don't trust him. It is not just all those opposite who don't trust him; everybody outside has worked it out because they know his long history of cuts and chaos. They know when Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister, described him as a 'thug', that he was pretty spot-on. They knew that was the case. They have worked him out. They know that he is harsh, with all those health cuts over such a long period of time, and they know the opposition leader is so out of touch with their concerns. He has no credibility because of his history. All he does is come out with all of this division and negativity and whinging. He has a long history of making cuts and causing chaos all over the place. Australian people are completely onto him; we know you mob are too. Everyone knows that the opposition leader is totally out of touch and they know the opposition leader cannot be trusted. 15:37 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Labor ought to know that unemployment now is higher than when we left government after COVID, and we had COVID to cope with. Labor promised real wages would go up; they have come down. They said, 'my word is my bond'—the Prime Minister's words, not mine—that they would stick to stage 3 tax cuts and they didn't. They said they wouldn't touch super and they increased taxes on super. They told people they would regulate the labour market and then they did the industrial relations changes. They have never properly consulted on too much at all. That is just a text I got from former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. We miss him in this place, we do. Mr Shorten 00ATG Table it. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I tell you what, I can't table my phone. I need it for all the good messages I will send to you in the future when you have another tilt at the leadership, member for Maribyrnong. But I am glad that the member for Dobell is here. She is the regional health minister. She is also a former pharmacist and a very, very good one. It is true. She would be interested to note a pharmacist in Forest Hill, where RAAF Wagga operates. Mina Estafanos has owned the Forest Hill Pharmacy for six years. In the past week he has had several customers opt out of filling their vital prescriptions due to cost. One elderly man even admitted he had stopped buying food just to get some of his daily medication. Now, we should be better than that. We should be doing better than that. Watching residents choose between basic needs prompted an enormously generous response from Mr Estafanos. He's chosen to provide free medication to his customers who are doing it tough—he's taking to social media and asking the community to bring in those who've been avoiding paying for their medicine. What a generous man. But he shouldn't be required to do that. Yesterday this government decided to give $14 million to Foodbank. That's a noble gesture. Foodbank is the largest hunger relief charity in the nation. Fourteen million dollars—that'll help. Mr Wallace 265967 That's nice. Mr McCORMACK 219646 It is nice. It is absolutely nice, Member for Fisher. But they've also decided to give $40 million to advertising, promoting and marketing their stage 3 tax cuts. That is so shameful. That is so disgraceful, and everyone opposite knows it. If they were good members they'd go out and spruik it themselves. They'd put it on their own social media. They probably will. But when we think that they're spending $26 million more on spin doctors than they are on Foodbank—it's no wonder you've all got your heads down. You should be embarrassed by it. It's absolutely disgraceful. Then you've got pharmacists, such as the one in my electorate, having to give away free medication to pensioners who can't afford it. Then we've got the Minister for Health and Aged Care—and I'd like the member for Dobell to listen carefully because she is the regional health minister and I know she comes to this place with a good heart—saying that, if doctors aren't bulk-billing, people should just go and pick up the phone and ring another one who might. That's all well and good in a city electorate like his in Adelaide, but it ain't good enough in regional Australia! It's hard enough to get a doctor, let alone one that might bulk-bill. If you don't want that first one and you're lucky enough to have another one on the end of the phone, it might be hundreds of kilometres away. You are in pain and you have to be forced to go hundreds of kilometres, because the health minister thinks that doctors are so prevalent in the bush that they're absolutely everywhere. This government has put in place a truckie tax. They've absolutely hurt the Murray-Darling Basin irrigators by taking productive water away and sending it out the mouth of the Murray. That's the way they're going to make sure that we grow more Australian food. Well, it's not. That's going to lead to more imported food and higher grocery prices. They've put in place so many taxes, and then they come in here today, puff their chests out and say, 'We're delivering better tax relief for lower and middle-income people.' They never mention stage 1 and stage 2 tax cuts. They've put $26 million more into spin doctoring than they would into Foodbank. This government stands condemned for all the taxes they've put on lower and middle-income people. They stand condemned for doing what they said they wouldn't do prior to the election—which was one great fib. 15:42 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta It's a pleasure to be talking about today's MPI topic, which is about incompetence and breaches of trust which are harming the Australian people. Friends, this topic reminds me of the first rule of glasshouses: don't throw stones. It's a pretty bad week for the Liberals to be talking about trust and it's a particularly bad week for them to be talking about competence. We had this week, in their own words—the words of their own ministers and former members of parliament—a litany of confessions about the incompetence and lack of trust they showed during their term in government. Let me read you some of my favourites. John Alexander, the former member for Bennelong, who was replaced by the terrific current member for Bennelong. Just like the current member for Bennelong, a man of great integrity, he speaks the truth. This is what John Alexander said on the ABC on Nemesis: 'In looking at the nine years in power and our three prime ministers, the playing of politics was the No. 1 game, the No. 2 game and the No. 3 game. It's not productive and it's not edifying.' That's what said on ABC and that is right: it's not edifying. It is entertaining, but it is not edifying. That was the take of a former member of the Liberal Party and a former member of this House on the competence and the trust of the Liberals. This is what Bridget McKenzie had to say in the Nemesis program. She described the period in government from the Liberals and Nationals as 'an internal war'. She said it was like 'being strapped to a suicide bomber—something horrific and catastrophic was going to happen'. That was Senator McKenzie's testimony on the trust and competence of the Liberals during their time in government. Finally, Malcolm Turnbull—what would he say on this MPI about the trust and competence of the Liberals in government? Fortunately we know, because he gave a quote to the Nemesis program. He said, 'We were treating the government of Australia as a plaything.' This is the take of the former leader of the Liberal Party on the trust and competence that they displayed. Even Christopher Pyne on the same program had a hot take relevant to the MPI. He described the Dutton plotters as the Keystone Cops. This is a party who, in their own words, given testimony by people in their own ranks, showed a remarkable level of incompetence and lack of trust, condemned by their own statements. This MPI is about trust, and it is about competence. How should we judge the trust and competence of this government versus previous governments? There'll be many different ways to do that. Many people will have their own perspective. But one way, as I said just before question time, is to judge governments by the range of metrics with which the Liberals themselves would have us judge them. As I said before question time, on the eve of the election, they put out their own list of metrics that they thought reflected their competence—a series of metrics of unemployment, youth unemployment, welfare dependency and income tax. This is what they wanted the Australian public to judge them on. They were so keen on these metrics that they printed 20 million of them and handed them to every single Australian on their way to the polling booth. When we go through them we see that, on metric after metric, the government that they are complaining about, the Albanese government, has overperformed the metrics that they themselves set down to be judged by. Whether it be unemployment, youth employment, welfare dependency or income tax, in every single metric this government has performed more strongly than the previous government—on their own metrics. Dr CHARLTON I8M I'll take the point of order on inflation, because the Leader of the Opposition made a big deal of inflation in his rambling speech on this MPI. He said, 'Australia has higher inflation than every other member of the G7.' There are two problems with that, friends. First of all, Australia isn't in the G7. You can't just pick whatever group you want to pick. Secondly, Australia's— (Time expired) 15:48 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The MPI today is on 'this government's incompetence and breaches of trust which are harming the Australian people', and I couldn't sum it up better myself. This goes to character and to the character of this government. The Prime Minister has clearly botched and broken trust with the Australian people—a test of character. It's about integrity. What prime ministers say and do counts. Leaders of this country should be held to account. Time and time again, this government and Prime Minister have proven they can't be trusted. The Prime Minister promised that life would be better under him, but instead people aren't seeing that. Day by day, they're struggling to get ahead. They're being crushed under the weight of higher interest rates, higher rents, higher food prices and higher mortgages—and who can forget higher electricity prices? On 1 May 2022, the Prime Minister said: Labor has real, lasting plans for Cheaper electricity— But it's gone up— Cheaper mortgages— But the interest rates have gone up 12 times, and rent is through the roof— Cheaper medicines— They might have come down a little bit— and Medicare— There is now a $70 gap when you go to the doctor. It is $60 in some places. Bulk-billing is gone under the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister also promised 100 times that he would keep the legislated tax cuts. We know that he couldn't be trusted. His word was not his bond. The government has made bad decision after bad decision. They could have done a whole lot of other things besides breaking their promise on stage 3 tax cuts. They could have reintroduced LMITO rather than having that wound up, which gave $1,500 to millions of people around the country, including thousands in my own electorate. They could have reinstated the fuel discount that we put in place, of 22c a litre, that they let lapse. They could have not wasted half a billion dollars on a destructive and divisive Voice campaign, which they're now going to spend an additional $40 million advertising. Australians are hurting, but don't just take my word for it; take the word of local people in my electorate. Robyn White from Redcliffe said: Is it ever going to get any better? Families are really struggling. I thought our new Prime Minister would understand after his mum was a single mum and used to struggle. But families cannot cope. When is this government going to do something and help? Helen Paddon from Deception Bay said: I don't know how we're going to cover the cost of three kids going back to school this year. Weve never been in a situation where we can't. This year is going to be our hardest. Rachel Bishop from Bracken Ridge said: Groceries and fuel are increasing more than we can handle. And I could spend the rest of this parliamentary sitting day's time repeating quotes from local people. They're really struggling under the Albanese Labor government. This week an incompetent Albanese Labor government is also impacting our Defence Force. The Albanese government don't want the people of Australia to know that, in a time of unprecedented uncertainty, with conflicts in the Middle East and Europe and tensions in our own geopolitical area, this government is cutting defence personnel and dollars through indecision. Let me put it plainly: there is no new money for investment into defence this year or the year after or in the forward estimates. It's now expected that this financial year they will potentially only spend 1.6 per cent of GDP, which is woeful compared to the 2.04 per cent of GDP allocated for defence. Defence companies are leaving the industry in droves, unable to keep their heads above water. They're not investing in sovereign capability, despite the minister for manufacturing and the Prime Minister saying they would before the election. There were over a million jobs in manufacturing during COVID in this country, and the minister himself said in question time just at the end of last year that there are now under 900,000. That's a 10 per cent loss under the Albanese Labor government. We've also had personnel numbers drop. Did you know that right now we only have 58,427 full-time ADF members? Fewer than 60,000. The Chinese have two million, and the US have one million. I think Israel have 240,000 reservists. The target is 62,735; they're 4,308 below that. There's no pastoral care. We've got young women and men wanting to join the ADF around the country, and no-one says, 'Thanks for your application.' Under the Albanese Labor government, we have no plan, no vision, no integrity, no leadership and no clue about what Australia needs at this point in time, and Australians are waking up to this government. They know they deserve better. 15:53 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean When it comes to government incompetence, those opposite set the gold standard. They lived it, despite their collective amnesia. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't even competently run a leadership challenge let alone run a government department. Those opposite want to lecture us about government incompetence. They shouldn't look over the side; they should look into a mirror or, better still, rewatch Nemesis. After nearly 10 years of incompetence, the Australian people look to Labor to clean it up. We were put to work mopping up the former government's messes. The Leader of the Opposition alone had his muddy footprints of incompetence littered across multiple portfolios. Indeed, this leader brings new meaning to the expression 'Peter principle'—ironic as it might be to pair those two words. The Opposition leader wants people to think that he's tough. He likes to talk tough. But, when he was in charge of protecting Australians, in charge of our borders, he presided over a system that was incoherent and falling apart. The report that former Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon wrote into exploitation in our migration system is the most damning insight into the Leader of the Opposition and how he would run this country. For almost the whole time he's been in parliament his whole public persona has been puffing himself up as the big tough guy on the border, but what did the Nixon review find? It found that there were serious and systemic problems with exploitation in the migration system. It found that the system had been used to perpetrate some of the worst crimes that there are—sexual slavery and human trafficking—under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, the so-called tough guy on the beat. Former commissioner Nixon found there was delay and disfunction in the system, but she also found something else very interesting. For all the tough talk that we have heard over previous years from the Leader of the Opposition, he halved immigration compliance funding to the Department of Home Affairs. Could there be anything more hypocritical? We've also had the Parkinson report that detailed how the home affairs department was falling apart under the opposition leader's management. But it was the Richardson report that brought to light that hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money went to companies that were engaged in all sorts of illegal and dodgy activity overseas because these contracts didn't attract proper oversight. This all happened on the opposition leader's watch. We're cleaning up the mess. As the Minister for Home Affairs said earlier, the opposition are like the pyromaniac that sets fire to the house and then stands in street to try and stop the fire engine getting to it. And this is just from the Leader of the Opposition's time in the home affairs portfolio. How about his time in the defence portfolio, which we've heard about from a number of speakers. What was he again? Their sixth minister? When people say, 'Consistency is key', I don't think they mean consistently changing ministers as we had right throughout the Nemesis period. And what is the opposition leader's legacy in Defence? Is it the dangerous capability gap the former Liberal-National government allowed to occur between the retirement dates of our Collins class submarines? The staggering incompetence which created this capability gap? The mismanagement that saw 28 defence capability projects running 97 years late—again, what a gold standard for incompetence. And then there's the diplomatic and foreign policy blunders in the Pacific. This all adds up to an opposition leader and a party who couldn't manage Defence last time, so what makes them so sure they can be trusted on Defence and national security now? And then there's the Leader of the Opposition's time in the health portfolio that can be summed up with one sentence: only one person in this parliament has been voted the worst health minister in the entire history of Medicare. The opposition leader has truly suffered from the Peter principle for the last decade, with each portfolio promotion leading to greater and greater incompetence and stuff-ups. They can't even pretend to look like a competent alternative in opposition. We just have to look at their actions in the chamber yesterday, and throughout the last few weeks with Labor's tax cuts: they're all about the talk, never about the walk. We inherited a nation that had suffered nine years of chaotic coalition incompetence, highlighted so well in Nemesis over the last few weeks. If those opposite want to be part of this debate with any credibility, they shouldn't be lobbying for a change of government. They should be rolling out the projectors and changing their leadership. 15:57 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Isn't it funny how, on an issue like this MPI, which is about breaches of trust and integrity, those members opposite can only talk about—they don't want to address any of their own issues or problems. We see so many Australian families that are doing it tough. This mob have been in government for 18 months. I want to actually pay tribute to the member for Maribyrnong, the minister who's sitting at the table. Mr Shorten 00ATG I seriously doubt that. Mr WALLACE 265967 I do! I seriously do! Member for Maribyrnong, I mean this seriously. The member for Maribyrnong—and pardon me, Deputy Speaker Claydon, because I'm going to say 'honest Bill' here. The honest member for Maribyrnong—can I say that? When the honest member for Maribyrnong was the Leader of the Opposition, they ran a campaign of honesty. That has to be said. They said what they were going to do if they won government. The member for Maribyrnong, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said they were going to make some fairly significant changes to taxation law. Everybody would remember the now Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who was the then shadow Treasurer, said, 'If you don't like it, don't vote for us.' They didn't, but at least this man had the courage of his convictions to put it out there on the table. He put it out there and said, 'I've got the courage of my convictions to put my policies on the table, and if you don't like it then don't vote for us.' They didn't, but at least he had the courage of his convictions. The current Prime Minister has won office in a situation of stealth. He never told Australians what he was going to do. He never told Australians he was going to change laws in relation to franking credits or superannuation. He told us that he was going to keep the stage 3 tax cuts. It's whatever it takes to win government. The member for Maribyrnong, for all his faults and foibles, was honest when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Where are we today after 18 months of this government? Food costs have gone up nine per cent. Gateway Care is a food bank in my electorate. They tell me that they have never, ever been busier. They have never been distributing more food to Australians on the Sunshine Coast than they are now. The cost of housing—I actually don't believe the figure here—has gone up 12 per cent. When you look at the cost of mortgages that have gone up, for the average Australian with the average mortgage, it's a $24,000 increase after tax on what they were paying under a coalition government. That's probably somewhere in the high 30s for the average punters. Can anybody in the gallery name me anybody in your sphere of friends—any Australian—that can honestly say they are better off today than they were 20 months ago? I don't think you can. I don't think anybody watching or listening to this today could say: 'You know what? I am better off. My family is better off. My bank balance is better off than it was when the coalition was in government.' Maybe the Prime Minister can say that. This is a Prime Minister that said, 'Vote for me, and I'll give you cheaper mortgages.' When landlords have to pay higher mortgages, what do they do for their investment properties? They've got to put the rent up. So rents are up, mortgages are up, and insurance is up 22 per cent under this mob. The reality is that this is so heavily impacting upon people's bottom line, because they've got to insure their car, their home and their contents—and another car, if they're lucky enough to have a second car. Insurance has gone up by 22 per cent in 18 months. What happens with that? (Time expired) 16:02 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I welcome the opportunity to talk about this matter of public importance today. It's one that goes to government competence—or incompetence, as they put it. I'll just start by saying I haven't been in this place for too long. This is my first term. Not too much has been unexpected in this role, but one thing that has really stood out to me is the collective amnesia of those opposite when it comes to choosing their topics for the MPIs. In the past, we've seen them wanting to talk about cost-of-living relief when they've voted against nearly every solution that we've put up on cost-of-living relief. Today, they've got an MPI on government incompetence, totally not even recognising the nine years of absolute incompetence that those opposite left us, which is why the Australian people elected us to fix up their mess. I've only got four minutes left, but we've just seen 4½ hours of compelling viewing on the ABC, with 1.5 million viewers per episode, about incompetence after incompetence and mistake after rort. I made a little list earlier today as I was preparing for this MPI. It's a long list, and in the 3½ minutes I've got left, I'll start to talk about some of the incompetence we inherited and saw from those opposite. Of course, the Prime Minister fled the country and stayed overseas in Hawaii while the country burned. Then they tried to hide the fact that he was over there, and then he gave that horrendous interview where he said he doesn't hold a hose. Then we had the bungled vaccination rollout that left millions of Australians stuck in lockdown because the former government didn't ensure that we had an adequate or appropriate supply. Then we had car park rorts—$660 million worth of gold-medal pork-barrelling: 70 per cent of the commuter car park sites in coalition electorates, and none of the 47 project sites selected were proposed by the infrastructure departments. Before that we had sports rorts, and the Christine Holgate saga, where a distinguished, competent head of Australia Post was essentially sacked brutally on this floor by an incompetent former prime minister. We then had the climate wars—decades of climate chaos, inaction and repealing of legislation that was causing emissions to fall. And of course we had the words of the former leader himself, Malcolm Turnbull, who said that the Liberal Party had proved itself incapable of dealing with a reduction of greenhouse emissions in any sort of systematic way. I mean, some of these things in Nemesis over those 4½ hours—I'd forgotten how incompetent they were; I'd truly forgotten. Thank you to the wonderful ABC for documenting some of their gold-medal incompetence: knights and dames with Tony Abbott—giving Prince Philip a knighthood on Australia Day 2015—and the time Mr Abbott ate an onion live on television. I mean, what's going on there? Then of course there was his promise of no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS, only to then do it straightaway at the next federal budget. We had a former Speaker of this House, Bronwyn Bishop, get in a helicopter for an 80-kilometre ride—$5,000. They were a government that tried to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. We had the saga of the French submarines—total incompetence: spending $5 billion and not receiving as much as a canoe. We had the total rubbishing of international relations and the torpedoing of our relationship with China. And of course we now see the contemporary example of incompetence: the last two weeks of their response of Albanese government's cost-of-living tax cuts, where they've called the cuts Marxism. They've done backflip after backflip. They said they'd roll the tax cuts back, and then that they're not going to roll them back, and they voted for them in the House today. Contrast their record of competence against this one. We've been elected to deliver cost-of-living tax relief, and we're doing it. We've legislated for energy rebates. We've got huge cost-of-living tax relief going to Middle Australia and to Bennelong, where 81 per cent of people will be better off. This is a government that's competent and that's getting on with the job. 16:07 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's good to see that the member for Bennelong has so much time that he can sit back and watch television. If I were him I, as a marginal seat member, would be out in my community talking to my constituents about what they're worried about—and they're not worried about ABC television shows. They're worried about governments keeping their promises. They're worried about people who go to an election and make promises and then break those promises when they're in government. When I'm out doorknocking in my electorate, which is an important thing for marginal seat members to do, that's what I hear from the people of Sturt. They talk to me about promises made and promises broken. Some other speakers have outlined some of the national promises this government has broken, and I commend those remarks to the House. But I want to highlight two that are specific to South Australia, because they need to be on the record in this debate as well. And I'm glad my friend the member for Barker is here, because he knows, as I know, and he's as outraged as I am, about the appalling decision made by this government to scrap funding for the Truro bypass in the electorate of Barker. I care about his constituents, but I've also got a selfish interest in this, because my constituents are just as affected as the member's constituents are through that appalling broken promise. We want to get trucks off Portrush Road. We want to improve the freight corridors for the nation. We don't think that Highway 1 should run through the suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide. It does, and we had a plan to change all that. We had a plan to invest in the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass, starting with investing in the Truro bypass, which would also be a great outcome for the people living in Truro, in the member for Barker's electorate. This government went to the last election never saying anything about scrapping that funding. The good people of Truro, like the good people of Sturt and the good people of South Australia had no idea that, if the Labor government were elected, they were going to scrap projects like the Truro bypass. It's absolutely heartbreaking for the people of Truro, for the people of my electorate and for the people of South Australia that this government has done that. There is another very significant issue looming—a great fraud to be perpetrated on the people of South Australia when it comes to shipbuilding. We are very frightened about a looming announcement that is following the usual path of being soft-leaked to the media. We know decisions have been made that are bad for South Australia. They were made months ago. They've spent months working on the political spin to try and turn a disastrous decision for South Australia into one that kind of looks like a good one—making a silk purse out of a sow's ear—and we ain't buying it in South Australia. We know that the Labor Premier is in on it. We've had the stunt visit to Canberra saying, 'I'm here to fight for jobs.' We've had all the little secret meetings that would have gone on, saying: 'Look, why don't we announce the review in Adelaide so they think it's a really good thing for Adelaide? Why don't we say, "There are all sorts of other shipbuilding opportunities for South Australia that are going to flow from this? We can't give any detail right now. Yes, we're scaling back the one tangible program that South Australia has: the nine frigates through the Hunter program. Yes, we're slashing that, which means thousands of jobs lost for the years of lost construction of those frigates." And we'll pretend that there's going to be some kind of mirage replacement for that, with no detail.' I think—I'd have a bet with the member for Barker, but he won't let me take his money—that they are going to try and come to Adelaide and make this announcement and pretend that it's actually good for South Australia. Some spin doctor said: 'Why don't you announce it in South Australia? Do it there and then they'll think that it's a really good news story, because why would anyone come to South Australia to deliver bad news in shipbuilding?' That is exactly what is going to happen. We are onto it but, more importantly, the people of South Australia will be onto it. They're not falling for this. They know exactly what happens when jobs are taken out of South Australia. The government went to the last election saying they supported continuous shipbuilding in South Australia. Like so many other things—whether it's cutting your power bills by $275, honouring stage 3 tax cuts, building the Truro bypass—once again, in shipbuilding, we're going to see an example of this government saying one thing in a campaign to get elected and then doing a very different thing after the election and breaking another solemn vow to the people of South Australia. They'll have their say about that, but I implore the government to reconsider these broken promises—reinstate funding for Truro and honour the nine frigates through the Hunter program. Invest in my home state of South Australia and keep your promises. 16:13 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm A piercing statement was made by one of the previous speakers, the member for Fisher, which is that we're all worse off for this MPI from the Leader of the Opposition. I must say I tend to agree. Today's topic—honestly, those opposite really are experts on incompetence and breaches of trust. There are so many places to start with this one, but I think my colleagues who have highlighted some of the episodes from Nemesis really did hit the mark, particularly in noting the secret ministries. What an absolutely disgusting breach of trust that really undermined the very fabric of democracy in this country. I must say, though: for people who consistently undermine the national broadcaster, they have delivered some of the highest viewing figures for the ABC in quite some time—so congratulations. Viewing Nemesis was a really stark reminder of how much of a failure the last 10 years of government have been in this country, and it is a shameful thing. We heard that it wasn't a race to get vaccines when, of course, it was. When issues of public health were treated so flippantly in the way that those opposite have done, it should be little wonder that so many people now say that they've lost faith overall in institutions of government. It is the job of the Albanese Labor government to repair that trust. I think of a pretty despicable episode in my own community of Chisholm. Those opposite often wax lyrical about the need for improved mental health services. I was horrified to discover that, hidden in budget papers for some years, there was money for a Box Hill headspace in my electorate, which was never, ever delivered. The money was cynically held back so that it could become an election announcement ahead of the 2022 election. That is a disgraceful way to treat young people and real mental health needs in our communities. I'm delighted that that service, under our government, is now up and running. It is delivering much-needed services for young people in my community. We're talking about incompetence and dishonesty. We come into this place day after day for MPIs. So often, these topics presented to us simply invite us on this side of the House to hold up a mirror to those opposite and to remind them of the failures that have led to a situation where we are now having to spend so much time repairing the damage done to this country. But we're not letting the disaster of the last decade stand in the way of progress—not at all. Please don't think that that's what I'm suggesting. We are delivering cost-of-living relief for all taxpayers in our country. All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July this year. But we've done more than just that. We've ensured that medicines are cheaper. By tripling the Medicare rebate, we've ensured that it is easier and cheaper to see a doctor. We've ensured that there is cheaper child care. We've expanded paid parental leave to encourage greater workforce participation, particularly by women, who tend to be carers. We're building more social and affordable homes. We've delivered fee-free TAFE. In a really important achievement for my electorate, 60-day dispensing of scripts has saved so many people money. My electorate is the greatest recipient, with almost 25,000 people receiving 60-day scripts. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Chisholm, I'm really sorry. I know you look like you've got time left on the clock, but the time for this debate has expired now. Dr GARLAND 295588 I understand, Deputy Speaker. I've got so much more to say. I'll save it for another time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sure. I hope you get an opportunity to continue in another part of parliament. It just, unfortunately, won't be the MPI. The time for this discussion has now concluded. BILLS 72 BILLS Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 72

Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 72 Third Reading 72 16:18 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 72

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 72 16:19 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Before I was interrupted, I was explaining to the chamber that the attitude of the Liberal and National parties is that you should not act nationally on housing but you should see housing acted upon locally—and so nothing gets done. The Greens have a view that you should act nationally but not locally, because they won't support any local social and community housing projects in their electorates. So nothing would get done under the Greens if they were ever in power. But we on this side of the chamber believe in acting nationally and we believe in acting locally. It's the big difference between us and them, and between those two and the crossbenches. Australians deserve access to housing that's stable, secure and affordable. Proper housing fosters a sense of security, dignity and community. Homeownership is a great enabler. It impacts our ability to get a job, complete our education, maintain social connections and achieve good mental health and physical health. In my electorate we face the challenge of housing affordability but also of supply as Ipswich and the areas surrounding it continue to grow. When I held a jobs roundtable locally in 2022, before the Jobs and Skills Summit, that was the biggest issue: housing and housing affordability. Whether you were the meatworks at JBS Dinmore or the West Moreton Hospital and Health Service, getting housing for local workers was the biggest issue, and that came up again and again. That's why we're determined to clean up the mess we saw from those opposite, and that's why we've got a big, ambitious housing agenda. It's about helping to increase supply so we can make sure that the housing market is there and people can find rental accommodation at a price they can afford. That's why we increased rental assistance, by the way, and that's also why we're working with the states and territories—to get a better deal for renters. We act, and the Greens posture; that's the difference. When we came to office, we inherited a housing system in need of urgent and serious repair after a decade of neglect because those opposite believe that housing is a state issue, and the federal government wiped their hands of it, whether it was the Abbott, Turnbull or Morrison governments. They wiped their hands of housing. Those opposite have a lot to answer for when it comes to housing. They failed to grasp that helping to improve the housing system should be part of the government's social contract with the Australian people. On our side we believe in increasing housing affordability and supply, and that helps tackle cost-of-living pressures, which are our highest priorities. We've seen falling homeownership in the Australian community, and that's what they're experiencing. Between 1971 and 2021, the rate of homeownership amongst Australians aged 30 to 34 fell from 64 per cent to 50 per cent. While almost 60 per cent of young Australians on low and modest incomes owned their own home 40 years ago, now it's only 28 per cent. I know that from my own daughters, who were in that category, and I know how challenging it was for them to find the housing that they needed. The fact is we've had a housing crisis for some time, and it's harder to buy a home than it has been in previous generations. Those opposite put this all in the too-hard basket. That's why we're taking steps. This legislation is part of a suite of things we're doing. If you listened to the speeches from those opposite, you'd think this was the only thing we were doing. It's almost like they've got political amnesia and have forgotten that they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, the $10 billion commitment we made to help people in need across the country. But we've done so much more than that. In the lead-up to the 2022 election we announced that we had a help-to-buy policy as one of our key commitments to tackling the housing crisis, and this particular legislation gives effect to that. It'll help put homeownership back within the reach for 40,000 low- and middle-income households who have been locked out of the housing market. It's open to applications for four years, with 10,000 places available each year, and, of course, it will be on a pro rata basis for states and territories. This shared equity scheme will make it easier and cheaper for people to own their own home. The Commonwealth government will support eligible homeowners with an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes or 30 per cent for existing homes. I've heard a number of those opposite talk about the fact that it's 50 per cent government ownership as if they haven't read or even looked at the commitment that we've made. This means that the financial risk and benefits, or capital gains or losses, will be shared between the participant and the Commonwealth in proportion to their interest. Homebuyers will need a minimum two per cent deposit to participate in the scheme and qualify for a standard home loan, with a participating lender to finance the remainder of the purchase. It means that those people who participate in the scheme will need a lower and smaller home loan, providing long-term relief. The benefit is that Australians will be able to buy a home with a smaller deposit, a smaller mortgage and smaller mortgage repayments—a triple dividend. During the period of the loan, the homebuyer can buy an additional stake in the home when they're able to do so. It currently takes homebuyers in Brisbane—which is just outside my electorate, although I've got a small part of Brisbane—nearly five years to save for a deposit. For people in regional Australia, it's taking, on average, a decade to save for a house deposit. The Help to Buy scheme can help speed up the process, by allowing for a smaller deposit and savings on home loans, as well as the overall mortgage. It has been estimated the scheme will cut the cost of a mortgage for a new home in Ipswich, in my electorate, by up to $250,000, while in some parts of Australia the saving could be up to $380,000. This is life-changing for many prospective homebuyers in my community and elsewhere who have been locked out of the security and stability of homeownership and otherwise would not be able to buy a home. It's not just a leg up to help Australians into homeownership; it's a life-changer. It provides lasting mortgage relief for participants in the scheme and, critically, a lifeline for people who want to share in the great Australian dream. Robert Menzies talked about the dreams of homeownership in his 'Forgotten people' speech. Those opposite seem to have forgotten about what Robert Menzies had to say all those years ago, in the 1940s. This will help renters buy a home with a smaller mortgage, which they can afford to repay, instead of renting for the rest of their lives. Help-to-buy schemes operate, by the way, in various states and territories. Those opposite said almost nothing about the fact that these schemes operate in states and territories around the country. They've never excoriated coalition governments around the country for having this type of scheme, yet, when we're doing it, somehow it's a sort of communism or Marxism or socialism. They've never criticised coalition governments at a state level for doing similar schemes. The states will need to pass their own enabling legislation in order for Help to Buy to operate in their jurisdictions, while the scheme will operate in the territories following the passage of the Commonwealth legislation. I'm pleased that, in August last year, all the states and territories agreed, at the National Cabinet meeting held in Brisbane, to progress legislation so the scheme will run nationally from this year. I know the Queensland government plans to progress legislation in the first half of this year, which is fantastic. Our independent national housing authority, Housing Australia, will administer and monitor the Help to Buy scheme, supported by a referral from the states. It's worth noting that most of the states and territories already have these schemes in place. This is a tried-and-tested model, and our scheme will build on and complement these existing programs. Further policy detail will be settled in the Help to Buy program directions, which will be released for consultation in due course. There has been broad support, including from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Housing Industry Association, National Shelter, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Grattan Institute. They all support this scheme. I know there has been a lot of interest in the Help to Buy scheme locally in my electorate—people have talked to me about it—among buyers interested in participating in the scheme as well as finance and mortgage brokers, who seem keen to recommend it to clients once it's up and running. I look forward to discussing this in my mobile office at Country Burgers on Friday night—they have the best hot chips in Ipswich, by the way!—and the mobile office I have at Ripley Town Centre on the weekend. 16:28 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies In the time remaining, I'd like to make this point to the House: next to the immediate cost-of-living pressures facing this nation, there is no more pressing issue in this country than housing affordability. It is not just an issue that is discussed by young people, despairing at the lack of opportunities available to them to buy a home of their own; it's being discussed by parents and grandparents, who may own their own home—some may own more than one—and who acknowledge and despair that it has never been harder. I remember how hard it was for my parents to buy their first home when we migrated here from Ireland. I remember the interest rates were 17 per cent for a brief period of time and the consequences that that had for our family. I've spoken to my father—he didn't go to university, and my mother didn't—and there is no way that my family now, in these circumstances, in 2024, would be able to buy a home in Melbourne. There is no way. When we look at the median wage for a household of two people and we look at the median house price in 354 suburbs in Melbourne—we're not talking about a fancy house; we're talking about 600 or 700 squares, a brick house built in the 1950s—people like my parents wouldn't be able to afford to buy in any suburb in Melbourne, even assuming they could save the 20 per cent deposit, which we know would take 17 years. We have a serious problem in this country with housing affordability. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Leader Of The Opposition 74 16:30 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I would like to use this opportunity to talk about a topic that has been raised several times in question time this week. It is a very important topic to be raised in a parliament that was born in a conversation on integrity. At multiple stages this week in question time, the Minister for Home Affairs has chosen to refer to a review of governance of the administration and regional processing arrangements conducted by Mr Richardson and has repeatedly used the opportunity to make the suggestion that somehow this report in some way condemns the actions of the Leader of the Opposition. The suggestion from her comments appears to be that there is some great conspiracy discovered by this report of some horrible and terrible action—so horrible and terrible the details of which can't quite be laid clear, not even here under the security of parliamentary privilege. But in some way these allegations and horrible things that must have been done are contained within this report. What has been extraordinary is, despite the forcefulness and the passion of these speeches about this review, the media simply haven't been interested. It is important to have a look at what Mr Richardson actually said about his report, because there is a clear distance between the line that the Minister of Home Affairs has been taking on and what the actual author of the report has come to say. If we turn to the Guardian—that great bastion of far-Right intellectual thought—what does the coverage of Mr Richardson's report there? It says: Richardson said he had seen no 'evidence of any ministerial involvement in the regional processing contract or procurement decisions, and the secretary of home affairs said he never discussed such decisions with the minister for home affairs'. The article then quotes Richardson as saying, 'We did not come across any matter of deliberate wrong-doing or criminality.' You could not have a clearer statement that completely contradicts the position that the Minister for Home Affairs has taken. Let's take a slight little jump to the right and go to the Sydney Morning Herald, which said: 'Richardson's report said the inquiry did not find any evidence of ministerial involvement in the regional processing contract or procurement decision'—again, confirming what we know, that the suggestion, not quite allegations but the suggestions that in some way the Leader of the Opposition acted in any way inappropriately is completely dismissed by the author and covered both in the Guardian and the SMH. If we take one further step to the right, to The Australian, which says, '"Mr Richardson's report tied the failures to "senior people within Home Affairs", but did not lay any blame on opposition leader Peter Dutton.'" Despite all of these papers quite clearly stating that there is no link to be made between the Leader of the Opposition and any inappropriate behaviour, that there is no suggestion by the author that the Leader of the Opposition behaved in any inappropriate way, this has continued all week. We must ask ourselves why. Why would a senior frontbencher in the government be willing to abandon any and all principles in the pursuit of political gain? Why would integrity not matter one iota in covering this report? Unfortunately, there is no other answer than this is pure theatrical politics. Those opposite are using it because they are hurting in the polls. Clearly, the coming by-election needs a bit of a lift. Clearly, the government is having a look at the net approval ratings of the Prime Minister, which have been lurching downwards, and those of the Leader of the Opposition, which have been gradually, steadily and consistently going upwards, and have seen the threat that the credible government he will bring presents to them. I will finish on this: the hypocrisy of a government that is willing to sit there and pretend that a report makes a suggestion of poor behaviour by the Leader of the Opposition and then raises a misinformation bill. Absolute shame! Gilmore Electorate 75 16:35 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Is has been an exciting few weeks on the South Coast, and I am delighted to be delivering on the promises I made to the people of the Eurobodalla at the last election. Just in the last couple of months, two of my key election commitments have been finalised, and it's really exciting news. Firstly, I'm proud to say that the South Durras community is now benefiting from disaster-resilient power and telecommunications thanks to funding from the Albanese Labor government and the tenacity of local campaigners. To understand why this has been so important to local people, we need to remember—and for local people it is hard to forget—what happened in the summer of 2019-20. The devastating impact of the bushfires on South Coast communities cannot be overstated. It is still being felt today. We are still recovering, and front of mind for every local person is how we can ensure our communities are better prepared and more resilient should the worst occur again. While there were many devastating things that happened during that terrible summer, one that sticks in people's minds is the loss of power. That's because when you lose power you lose telecommunications, you might lose water, and so much more; you are vulnerable. Across the South Coast, local people want to know that we are doing everything possible to stop that happening again. To help ensure the South Durras community is better prepared for future disasters, I have delivered $221,000 in funding to replace 30 timber power poles between the village and the Princes Highway with fireproof composite poles and to relocate power cables to the local NBN fixed wireless tower underground. In the wake of the bushfires, members of the South Durras community—in particular, Durras Community Association stalwart Trevor Daly—sounded the alarm about how close their key power and communications infrastructure came to being destroyed. I worked closely with local community stakeholders and I promised at the 2022 election to ensure their local power and telecommunications would be more resilient. In January I had the pleasure of joining with Trevor Daly and representatives from Essential Energy to celebrate the completion of the last component of these important upgrades in South Durras. The NBN cables were moved in August, and the final power poles were changed over in December—just fantastic news. I'm focused on improving natural disaster resilience across the South Coast and I'm proud to be delivering these improvements. Thank you to Essential Energy, NBN, the Durras Community Association, Trevor and everyone who worked hard to make this a reality. The South Durras project isn't the only exciting update in the Eurobodalla area recently. In early December I joined with representatives from the local health district, the primary health network—COORDINAIRE—and provider ForHealth to celebrate the opening of the Batemans Bay Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. It's no secret that people living in regional areas like ours face challenges in accessing quality healthcare services. We have been experiencing an ever-increasing GP shortage for far too long, with more and more pressure on our local hospitals as people either struggle to get in to see their GP or struggle to afford the cost. That's why, before the last election, I promised to deliver an urgent care clinic for Batemans Bay so that local people needing urgent critical care could get it with just their Medicare card, and so our hospital emergency departments could continue to focus on providing care in life-threatening situations. I've proudly delivered on this commitment to the people of Batemans Bay, and what a success it has been. Just last week the provider gave me an update on how things are going. I cut the ribbon on the Batemans Bay urgent care clinic on 5 December last year, and by 5 February this year, just two months later, the clinic had seen nearly 1,900 patients—1,900 people who walked into the clinic with their Medicare card and received the critical care they needed; 1,900 people who avoided a trip to the emergency department, who didn't have to wait to see their GP for treatment of conditions like cuts and breaks, and who didn't have to open their wallet to pay for that care. That's success by anyone's measure, I am sure. It's moments like this that I like to celebrate—years of hard work by the community, supported by me as their local member, to deliver real improvements for local people. I am incredibly delighted to have delivered on this promise, just as I did in South Durras and just as I am continuing to do all along our South Coast. Capricornia Electorate: Health Care 76 16:40 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today, not only as the federal representative for Capricornia but also as an advocate for the health and wellbeing of the broader Central Queensland community, I urgently highlight an issue that extends beyond bureaucratic delays and requires immediate attention. The issue I wish to highlight is the critical need for the approval of the PET-CT machine at Rockhampton Hospital to service those who reside in the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service catchment area. The 250,000 residents within the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service catchment area currently lack access to a PET-CT machine. This essential piece of medical equipment plays a crucial role in diagnosing heart and brain conditions, identifying tumours and monitoring the progression or recurrence of cancer, as well as evaluating its response to treatment. Those in Central Queensland who require a PET scan as part of their diagnosis or treatment of cancer are required to make the seven-hour round trip to either Mackay or Bundaberg hospital. This not only strains other hospitals providing imaging services and increases the financial burden of patient travel to another city but, more importantly, raises concerns about the physical and emotional toll imposed on individuals battling cancer who must travel for these scans. Since I raised awareness about the lack of medical imaging equipment in Central Queensland, I have been inundated with stories from others who have had to travel for a scan. I have been deeply disturbed to hear stories from constituents who have needed a PET-CT scan, including one local who underwent major surgery and was promptly transported to Mackay the next day for a basic scan. This is unacceptable, yet there is a solution. For over five years, CQ Radiology has been a steadfast partner with Queensland Health, providing essential imaging services at Rockhampton Hospital. In keeping to their contractual agreements, CQ Radiology stands prepared to install a PET-CT machine at Rockhampton Hospital, with Queensland Health committed to facilitating the necessary infrastructure for its seamless integration. This machine has been ordered and is ready to be delivered to Rockhampton to begin servicing the Central Queensland community. The lead lined room at Rockhampton Hospital, integral for the functioning of the PET-CT machine, currently stands vacant and locked, awaiting the approval that would unleash its potential to serve our community. In a remarkable display of community spirit, CQ Radiology has not only pledged this cutting-edge machine but extended a gift in kind: additional infrastructure, including lead lined toilets and waiting rooms, at no cost to the state. This is an opportunity to elevate our region's medical capabilities, and we must seize it. Regrettably, for the past 18 months the state Labor government has faltered in taking decisive action, leaving crucial health infrastructure in limbo. Residents within Central Queensland continue to endure the strain of travelling to Bundaberg and Mackay for PET scans, inflicting physical and emotional hardships on individuals battling cancer during their most vulnerable times. According to statistics released by Cancer Council Queensland, over 1,400 people in Central Queensland are diagnosed with cancer annually. This staggering number underscores the pressing need for a local solution, as many residents are compelled to travel for essential scans that are critical for monitoring the progress of their cancer treatment. The PET-CT scanner, with its advanced capabilities, is not just a piece of equipment; it is a lifeline for those navigating the challenging terrain of medical conditions, including cancer. My dismay deepens upon my learning that the state Assistant Minister for Health and Regional Health Infrastructure said the installation of a PET-CT for Central Queensland is not a priority. We cannot neglect the pressing needs of our cancer patients who endure seven-hour round trips for a simple scan when a willing provider offers the service at no cost. It is disheartening that the assistant minister for health, the member for Keppel, residing within our region, has remained silent on advocating for the approval of this vital PET machine. Our community cannot be left behind, and it is imperative that the Labor Party reassess its priorities concerning the health of those in Central Queensland. I implore Labor to unite in a bipartisan call for the health minister's prompt approval of the PET-CT machine installation at Rockhampton Hospital. The time for action is now, and our collective efforts can ensure that Central Queensland receives the essential health services it rightly deserves. Middle East 77 16:45 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I've spoken previously in this place, and elsewhere, on the seemingly unending and very distressing crisis we see happening in the Middle East. I know that this is an issue that many of my constituents are concerned about. Some of them have reached out to me in my office. I've heard stories of great distress from people with families and friends in the region and from others without a direct connection but caring deeply about the humanitarian crisis we see unfolding. Today, I welcome the words of Senator Penny Wong, in her opening statement in Senate estimates, where she talked of the government using Australia's voice to advocate for a pathway out of this conflict and calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Senator Wong told estimates that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire and getting worse. I'm sure that's not news to any of us. She also confirmed that this government has doubled the core funding to UNRWA, which has already been delivered. I also welcome the joint statement by the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, along with the prime ministers of Canada and New Zealand. Since this is such an important matter, words matter. It's important not to inflame what is happening and undermine the combined efforts of the international community with intemperate words which sound good locally but do greater harm. So I'm going to read the words from the joint prime ministerial statement. The statement reads: The Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand today issued the following statement on reports of Israel's planned military operation in Rafah. We are gravely concerned by indications that Israel is planning a ground offensive into Rafah. A military operation into Rafah would be catastrophic. About 1.5 million Palestinians are taking refuge in the area, including many of our citizens and their families. With the humanitarian situation in Gaza already dire, the impacts on Palestinian civilians from an expanded military operation would be devastating. We urge the Israeli government not to go down this path. There is simply nowhere else for civilians to go. There is growing international consensus. Israel must listen to its friends and it must listen to the international community. The protection of civilians is paramount and a requirement under international humanitarian law. Palestinian civilians cannot be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas. An immediate humanitarian ceasefire is urgently needed. Hostages must be released. The need for humanitarian assistance in Gaza has never been greater. Rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian relief must be provided to civilians. The International Court of Justice has been clear: Israel must ensure the delivery of basic services and essential humanitarian assistance and must protect civilians. The Court's decisions on provisional measures are binding. We are clear that a sustainable ceasefire is necessary to finding a path towards securing lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians. Any ceasefire cannot be one sided. Hamas must lay down its arms and release all hostages immediately. We again unequivocally condemn Hamas for its terror attacks on Israel on October 7. Ultimately, a negotiated political solution is needed to achieve lasting peace and security. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand remain steadfast in their commitment to a two-state solution, including the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in peace, security, and dignity. I know many in my community are in great pain over what is happening. I share with them the deep concern and fears over the fate of those caught up in this terrible situation. The Australian government will continue to use its voice to advocate for a pathway out of this conflict and an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. To my local community: I hear you, I see you, and I will continue to advocate for you. Housing 77 16:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I want to speak today about housing and taxes and some of the debates we've been having in and around this place. Sadly, young Australians are finding it increasingly difficult to get into the housing market. Housing is the first step on the pathway to economic security. That security is not delivered overnight, but the power of incremental saving and the benefits of financial leverage ensure that over time we grow our financial nest egg. A home that's ours adds to our own sense of place in the world. It provides for physical, financial and emotional security. We find ourselves having not only a place that we call home but a community around us as well. ANZ in its Housing Affordability Report speaks of three measures that fully encapsulate housing affordability. They are rents, housing values and interest rates. Rents, along with income, are the major factors that determine how much you can put aside and save for a deposit. Nationwide since the onset of the pandemic, rents have risen 28 per cent. Wages have risen nowhere near as fast as that. In the year to October 2023, rents increased 8.1 per cent. As of September last year, the proportion of income needed to service a new lease hit 31 per cent. It was 26.7 per cent at the onset of the pandemic. Renters are now being squeezed. Nationally, if a renter rightly yearns for a place of their own, it takes 8.4 years to save for a deposit for a unit and 10.7 years to save for a deposit for a home. In my own city of Sydney, it's catastrophic. It takes 9.4 years to save for a deposit for an apartment and a staggering 15.7 years to save for a house deposit. In 2020, the number of years needed to save for a house deposit was 13.3 years. In other words, even with ferocious saving, it's hard keeping up with the deposit required. Of course, interest rates over this time have been going up and up. In 2020, nationwide, servicing an average new mortgage for a home required 30.3 per cent of your income. By October last year, that had risen to 49.5 per cent. In Sydney today, it is 72.2 per cent of income. In Sydney, key workers—our nurses, police, paramedics and teachers—are being priced out of the city. The easiest thing to do in such a time is to find a scapegoat, and Labor and the Greens are arguing it's Australians who own investment properties—as they've done for decades. The big unions, who increasingly fund the Greens and who fund members opposite, want you to believe it's existing owners who are the cause of this sudden collapse in housing affordability. There's a base reason for them to make this argument. They want to remove incentives for individuals, couples and families investing in property so that more money is invested in super, which they control. But the truth about property prices is more about the economics of supply and demand than anything else. Let's look at Sydney and Melbourne. Our two biggest cities have similar economies, similar skilled workforces and the same overarching tax system. In 2010, the difference in median dwelling values between Sydney and Melbourne was $12,000. In October last year, that difference was $343,000. That's extraordinary! What's the difference? It's the lack of supply in Sydney, lazy councils, arcane planning laws and green NIMBYs. According to the New South Wales government's 2022 property projections, New South Wales will need to house an additional 85,000 people every year for the next 20 years to deal with its growing population. That's an additional 904,000 homes or 45,200 homes per year. Yet, despite the Minns government signing up with the Albanese government to the housing target of 75,000 new dwellings a year, even they are admitting they won't make half that target. This week, the matter was raised in estimates, and, when questioned about the New South Wales government admitting they would only meet half of the housing commitment, the response was, 'That's a matter for them.' No; it's not. It's a matter for all of us, because housing supply will not keep up with population growth in the coming years. So the housing vice, in terms of rents and housing prices, will keep tightening for young people in Sydney. We need more housing. We also need more parks, more schools and more transport links so that our suburbs are liveable and that their character is in keeping with their history and meets the needs of residents. In this debate, the problem is not investors, who are mostly mums and dads putting aside for their futures. The problems are supply and demand and state taxes driving up prices. The answer to our housing crisis isn't more taxes; it's fewer. That's the difference between the coalition and the Labor Party. Labor are laying the ground work to break their word again and raise taxes by going after negative gearing. Don't believe them when they use their old line, 'The government has no plans,' because we all know that they do. We need a real debate on housing in this country—one that's focused on supply, demand, housing laws and state government taxes and charges. Pearce Electorate: Volunteering 78 16:54 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce It's been another intense and hectic week in parliament. I have to say, I'm so incredibly proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government team, constantly listening to and making decisions to help members of our community. One of my favourite parts of a public life is being there to listen to, talk to, communicate with and see our wonderful community members and acknowledge what they do in support of others. Recently, Australia Day award ceremonies were held right around our country, honouring individuals for their outstanding contributions to their communities. In my electorate of Pearce, I had the privilege of witnessing three remarkable individuals being celebrated for their unwavering dedication in serving our local community. Mr Derek Young, who resides in Two Rocks, was acknowledged for his exceptional commitment to and leadership of the Two Rocks Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade and the Two Rocks Youth in Emergency Services, or YES, cadets. Derek has tirelessly devoted himself to engaging, educating and fostering resilience within the community, particularly amongst our youth. His steadfast dedication has been evident for many years. In fact, I had the honour of recognising Derek during my tenure as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo, when I bestowed upon him an honour in 2018. Ms Maddie Walker, also a resident of Two Rocks, epitomises community spirit. As a devoted member of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club for the last 15 years, the beloved Nippers program director for three years and now a youth director, Maddie has played a vital role in training and inspiring young members of the community. Having grown up in the Yanchep-Two Rocks area, Maddie is renowned for her compassionate and jovial nature. Despite her commitments to work, she continues to balance her volunteering duties admirably. I extend my very best wishes to her for her future. Mrs Sally Allen was honoured with a senior award for her invaluable assistance to stroke survivors through the Northern Suburbs Stroke Support Group, an organisation she founded over two decades ago for her own husband's stroke, which led her to become his full-time carer. Sally's altruism extends beyond this endeavour. She has volunteered with organisations such as St John Ambulance, Red Cross and Surf Life Saving. Currently, she also coordinates the volunteer justice of the peace roster—I'm actually part of that roster—in our far northern suburbs. It has been a privilege to collaborate with Sally over the years, and I'm so incredibly proud of her achievements. The community club award was bestowed upon the Yanchep Netball Club, under the exceptional leadership of Stephanie Scott and her volunteer committee. This club plays a pivotal role in providing social and inclusive sport opportunities to the local community, nurturing the development of skills and friendships while promoting fitness and activity. It is in its 50th year, and I wish them all the very best for the upcoming season. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all the recipients and express my gratitude to the numerous volunteers within the Pearce community, whose tireless efforts contribute to making it, without doubt, one of the finest electorates in the country. I make no apologies for my obvious bias! Volunteering provides individuals with unique opportunities to make a positive difference to the world. By actively participating in activities that address societal needs or environmental concerns, volunteers contribute to the betterment of our community. Volunteering helps to build a sense of empathy and understanding through interaction with diverse groups. It also helps to foster a deep appreciation for the challenges faced by others. We have many such unsung heroes within all of our communities, who volunteer, often on a daily basis, to assist others, whether it be as a carer or as someone who helps by driving, gardening, cleaning or delivering goods to those in need. Volunteers play a crucial role in building strong, resilient communities, and, when they come together to contribute their time and skills, they without doubt create a network of support that rises above socioeconomic and cultural boundaries. It is also true that in times of crisis, such as natural disasters, volunteers often play a vital role in providing immediate assistance and support, helping to lift community spirit as they care for the wellbeing of their friends and neighbours. To the many that volunteer to support our fire emergency services, local residents or sporting clubs and groups—it's just amazing what they do, and their hearts just continue to go out to one another—and to the parents volunteering in our schools or supporting youth groups, such as scouts and guides or cadets: we salute you. Our volunteers deserve our recognition and thanks, for they are the glue that helps bind our communities together. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. House adjourned at 17 : 0 0 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Thursday, 15 February 2024

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 81 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Fowler Electorate: Help You Cope, National Disability Insurance Scheme 81 09:30 Ms 295676 Fowler LE () (): Joline George is a mother of two, and her youngest, an eight-year-old, has autism and is currently in a support unit in a public school. He receives funding from the NDIS, but the road to getting him the right care and support hasn't been easy. For Joline, not only did she have to come to terms with having a child with special needs, with autism spectrum level 3; she and her husband felt helpless not knowing where to find the right information to give their child the best care they could, as any parent would. Her journey to find the right support made her realise that there was nothing out there for carers, so she set up Help You Cope to assist mothers with the personal and emotional challenges of caring for children with special needs. Since 2019, this small not-for-profit organisation in my community of Fowler has been able to provide for over 100 mothers every month, and growing, with the emotional support they need in their roles as mothers with special needs children. I spoke with Joline, who welcomed the NDIS reform that's being proposed, which is focusing on the states having a hand in supporting autism developmental delays and ADHD in lower socio-economic areas, of which Fowler is one. It is proposed that foundational support is provided outside of the NDIS and introduced to people with less severe disabilities. As defined by the NDIS Review, foundational supports are disability specific supports available outside of individuals' budgets and aim to provide the foundation for a good life. This certainly is a step forward, but it's imperative that the government understands the challenges carers such as Joline and her mothers group experience. While Joline welcomes the concept of having the funding provided to a school to deliver the support, she's concerned that schools lacks the staffing numbers and the specialists required to provide support for those children with special needs. My Fowler community are joining at up to three times the rate of their inner-city counterparts when it comes to the NDIS, with most of the children in my electorate 1.3 times more likely to suffer from developmental delays and learning disabilities. Families in Fowler and Western Sydney receive lower NDIS funding for the same diagnosis than those in more affluent areas, and the waiting list to get specialist care is between 12 and 24 months for therapy. As the member for Fowler, I'm passionate about my constituents getting the adequate support that they deserve and being empowered to thrive in my community. I appreciate the government's intention of transforming disability support in Australia, but I ask the government to ensure that equity is maintained and that barriers are dismantled with the new NDIS scheme to support families who are crying out for more funding. Albanese Government 81 09:33 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan The Albanese Labor government hit the ground running. We will not waste a moment. So what exactly has the Albanese Labor government done for my electorate of Swan? Jobs, accessible homes, cheaper medicine, cheaper child care, paid parental leave and now tax cuts. We're building a better future every day. In the south-east region of statistical area 4, employment grew by 7,400 jobs, to 315,000, in the 12 months to the end of December last year. When it comes to homes, the Albanese Labor government is bringing homeownership back into reach with the Home Guarantee Scheme, helping more than 2,800 people in the south-east of Perth, and that's since May 2022. We're making medicines cheaper. Making a choice between medicine and food is not something that Australians should have to consider. Making medicines cheaper was a key election commitment of the Albanese government, and we have delivered. We also dropped the copayment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to $30. Australians across the nation have saved $160 million. That's more than 14 million cheaper prescriptions. In my electorate they've saved $1.3 million on prescriptions. This means that people in my electorate are benefiting from commitments that the Albanese government made. We've delivered real benefits and real relief, making a real difference for Australians. It's helped alleviate the cost of living, and not delaying access to medicine is better for everyone. It's good for the hip-pocket, good for individual health and great for the health system. We've also made childcare cheaper, making it easy for families to decide on whether or not to return to work. Paid parental leave is something that has been welcomed in my community as well. In my community, 1,800 parents have received paid parental leave. Finally, on the tax cuts, my community spoke, and we listened. We analysed the data and we acted. This is about fairness. More people will benefit, and we will do this without additional inflation pressures. Ninety-four thousand people in Swan will receive a tax cut from 1 July. The average cut will be $1,600, and 77,000 taxpayers in Swan will get a bigger tax cut than under the coalition plan. Eighty-three per cent of Swan taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. This is fantastic news, but we're continuing to work hard. Next week on Friday, we also have a cost-of-living forum, and that's because we want to bring the community together and help household budgets. We're here to build a better community. Smith, Ms June, OAM 82 09:36 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Today I want to celebrate the achievements of one very special George Town local, June Smith OAM. June was recently awarded Citizen of the Year by the George Town Council for her service to the local community since arriving in George Town 55 years ago. June's achievements are numerous and worthy of recognition here today. June was a founding member of the local Play Centre in 1971 and was eventually elected as its president. She was an active member of the parents and friends association of local schools for a number of years, introducing critical healthy eating programs. In 1975 June was elected as a George Town councillor, staying on until 1984, and during this time she served three years as deputy warden—the first woman to do so. June also served as a representative on numerous childcare, welfare, school, women's and senior citizens committees and was on the YMCA board of management for five years, organising school holiday activities, projects for the unemployed and camps for disadvantaged children. She became community officer at George Town in 1987, securing government funding for a community car service, family support worker, social worker, food and nutrition worker, office traineeships and youth employment schemes. June also instigated the George Town Winter Appeal, involving all church and community groups. Not content to go quietly into retirement, after leaving the council in 1995 June went on to establish the George Town Choral Group, which performed and entertained residents of Ainslie House aged-care facility. June volunteered for six years at Ainslie House, organising games afternoons for residents. Again deciding that she still had more to give, June ran again for councillor, serving from 1999 to 2002. June has rightly been recognised with numerous awards over the years for her tireless dedication to our local community, including the Medal of the Order of Australia and a place on the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women. I'd like to share some of my personal thoughts about June, who I first met when I moved to George Town in 2008. I would describe her as a force of nature and a trailblazer. She's ahead of her time when you look at her achievements. June has never been backwards in coming forward and doesn't take no for an answer. She is the very definition of a doer. It's thanks to people like June that women like me have had the opportunities that we have enjoyed since, and I hold her up as an example of what's possible. I'd also say that I wouldn't want to be on the prickly end of her pineapple, and I'm fortunate that I don't think I have been yet! June, you've enriched the lives of so many through your dedication to community service, and I don't think we could even begin to count the number of people you've helped in your 55 years of involvement with the George Town community. You are the epitome of what true service to others looks like, and being awarded Citizen of the Year is another worthy accolade. Moreton Electorate: Volunteers 82 09:39 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On Saturday 3 February I was proud to host the Moreton Volunteer Awards at the wonderful Wellers Hill Bowls Club, an occasion to honour and celebrate our local volunteers. It's wonderful to have that opportunity to celebrate ordinary, kindly people doing extraordinary things within my local community. This is my 16th year of hosting the awards, and they're a fantastic way to kickstart the year. The awards ceremony allows us to take the time to reflect on how the recipients demonstrate the strength of our community and how, with their generosity, humility, service and caring, they demonstrate what community really means. They remind us that we're not just individuals living in the same geographic area; instead, we're a community working together. This year's ceremony was attended by 52 recipients and over 200 proud family members and friends. Elected representatives from the Brisbane City Council and state government mingled with volunteers and heard more about their vital community work that takes place 365 days a year—but this is the one day when we come together to acknowledge their tireless work for our community. The award recipients represented a wide range of organisations, from those wonderful community centres helping those doing it tough, people organising community festivals, Scouts, sporting organisations, kindies, P&Cs, volunteers at schools, carers for vulnerable people, RSL sub-branches, Rotary and Lions groups, op shops, food banks, people doing fundraisers for hospitals and even a first aid team. The beauty of these awards is that the recipients are as diverse as the community that I get to call home. Some characteristics that the recipients all share or have in common are kindness, dedication, reliability and a willingness to give up their own time to help the people in our community. They are the quiet warriors who lead by example—the unassuming role models who show the rest of us how we should be treating our neighbours or those we too often walk past. These people are making a difference where it matters. Moreton is a wonderful place to live, and it's clear that the spirit of community is strong and vibrant. Our community would not be the wonderful, rich and welcoming place that it is without the award recipients, who give their time so generously day after day, often at great sacrifice to themselves. Thank you to all the people who took the time to nominate these Moreton heroes, these hardworking community workers, and a big thankyou again to the Wellers Hill Bowls Club for their continued support of the awards; they provided their venue for free. I will just give a plug for the Wellers Hill Bowls Club for anyone in Brisbane. I think they've got about 7,000 different types of beer and they provide wonderful food as well on the weekend. Congratulations to all the volunteers who received the Moreton Volunteer Awards in 2024 for the great work they do in our community. Fadden Electorate: Storms 83 09:42 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I rise today to speak of the devastating Christmas Day tornado that wreaked havoc across the northern Gold Coast and particularly in my electorate of Fadden. Christmas is usually a time of joy and celebration spent with loved ones. However, last year it delivered a devastating blow to many people across the Gold Coast as we were hit by severe thunderstorms and a tornado, leaving a trail of destruction unlike anything we've seen before. Almost 40,000 homes were left without power, some for up to seven days, and many people suffered enormous property damage, together with emotional and financial stress. For example, an aged-care facility in Runaway Bay, home to 48 of our community's most vulnerable residents, was without power for four days in heatwave conditions. I was pleased that my advocacy to Energex delivered a fit-for-purpose generator in their time of need, to help these most vulnerable people. Small businesses were forced to shut their doors during the busiest season of the year, missing out on substantial sales—not to mention the loss of stock for some of our hospitality businesses. During a time when families would normally be relaxing and resetting for the year ahead, Gold Coasters were instead undertaking emergency repairs to their homes, throwing out rotten food from fridges and freezers, and commencing what has become a mammoth clean-up to remove storm debris. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis—in addition to the challenge of keeping food on the table—residents had to spend more money to restock their fridges and freezers with essentials and to undertake repairs to their homes. In the days following the storm I wrote to the Minister for Emergency Management, urging the government to provide financial assistance reflecting the catastrophic nature of the event and to take a generous approach to the eligibility criteria, noting the hardship many were already facing at that time and the timeliness of those payments being critical for recovery. The announcement of the Australian government disaster recovery payment was welcomed by residents in Biggera Waters, Coombabah, Coomera, Gaven, Helensvale, Hollywell, Labrador, Oxenford, Pacific Pines, Paradise Point and Runaway Bay. Following further collaboration and advocacy, I was pleased to see three more suburbs added to the eligibility: Pimpama, Hope Island and Parkwood, which had also suffered enormous damage. On a lighter note, I was heartened by the community response to the disaster and to witness the camaraderie between neighbours in the days following the tornado—residents sharing generators to keep the fridges running and lights on or even opening their homes after regaining power. The resilience was truly remarkable. I want to especially acknowledge some of my local colleagues, Councillor Shelley Curtis, David Crisafulli MP and Mark Boothman MP, who all worked tirelessly to keep the community informed and to support residents in their time of need. I want to give a special shout-out to the Energex crews, the local emergency services and SES volunteers, who absolutely did an amazing job with the clean-up. Dobell Electorate 83 09:45 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell This month I stood alongside the NSW Minister for the Central Coast and state member for Wyong, David Harris, to announce that parking would remain free at Wyong Hospital. Under the previous Liberal government, plans to introduce paid parking at Wyong Hospital were put in motion. Wyong Hospital services one of the largest regional centres and, as locals know, lacks good public transport access. As a pharmacist who worked at Wyong Hospital for nearly a decade, I know the devastating impact the introduction of paid parking would have had on patients, visitors and staff. I'd like to extend my thanks to the community, who joined our campaign to stop paid parking at Wyong Hospital. It was only a few short years ago that we fought together against the Liberal's plan to privatise our community hospital. I want to give a further thank you and my gratitude to the New South Wales health minister, Minister Ryan Park, who listened to the needs of locals, who heard our community, who worked with us and who stopped the introduction of paid parking. I'm also delighted that, on the same occasion, Minister Harris announced $6.4 million has been allocated for the stage 3 redevelopment of Wyong Hospital. This is such an important investment in health in our community. Our government is working hard to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts under the previous coalition government. Since we tripled the bulk-billing incentive last November, we've seen a turnaround in bulk-billing that was in absolute freefall. In my electorate, we've seen a 5.5 per cent increase in bulk-billing. I'd like to acknowledge the doctors and practices on the coast who are taking up the incentive and bulk-billing those who need it most. Last December we opened the Medicare urgent care clinic at Lake Haven in my electorate for urgent but not life-threatening emergencies. This Medicare urgent care clinic is taking the pressure off the already stretched emergency department at Wyong Hospital and, since it opened it's doors, has seen close to 2,000 patients—2,000 people having free, walk-in, bulk-billed urgent care. Finally I want to touch on the Love Lanes Festival in Wyong, which I was delighted to join on Saturday with my family and friends, especially my niece, Iona, and so many people from across the community. The Love Lanes Festival celebrates my hometown, bringing together local businesses, much-loved community groups and creatives in a family festival everyone can enjoy. Besides getting to see her friends and her former kindergarten buddy, Shelby, I know that my niece, Iona, particularly enjoyed watching the handstand chair circus act. It's wonderful to see the Love Lanes Festival in Wyong grow from year to year, and I'm keen to attend next year, when I'm sure it'll be even bigger and better than in past years. While I talk about the Love Lanes Festival, I want to finish by congratulating the Prime Minister and his partner, Jodie Haydon, on their engagement yesterday. Congratulations, Prime Minister. Greater Shepparton Community Connector Program 84 09:48 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to speak about a program in my community that has been incredibly successful. It's called the Greater Shepparton Community Connector Program, and I want to talk a bit about its genesis and how a partnership with government made it happen. We firstly identified the problem. Greater Shepparton has an incredibly vibrant economy. A lot of jobs are available, but we were having real trouble filling them. When professional people, particularly, were moving to the regions, they'd move back to the city in many cases after six months or a year because they hadn't made any connections. The Committee for Greater Shepparton, of which I was the CEO, and the Greater Shepparton City Council looked at this problem, and we talked to Dr Cath Cosgrave. Dr Cosgrave had done a Churchill fellowship to Canada in 2019 and found a very successful program called the Health Workforce Recruiter Connector position in Ontario. We worked with Dr Cosgrave to adapt that to the Goulburn Valley, and came up with the Community Connector Program. The Community Connector Program had a staff, and it got hold of people who had just moved to the region for a job—in many case a professional job—and helped those people to find schooling for their children if that was required, to find housing—either a rental or a house to purchase—if that was required, and to link with community groups in their areas of interest, if they were interested in sport, the arts or anything else going on. We found the community groups those people were interested in, and they made friends and they made connections immediately in the community. It enhanced the chance they would stay and provide their incredibly needed services to whatever professional job they had gotten. The program has been hugely successful. People now come to Greater Shepparton for a job and they stay because they connect immediately. What that needed was the grassroots initiative of the community, but it also needed the assistance of government through funding. The Committee for Greater Shepparton went to the previous coalition government and said, 'Here's our idea,' and the then minister for water, Minister Pitt, found the funding to operate that program. It's what I call grassroots policy development and government saying, 'We don't know best here in Canberra; you know what works in your community, and we're going to back you and help you out with it.' The success of this program is testament to that approach. I see this government is a bit more Canberra centric: 'Here's a bucket, here's a program we've developed, your program has to fit within that.' I think this is a really good example of partnership between community and government. It's worked incredibly well in my community, and I hope to see more of it. Boothby Electorate: Brighton Beach 84 09:51 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Picture this: two weeks ago, Sunday 4 February, gorgeous Brighton Beach, white sands, calm blue waters, sunny and 26 degrees—and 664 gorgeous blonde bombshells sashaying down Jetty Road! Six hundred and sixty-four Marilyn Monroes—including a fair few 'Man-ilyns'—donned their platinum blonde wigs, sweetheart sunglasses, white swimsuits, red lippy, pearls and high heels, and paraded down Jetty Road at Brighton, across the sands and into the sea. But these gorgeous bathing beauties were not just strutting their stuff for the entertainment of the crowds; they were also raising money for cancer research. The Marilyn Jetty Swim was started 11 years go by local Sarah Tenney, after her mother was diagnosed with cancer and passed away a year later. Sarah pledged to raise money to help cure cancer, and the Marilyn Jetty Swim was born. To be honest, I've no idea why she chose this particular event for her fundraiser, but it's gone from strength to strength and it's a keenly anticipated event every year. The first Marilyn Jetty Swim had 50 Marilyns participating and raised over $26,000. Having run fundraising, I can say that, for one event, that is a pretty good outcome. Eleven years later, and the number of Marilyns has grown. To date they have raised over $1 million for Cancer Council SA. When you've glamped up as the ultimate platinum blonde, and put on your heels and pearls, you've got to make the most of it. Many of them graced the all-day street party with their presence, posing for photos and blowing kisses. It was great to see them really getting into character. It has to be said: kudos to the Marilyns and the 'Man-ilyns', who kept those heels on all day! This was just one event at fabulous Brighton Beach on that day. Jetty Road was closed off for an all-day street party, with live music, face painting, food truck street stalls and much more. For those looking for something a little more athletic, Brighton Jetty Classic Swims were held on the same day, featuring a series of swims for different age groups up to the 1,500-metre race. I was privileged to be the guest of the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club at their 'thank you' event for volunteers at the Brighton Jenny Sculptures event. This art competition was the brainchild of Brighton surf club, and has been running for 16 years. It's grown from 14 sculptures to a must-see two-week exhibition, with large public art pieces on the foreshore and smaller pieces in the marquees. All the artwork is for sale. There's something for everyone. Boothby has some of the most gorgeous Australian beachfronts, with white sands, sheltered waters, great seaside culture and terrific small businesses, including restaurants and cafes—all a short 20-minute drive from the CBD. Brighton is one of them, and I invite you to come on down. Telecommunications 85 09:54 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn From Gladstone to Gemfields, Moore Park Beach to Monto, Baffle Creek to Biloela, Alton Downs to Agnes Water, regional telecommunications would have to be one of the biggest issues in the Flynn electorate, no matter where you live. In 2024, telecommunications have never been more important. I often hear from small business owners that are losing money because their EFTPOS machine network systems and mobile networks are down. Many constituents have told me that banks and government departments have gone solely digital. Yet, when many customers try to complete transactions or documents online, two-factor authentication is required. They are not able to complete these requests in regional Australia, as often the two-factor message does not come through. There are further issues with the Labor government winding down the use of cheques across the banking system, with federal departments to use other payment methods by 2028. A goal has been set to end the use of cheques completely by 2030. In 2024, the Regional Telecommunications Review is examining the adequacy of telecommunications in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. I have written to the committee asking them to visit the electorate of Flynn and hear from affected stakeholders. I encourage businesses and residents to provide feedback to the committee about their views and experiences using telecommunications services, as I for one know that the big telecommunications companies are letting us down. Today I call for a Senate inquiry into regional telecommunications. Telstra is under a service obligation that they are not meeting and not acknowledging. The performance criteria, based on fixed line and payphone standards and benchmarks, was made under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection And Service Standards) Act 1999. These criteria were set over 20 years ago— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— S itting suspended from 09 : 56 to 10 : 17 Mr BOYCE 299498 This criterion was made over 20 years ago and has not been changed to reflect the use of modern-day telecommunications. Mobile and internet reception is required daily to complete the most basic of tasks. Telecommunications are also critical in regional Australia for several reasons, including distance and isolation, access to services, economic development, education and skills development, healthcare access, emergency and disaster management, community connectivity, tourism and regional development. Recent bushfires in Central Queensland have highlighted the fact that telecommunications are not only critical but unreliable and severely lacking. Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland must honour her election promise and fix all the mobile black spots in regional areas. Regional telecommunications are not a matter of families being able to watch Netflix every night but rather a matter of making life-or-death calls in these situations. These things need to change and it's time that the big communications companies started putting people before profit. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 86 BILLS Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 86

Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024

Second Reading 86 10:18 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite I am proud to be part of a government that is providing leadership and investment to address family, domestic and sexual violence. This leadership is epitomised in this bill which will strengthen protections for vulnerable Australians taking part in Commonwealth criminal proceedings, proceedings that often require victims-survivors to relive their trauma. This bill, the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, will take the burden off victims-survivors. It will ensure robust support for vulnerable individuals throughout the entire legal process by amending the Crimes Act and strengthening protections for vulnerable Australians in Commonwealth criminal proceedings to take the onus off the victims-survivors—victims-survivors who have suffered immense trauma, victims-survivors who would often rather stay silent than seek justice and victims-survivors from every corner of our nation. We know that an estimated 736 million women—almost one in three worldwide—have experienced physical or sexual violence at least once in their lives. In Australia, as many as one in six women have been subject to physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. I know we are all deeply disturbed by the endless stories of women dying at the hands of their current or former partner, and we all acknowledge that one life lost is one life too many. Each death has devastating rippling effects across our communities. When a woman's life is taken from her, children lose mothers, parents lose children, brothers lose sisters and we lose our friends and our workmates. Family, domestic and sexual violence is not just a women's issue; it is an issue for everyone. For all those brave women and all women across the nation I stand today to support this bill. Like our Attorney-General, I recognise and thank all victims-survivors who have advocated for this much-needed reform. These efforts build upon the extensive work undertaken by our government since taking office, leading national discussions on strengthening responses to sexual assault. In the 2023-24 budget, our government announced $14.7 million to strengthen the way the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault, to prevent further harm to victims and survivors. This includes the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence, a lived experienced expert advisory group. Last August, our government convened the ministerial national roundtable. The Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry has now commenced. Pre-eminent Australian lawyers Marcia Neave AO and Judge Liesl Kudelka will conduct this inquiry, and their work is well underway. This bill implements key recommendations from the 2017 final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, with a particular focus on pre-recording of evidence. It also expands the range of offences covered by existing protections for vulnerable people in Commonwealth criminal proceedings, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and drug offences. It ensures adult complainants are able to access vulnerable witness protections for offences that occurred while they were children, recognising that it may take many years for victims and survivors to disclose their abuse. These amendments reflect the broad range of offences impacting vulnerable people. Moreover, the bill introduces a range of significant measures to address the admissibility of evidence concerning vulnerable people—evidence that is very traumatising and often adversarial. Evidence about a vulnerable person's reputation with respect to their sexual activities will be made inadmissible. Greater restrictions are placed on sexual experience evidence, making it inadmissible except in limited circumstances and where the court grants leave. This type of evidence is ordinarily too far removed from evidence of the alleged crime for its admission to be in the interests of justice and can retraumatise vulnerable persons by victim blaming. A court will now need to be satisfied that sexual experience evidence is substantially relevant to the proceedings, and to consider whether its value outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment to the vulnerable person. This bill also addresses barriers that may deter vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence. The new measures allow for a vulnerable person to give evidence by way of video or audio recordings and for evidence to be recorded for use at subsequent proceedings. Importantly, witnesses will not be required to see the defendant when giving recorded evidence, and it will be an offence to intentionally copy, damage, alter, possess or supply recordings of the evidence. This bill is so important, and I'm so proud to be associated with it. I would like to thank the Attorney-General for acting to ensure that our criminal justice response to sexual violence is more compassionate and more just and will go some way to empowering vulnerable people and, hopefully, result in more victims feeling able to seek justice. For too long, we have allowed an imbalance of power in this adversarial setting. The Attorney-General's bill finally addresses this flaw. It's time that victim-survivors are not put in a position where they have to relive their trauma. It's time we enabled vulnerable people to give evidence in a safe and controlled setting. This bill supports the voices of victim-survivors by ensuring they are empowered to speak out if they choose to do so. This bill also makes it clear that the current restriction on publishing material that identifies another person as a child witness, child complainant or vulnerable adult complainant in a proceeding does not apply to a person who publishes material that identifies themselves. This bill will also remove the requirement for the proceedings to be finalised before such a publication may occur and clarifies the law that there is no restriction on identifying a vulnerable person who is deceased. These amendments not only ensure victims and survivors are able and supported to speak out, should they wish to do so, but also present an opportunity for the public to gain a better understanding of sexual violence from the perspective of victims and survivors. Most importantly, these changes give victims and survivors back their voice. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 26 to 10 : 36 Ms COKER 263547 Most importantly, these changes give victims and survivors back their voice, as well as the agency and power to control their own stories and experiences. Limiting this provision to victims-survivors balances providing a legal mechanism to support them to speak out with preserving the ability of victims and survivors to maintain privacy. These reforms will progress the work of the government under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030, and the Standing Council of Attorneys-General's Work Plan to Strengthen Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault. Through strengthening protections and enhanced safeguards, this bill is an important step towards creating better outcomes for vulnerable persons in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. I have been passionate about this issue for many years. I was proud to be Mayor of the Surf Coast Shire when, in 2010, our council voted to introduce paid family and domestic violence leave for its staff. The agreement was hailed as a world first and the most progressive workplace agreement on family violence at that time. I'm proud that our government has ensured this entitlement now applies to all employees across Australia, regardless of their type of employment. The Albanese government, through this bill, is continuing to champion innovative and impactful measures to address issues as critical as sexual assault and domestic violence. As we move forward with these legislative reforms, we are not just legislating legal change; we are taking significant steps towards fostering a society that prioritises the wellbeing and dignity of its people, who deserve justice. By empowering victims-survivors we not only offer support but also amplify their voices, ensuring they have control over their narratives and experiences. By integrating these measures into a broader framework of national strategies we're fostering a cohesive and united effort to strengthen our criminal justice responses to sexual assault. This not only seeks to prevent further harm to victims-survivors but also endeavours to transform the way we approach and respond to sexual assault within our society. The commitment to sensitivity, protection and empowerment enshrined in this legislation reflects our collective dedication to building a safer and more just nation. As we roll out these reforms, it's my hope that they serve as a beacon for change across our states and territories, demonstrating the positive impact of legislative measures grounded in empathy and respect for the survivors of sexual assault. Together we can continue to build a global community where justice is compassionate, survivors are supported and the prevention of sexual assault is at the forefront of government efforts. In essence this bill represents a vital stride towards a more compassionate and effective legal system. I commend this bill to the House. 10:39 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise in support of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024. For survivors of sexual violence and abuse, participating in the criminal justice system is really challenging. To have suffered a traumatic event and then be expected to detail and relive the trauma again and again must be agonising. Coupled with the shame and stigma that so often accompanies these kinds of crimes, it's a situation that you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. To recognise these difficulties, the Commonwealth Crimes Act currently includes special rules that offer protections to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and vulnerable persons in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. These include things like special provisions governing the admissibility of evidence, rules in relation to cross-examining vulnerable witnesses, provisions for the use of CCTV and screens for vulnerable persons to give evidence, and provisions for the prerecording of the testimony of a vulnerable witness's evidence. It's good to see government responding to the recommendations of the royal commission report from 2017. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established in 2013 in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children in institutional contexts that had been emerging in Australia for many years. It was in response to consistent advocacy from victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and those who represent and support them. The final report was produced after more than 8,000 personal stories were heard in private sessions and more than a thousand survivors provided a written account of their experience. It was a comprehensive and important body of work. I note that the fifth Annual Progress Report on implementation was published in 2022 and showed that all 206 Commonwealth related recommendations from the royal commission are now implemented or in progress. I thank all of those contributors to this important milestone for their work. I also acknowledge the ongoing work in this area through the first national action plan of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse and the Standing Council of Attorneys-General Work Plan to Strengthen Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault. But what about the specifics of this bill? This new bill legislates four of the recommendations from the royal commission. It's most certainly in the interests of vulnerable adults and in the interests of an effective criminal justice system that people are given the opportunity to give what has been described as their 'best evidence' in court. I welcome each of these four changes. First, it expands the range of offences and increases protections to adults who were children at the time of the offence. This is important, particularly as we know that repressed childhood trauma can resurface well into adulthood. Vulnerable adults who are grappling with memories of childhood crimes should also be afforded protection. Second, it makes evidence about sexual reputation inadmissible for all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This is an absolute no-brainer. All stakeholders and commentators have supported this change, with the Law Council of Australia saying it would: … provide significant protections for vulnerable complainants while retaining exceptions for properly relevant and probative evidence. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 43 to 10 : 52 Ms CHANEY 300006 All stakeholders and commentators have supported this change, with the Australian Law Council saying it would provide significant protections for vulnerable complainants while retaining exceptions for properly relevant and probative evidence. I think it's an essential change because it reduces the ability for the victim to be blamed for the crime by referring to their history or reputation. This change means the evidence is about the accused rather than the behaviour of the victim. Third, it introduces the capacity to pre-recorded evidence. The Law Council was concerned about this provision because it believed that this could create delays to trial proceedings as well as increases in costs. The Law Council also noted that there's no provision in the bill to provide an accused with the right to full disclosure before the pre- recording of evidence commences. While I acknowledge that there are concerns, I think the benefits for victims outweigh the costs and logistics for the system. The court retains a discretion to order pre-recording of evidence hearings only when it's satisfied that it's in the interest of justice to do so. This seems to provide an opportunity to balance the interests of a vulnerable witness and the interests of an accused. Finally, this bill allows a child witness, child complainant or vulnerable adult to publish self identifying information. In the past, the criminal justice system compounded the victim 's experience by putting a muzzle on them, adding to their trauma by requiring them to remain silent and to hide their identity. This important reform restores a rightful agency to be vulnerable complainant-witness to disclose who they are in the context of these proceedings and to talk about what they have experienced. The grim reality is that, in sexual abuse cases, many victims and vulnerable people remain too fearful to complain and subject themselves to the risk that the criminal justice system will fail to adequately support and protect them. I welcome any measures that address this fear. I support this amendment and encourage the government to continue to progress and implement all recommendations in the 2017 royal commission report. 10:54 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Way back in 2013, a long time ago, when tigers used to smoke, as my Korean community says, as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs I delivered a report, Troubled waters, on an inquiry into the arrangements surrounding crimes at sea. The scope of that inquiry included examining whether improvements could be made in relation to the reporting, investigation and prosecution of crimes committed at sea. The horrendous death of Queensland woman Diane Brimble on a cruise ship— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10 : 55 to 1 1:05 Mr PERRETT HVP The horrendous death of Queensland woman Dianne Brimble on a cruise ship back in 2002 has not been forgotten by many of us. As I reflect on this enduring tragedy, I am pleased to be able to stand in support of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024—and I'll give a quick shout-out to Mark Brimble, who has done so much advocacy work when it comes to crimes at sea, both around Australia and internationally. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to strengthen protections for vulnerable persons involved in Commonwealth criminal proceedings, including crimes committed at sea in Australian waters. The Albanese Labor government has led a national discussion on strengthening criminal justice responses to sexual assault to prevent further harm to victims and survivors. In the last budget, we announced the investment of $14.7 million towards this goal. Moreover, $6.5 million over four years has been directed to the Attorney-General's portfolio as part of the Albanese government's commitment to work with the states and territories on the Work Plan to Strengthen Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault 2022-2027 and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032—important, methodical work that will improve our justice system. We must do better by our victims and survivors. Labor is committed to preventing further harm to victims and survivors and minimising the retraumatisation that they experience as they move through the criminal justice system. The amendments in this bill are a key part of this work. These reforms were, in part, informed by extensive consultation with victims, survivors and their advocates. We all thank them for their bravery in sharing their stories and the contribution that they have made to strengthening the way the criminal justice system responds to sexual violence. At the core of these reforms are trauma-informed measures that better support vulnerable victims and survivors throughout their journey as complainants or witnesses through our criminal justice system. Trauma-informed care means all levels of an organisation or a system understand trauma and how it impacts on individuals, families and communities. Trauma-informed care recognises the science of trauma and understands how best to respond and develop strategies and systems that decrease the potential for the retraumatisation of vulnerable people. The effects of sexual assault can be devastating to victims and survivors and their families, and these ripples can extend for many, many decades after. In the immediate aftermath of an assault, people may feel shock, fear and numbness. If they make a report to police, victims and survivors are then asked to relive their assault and face challenging and intrusive questioning; that is obviously good for justice but horrific for the individual—and sometimes also, sadly, not good for justice. In some cases, it may feel as though they are under investigation; they can feel deep shame, and they can be retraumatised. In many cases, this continues as the individual moves through the criminal justice system, repeating their story time and time again and then being questioned about it. So, with these experiences in mind, it is not hard to see how the effects of sexual assault can be cumulative, long-lasting, complex and completely detrimental to the wellbeing of victims and survivors. It is crucial that the criminal justice system provides trauma-informed support for all involved and is victim-and-survivor-focused, every step along the way. This crimes amendment bill implements several outstanding recommendations regarding the pre-recording of evidence from the 2017 final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These recommendations focused on ensuring 'the complainant is given a good opportunity to give their "best evidence", meaning the most complete and accurate evidence the complainant is able to give'. This supports vulnerable people to give evidence via video or via audio recording, removing them from the confrontation of the court environment. Under this bill, evidence, such as cross-examination, can be recorded for use in subsequent trials or retrials, removing the necessity for victims and survivors to provide evidence on numerous occasions, and stopping them from having to recount the assault, or assaults, over and over again, because replaying horror repeatedly and actually be doing the work of the perpetrator over again. Additionally, recorded evidence means complainants and witnesses are not confronted with having to face the defendant in court. Any recorded evidence will also be protected by measures to stop copying, alteration or distribution. Defendants are able to access the recorded evidence as per due process. A fair trial is an important part of the rule of law. Obviously some shock jocks and division-hungry politicians want to convict only on what is written in the Courier-Mail or the Daily Telegraph, but sensible Australians believe in justice. Providing a safe and controlled environment in which to provide evidence, and to only provide it once, is less confronting and traumatising for victims and survivors. This bill supports victims and survivors by expanding the range of offences covered by the scope of existing protections for vulnerable people in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The offences now include crimes against humanity, war crimes and drug offences involving children. The bill also includes measures regarding the admissibility of evidence about vulnerable people. It makes evidence about adult victims and survivors sexual reputations inadmissible and puts more restrictions on evidence relating to sexual experience. Rehashing such evidence can retraumatise vulnerable persons by victim blaming, leading to further trauma through being judged and humiliated. In most cases, information about sexual experience has no bearing on the evidence of the alleged crime. Crucially, this bill ensures that victims and survivors can speak about their experiences should they wish to do so—I'll stress that: should they wish to do so—by either publishing self-identifying information or by providing consent to a third party such as a respectable media organisation to do that publication. Such publications would be able to be made before legal proceedings are finalised. These amendments give victims and survivors a measure of agency to take back control—the informed choice and opportunity to share their own story and experience if they are ready, willing and able to do so. Another benefit is the opportunity for the public to learn and understand more about victims and survivors, their stories and the impact of the experience on their lives. It is important to note that this provision preserves the ability for victims and survivors to maintain their privacy if that is their preference. The bill also ensures that adult complainants are able to access vulnerable-witness protections for offences that occurred while they were children. This recognises that, for some victims and survivors, it may take a considerable number of years to disclose abuse or to reach a stage when they have a capacity to engage with the criminal justice system, for many different reasons. I remember my wife, who has worked in this area, interviewing witnesses before they appeared before the royal commission into institutional child abuse, and talking to an 80-year-old woman about something that happened when she was six. She could see the child in front of her even though it was an 80-year-old woman. Sometimes people take a long time to come forward to seek justice. This reflects the complex and cumulative nature of the effects of sexual assault and that there is not one size that fits all or one rule of thumb for how victims should or must behave. The only commonsense rule is that individuals choose their own way to survive and to respond. The range of amendments in this bill sadly reflects the numerous potential consequences for victims and survivors and the potential for ongoing vulnerability in different aspects of their lives. While focusing on limiting retraumatisation of victims and survivors, the reforms ensure that due process protections are maintained and that defendants continue to be tried fairly and impartially—that's always important. Improving the experience of victims and survivors of sexual violence in our justice system is an ongoing area of advocacy. I want to express my appreciation to all the victims-survivors, their allies and their lawyers who have worked in this space and continue to do so. The Albanese government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire further into justice responses to sexual violence in Australia. This process is now underway. The inquiry is supported by a lived experience expert advisory group. We deeply respect and honour their voices. They will help ensure the laws that emerge from this building have exactly the right settings. Labor is committed to strengthening and harmonising sexual assault and consent laws, and to improving outcomes and experiences for victims and survivors in our justice system. Providing trauma informed support and a secure victim- and survivor-centred experience at all stages of the criminal justice process helps ensure vulnerable persons are treated with sensitivity. It will also decrease the risk of retraumatisation and will have a positive impact on victims and survivors in their journeys to healing. This bill has my full support. 11:15 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise today to speak on the government proposed Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024. A 2020 investigation by the ABC collected data on sexual assault in each state, territory and postcode—with the exception of the Northern Territory, who refused to provide data to the ABC. This data showed a dire situation. More than 140,000 sexual assaults were reported to Australian police in the 10 years to 2017, but just under 42,600—some 30 per cent of sexual assault reports—led to an arrest, summons, formal caution or other legal action. The other 50,800 investigations—more than 35 per cent of reported sexual assaults—remained unsolved. In New South Wales, only one in 10 reports since 2009 has led to legal action—and that's without addressing how many do not report because they are so disillusioned with the system. It's clear that, at all levels of government, we are not doing enough on sexual assault and holding those responsible to account. It's just not good enough. Many in this place were on the lawns of parliament during the March4Justice and Enough movement in 2021. It's clear many people around Australia want to see this change. This bill is a good first step. It aims to address, in part, improving the experiences of victims of sexual assault within the criminal justice system. Many survivors of sexual assault have described the judicial process as more traumatising than the initial violence. To change our legal and justice response to sexual assault, and, in doing so, inspire prevention, we must create confidence, consistency, accountability and transparency in the police and justice responses to reports of sexual assault. We need a victim centred approach within our judicial system that promotes the safety of victims and rejects victim blaming culture. I can't raise that point without referring to and considering the experience we had with a previous staffer in this place. We can't talk about sexual assault and the process of that going through the courts without reflecting on the very high-profile Lehrmann prosecution and the vilification of the victim in that case, Brittany Higgins, by multimedia outlets and by members of this place. We still have not had an adequate answer as to how it was possible that materials produced under compulsion of court proceedings, under notices to produce or subpoenas, found their way onto the front pages in the media. There are questions in relation to review, the news exemptions under the Privacy Act and whether our contempt-of-court laws are adequate to hold to account media outlets when they have such a breach of trust. There are serious questions that remain unanswered in relation to those proceedings, and they are questions I am pursuing with the Attorney-General. We must have a situation where complainants, victims, can have a level of confidence in the legal process and the court process when they bring forward their complaint. This bill goes someway to helping with that. We also need to talk about police culture. On the substance of and the change in this bill, we need to address that there have been numerous reviews into police culture in various states, and investigations by news outlets as well. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to be done. The report of the 2022 independent commission of inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence found the following concerning Queensland Police—and we must think about these findings in conjunction with just how many reports from victims do not lead to prosecution; we have to think about the nexus between all these issues. The report found: Despite the initial protestations of the Commissioner of Police and the President of the Police Union of Employees, the Commission has found clear evidence of a culture where attitudes of misogyny, sexism and racism are allowed to be expressed, and at times acted upon, largely unchecked. Where complaints in relation to such treatment are brushed aside or dealt with in the most minor of ways and those who complain are the ones who are shunned and punished. It is hardly surprising that these attitudes are reflected then in the way that those police who hold them respond to victim-survivors. It is a failure of the leadership of the organisation that this situation has been allowed to continue over many years … A 2021 HeraldSun investigation uncovered allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by senior New South Wales police officers, with these individuals often protected by a boys' club culture against internal complaints. An independent review of New South Wales Police by former Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick in 2019 found that one in three women had reported sexual harassment by a colleague in the past five years. Within the context of such a culture within state police forces—while, of course, abhorrent—there's no doubt that there is a flow-on effect on how police then properly handle, investigate and recommend prosecutions in relation to sexual and domestic violence cases. So, whilst this bill doesn't deal with this directly, it must be highlighted that a wholesale culture change within Australia's law enforcement fraternity is required as part of the wider change to put victims of such horrible crimes at the heart of our investigation and justice system. This week I've in raising my grave concerns and calls for greater action in relation to domestic violence. This is all linked. Our systems are not yet set up to protect victims of violence. Too often they are women. In my electorate of Warringah, caseworkers for Women and Children First meet women who have suffered from domestic violence for coffee in public spaces so they have an easy excuse of why they're there. Why? Because so many are being tracked by technology. These organisations, on the frontline of the domestic violence catastrophe in this country, are trying to offer support, safety and advice. But, too often, there are concerns that there isn't enough support from law enforcement and then the justice system. For example, just last week, a client of that centre, who is living in a refuge, had her location disclosed to the court by Medicare. It was demanded by a dangerous perpetrator without any advance warning. It shows how our justice system and our bureaucratic systems are simply not set up to protect victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. We have a lot of talk in this place, but we really need to start getting more action. In particular, we need leadership from the top to ensure we have wholesale systemic changes across multiple levels of organisation. The bill before us does create positive change. I really commend the government and urge them to continue working on bringing in more change. It aims to improve the experiences of victims of sexual assault within the criminal justice system. Specifically, it makes the following key changes: it expands protections for vulnerable persons and ensures that the special rules more comprehensively protect vulnerable persons; it makes the evidence of a vulnerable adult complainant's reputation, with respect to sexual activity, inadmissible in a vulnerable adult proceeding; and it restricts the admissibility of sexual experience evidence of vulnerable adult complainants, unless the court grants leave and considers specific criteria. The court must also have regard to whether the probative value of such evidence outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment it might cause the vulnerable person. The bill also enables a court to order evidence recording hearings in proceedings involving vulnerable persons if it's considered it's in the interests of justice to do so. The bill also sets out conditions regarding how the evidence recording hearing must be conducted. It introduces safeguards to protect recorded evidence given by vulnerable persons from misuse. It also sets out a new requirement for the court to arrange an interpreter for a vulnerable person to assist the person to understand and participate in the proceedings if they are unable to because of inadequate knowledge of English language or physical disability. Finally, the bill clarifies that the current restriction on publishing material that identifies or is likely to identify another person as a child witness, child complainant or vulnerable adult complainant in a proceeding does not apply to a vulnerable person who publishes self-identifying material. This is important because the victim should not be restricted from being able to express themselves. We know, and it has really been highlighted more and more, just how important that is, because silencing victims adds to the trauma that they have already suffered. We have to be cognisant of just how many—among the rates, it's impossible to know the exact number. Such a small percentage of sexual assault survivors raise a complaint in the first place. They are fearful of going to the police. Their treatment by the police often leads to a lot of questions. The lack of proper investigation and then the incredibly small percentage of ensuing prosecutions lead to a situation where victims and survivors of sexual assault have so little trust and faith in the system and are reluctant to engage with it. That absolutely must change. Anyone who has been in this place over the last few years simply can't look at this question without reflecting on the treatment in the media of an alleged victim in this place. Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction for a more victim-centred justice system for those who suffer the trauma of sexual assault. But I urge the government to remain open-minded on further reforms as needed, particularly to ensure greater streamlining between federal and state jurisdictions. It that has been brought to my attention that, where a case goes across state lines, often evidence and prosecution fall through the cracks for victims of sexual assault, in particular in the case of minors. That may need to be considered from the Commonwealth federal jurisdiction because going across state lines often leads to the cases not proceeding to prosecution. It's clear that this is an area where we must do so much more. We must put the victim first and provide adequate protections and support. I know this is an ongoing situation. Many members of parliament, in particular anyone who attended the March4Justice rallies before Parliament House—it was incredible. Women of all ages, races, colours, experiences and financial demographics were in tears that finally there was some conversation about the experience and what they had survived. We simply can't stay silent on those issues. It's time we bring sexual assault to the fore to really deal with it. We know the links when it comes to domestic violence; this is all interlinked. We have to have a robust system of investigation, prosecution and then judicial determination to ensure it can be dealt with. 11:28 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I acknowledge all the speakers on this important bill and all of their contributions. This is a really important change, and I really want to thank everyone who has contributed. I too am going to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024. As the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence in the Albanese government, I'm very proud to be here today supporting this very comprehensive suite of reforms which stakeholders, experts and victims-survivors have been calling for. Many people right throughout the community—so many people—have been calling for this for a long period of time. I know I and my colleagues are all proud to be delivering this suite of measures to address these issues. Our government is deeply committed to improving criminal justice responses to sexual assault. This means ensuring the criminal justice system supports vulnerable people at all stages of the criminal justice process. The bill before us today will improve the experience of victims-survivors of sexual violence in our justice system and builds on the very extensive work of the Albanese government to strengthen those criminal justice responses to sexual assault. In our 2023-24 budget, our government committed $14.7 million to strengthen the way the justice system responds to sexual assault. This includes an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence, a lived experience expert advisory group to support that inquiry and a ministerial led national roundtable to drive cross-sector collaboration. This bill seeks to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to strengthen protections for vulnerable persons involved in Commonwealth criminal proceedings, building on our government's extensive reforms in this space. In addition, the bill implements a number of outstanding recommendations from the 2017 final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and supports the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse. Importantly, this bill expands the circumstances in which vulnerable people who are involved in court proceedings as complainants or witnesses are afforded enhanced protections. It makes evidence about sexual reputation inadmissible for all victims-survivors of child sexual abuse and places greater restrictions on evidence relating to a person's sexual experience. It addresses barriers that may deter vulnerable people from giving evidence by introducing evidence recording hearings and allowing those hearings to be used in subsequent trials and retrials. It ensures victims-survivors can speak out about their experiences if they wish to do so by clarifying that they may publish self-identifying information or give their informed consent to a third party, such as a media organisation, to publish that information. They are able to do that if they want to. To more comprehensively protect vulnerable persons, this bill will expand the range of offences covered by existing protections for vulnerable persons, including crimes against humanity and drug offences involving children. In recognising that it can take many, many years for people to disclose the abuse that has occurred, it will also ensure that adult complainants are able to access vulnerable witness protections for offences that occurred when they were children. As we know, often it as many years later that people are able to express what has happened to them. Importantly, this bill also introduces a number of measures to address the admissibility of evidence concerning vulnerable people. Any evidence about a vulnerable person's sexual reputation will be made inadmissible. The bill also restricts the admissibility of sexual experience of vulnerable adult complainants unless the court grants leave and considers specific criteria, including that the evidence is substantially relevant to the facts at issue. It has to have relevance. The court must also give regard to whether its probative value outweighs any distress, humiliation or embarrassment to that vulnerable person, because it's so important that we do not retraumatise people through victim-blaming. It cannot happen. The bill will also address barriers that may in fact deter witnesses from actually giving evidence. The new measures empower a court in some cases to order an evidence recording hearing for a vulnerable person to give evidence. It also requires all evidence given by that person outside of an evidence recording hearing, including on cross-examination, to be recorded so that it may be used in later proceedings. These amendments are another way to reduce the risk of retraumatising victims-survivors that may have to provide evidence multiple times in relation to the same matter and ensures those vulnerable persons can give evidence in a safe and controlled environment and do not have to repeat it over and over and be retraumatised by that. The bill supports the voices of victims-survivors by ensuring they're empowered to speak about their experiences if they choose to do so. The bill makes clear the current restriction on publishing material that identifies another person as a child witness, child complainant or vulnerable adult complainant in a proceeding does not apply to a person who publishes material that identifies themselves. The bill will also remove the requirement for the proceedings to be finalised before such self-publication may occur. This means victims-survivors are supported to speak out should they wish to do so, giving them agency, power and control over their lives and experiences. The reforms in this bill have been rightly welcomed by many advocacy groups around the country. The CEO of Rape & Sexual Assault Research & Advocacy, Rachael Burgin, said these amendments are: … a necessary shift of focus away from victims of crime and onto the actions of the accused. The National Women's Safety Alliance have also welcomed the changes, acknowledging the extensive consultation undertaken and our government's commitment to tangible and real change in the criminal justice system. I really want to commend and thank all of these groups for their involvement in the ongoing consultation period and thank them for the work that they do in highlighting the voices of victims-survivors right across the country. These reforms support victims-survivors in engaging with the Commonwealth criminal justice system. It is absolutely crucial that victims-survivors are given support and confidence that the justice system will deliver equitable and persistent outcomes whilst always being cognisant of minimising the risk of retraumatisation through the justice process, because we know how incredibly challenging and difficult that can be. Our Attorney-General has ensured that these reforms have been developed in close consultation with victims-survivors, and I would like to acknowledge any victims-survivors who may be listening today. Our government knows how vital it is that the voices of those victims-survivors are listened to and are heard right throughout all portfolios that may impact them, and we will continue to make sure that they are at the centre of all the decision-making. These voices are very central to our efforts. I offer my acknowledgement and thanks to those who have shared their experiences as a platform for change. We have listened, and we continue to listen. I also particularly want to thank the Attorney-General for his tireless dedication to this cause. Importantly, the amendments brought before the House today directly align with our National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32 and the First Action Plan 2023-2027. Specifically, action 9 of the First Action Plan aims to ensure justice systems are safe, accessible and easier for victims-survivors to navigate. We know that initiatives in the justice system can create change through providing appropriate survivor-centred justice responses, holding perpetrators to account and responding to all victims-survivors, including children and young people, by listening, acting and responding in a trauma informed way. Our government has invested $2.3 billion across the past two budgets to deliver ambitious reforms to address the drivers of family, domestic and sexual violence, and to ensure victims-survivors have the support they need and require. In our 2023-24 budget we also committed funding for a number of sexual violence prevention initiatives, including $8.2 million to design, deliver and evaluate multiple trials to prevent sexual violence and harm; $3.5 million to support Teach Us Consent to develop resources for young people aged 16 and above; and $6.5 million to work with states and territories to strengthen and harmonise sexual assault and consent laws and improve criminal justice responses for victims-survivors. And, of course, we appointed the nations first Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, to ensure that the diversity of lived experiences is heard and constantly raised and championed at a national level. Today's bill is another example of a further significant step being taken by the Commonwealth to address these very important issues within our criminal justice system and ensure that those voices of victims-survivors are central to that. I commend the bill to the House. 11:38 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise today to support the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024. There is no doubt that the criminal justice process is distressing and traumatising for victims-survivors. From the very outset, it is a process that is challenging for victims-survivors to trust, especially given the common and unfortunately largely accurate perception that the criminal justice system is ineffective at prosecuting sexual offences. Even if a person feels able to report the offences committed against them, that is just the start of a process that will often serve to compound the trauma of the original assault. The adversarial justice system; the nature of the offences, which are often committed in private, where victims-survivors are the only witness; and the intractable, sexist perceptions of victims-survivors throughout our society—each of these factors makes seeking a conviction uniquely challenging in sexual violence matters. So what might the current process look like in practice? Initially, a victim may almost certainly fear that they will not be believed by police when reporting a crime. They may well feel embarrassed and humiliated by having to share intimate sexual details with lawyers and the police. Then, if the case does proceed to court, they will face an examination-in-chief in which they will have to retell traumatising details of the salt. They may well then face a gruelling cross-examination in which their honesty and their reputation are challenged or in which they are confronted with aggressive tactics designed to intimidate and confuse. They may fear retribution from the perpetrator while the trauma of the trial is ongoing. They may be worried that they will be shamed in front of friends or their family. The fact is that victim-survivors face different challenges in the court that severely complicate their access to justice. Their needs are different from victims of other crimes in that the harms of continuing a prosecution may substantially outweigh the potential for a conviction. As a society, we must do what we can to eliminate or at least minimise the traumatising impact of our legal processes on victim-survivors. We must always keep them front of mind. To that end, I commend the government's efforts to improve the experience of victims and survivors of sexual violence by asking the Australian Law Reform Commission, the ALRC, to lead an inquiry into how our justice system responds to and deals with sexual violence. The creation of an expert advisory group is also a welcome development. This will help ensure that the lived experiences of victims and survivors will inform the ALRC's work. Hopefully, this group will also inform the final recommendations. But it is with sadness and frustration that I note that there are still outstanding recommendations from the 2017 final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. That five-year inquiry produced a 17-volume report with over 400 recommendations at a cost of nearly $350 million. It highlighted the failings of our institutions to keep our children safe and the culture of secrecy and cover-up that was allowed to persist for decades. It exposed the devastating and persisting effects that child sexual abuse can have throughout the lifetime of an affected individual. So why is it that we are still in the process of implementing those recommendations more than six years later? As a relatively new member of parliament, I am constantly shocked and dismayed by the number of recommendations made by experts through numerous inquiries, from royal commissions down, which are never acted upon. We know what to do. The experts have told us what to do. We just need to do it. So I trust that, when the government receives the report from the ALRC in 12 months, it will seek to promptly and thoroughly implement the recommendations. Today's bill is not just about protecting vulnerable victim-survivors. It does take a step towards that, but it is also about achieving just outcomes. The enhanced protections in the bill include making evidence about sexual reputation inadmissible for all victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and placing greater restrictions upon evidence relating to a person's sexual experience. This kind of evidence can be traumatic to victims to give and is often a vehicle for victim blaming. The bill also includes the introduction of evidence-recording hearings and permitting the recordings to be used in subsequent trials and retrials. It's very important that victim-survivors are no longer to be forced to go through these processes again and again. It's also important that the bill includes a clause such that the victims will not be required to see the accused at the time these recordings are made. The bill clarifies that victim-survivors are free to publish self-identifying information or to give their informed consent to others to publish that information if they so wish. It's important because each of these protections will go some way towards minimising the harms associated with the prosecution of sexual violence. We still have a long way to go. I take this opportunity to thank the numerous organisations that consulted with the government about this important bill, and I note that, in the main, they are supportive of the changes that it introduces. I commend the bill to the House. 11:45 Ms 248181 Newcastle CLAYDON (—) (): I thank all the speakers who have come before me to lend their support to this most important bill, the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, before the Australian parliament. This amendment to the Crimes Act, which will indeed strengthen the criminal justice response for victims and survivors of sexual assault in Australia, is important work of this parliament. It's been a long time coming, and I, along with many of my colleagues, have sat on numerous inquiries over the years and through important royal commissions and have read papers written by experts and, most importantly, the testimony of the victims and survivors themselves, who have called for these changes to occur in our criminal justice system. The legislation before the House today will go a long way to improving the experience of victims and survivors of sexual violence, particularly for vulnerable people in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a very important royal commission for this nation, which former Prime Minister Julia Gillard moved in the last moments of her role as Prime Minister—made 409 recommendations. In its final report to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse, it put forward a number of really key recommendations that this legislation is now picking up. All 206 of the Commonwealth related recommendations from that royal commission are now implemented or are in progress, and this legislation specifically addresses four of those that were related to the pre-recording of evidence for vulnerable people and provides for those recordings to be admissible in criminal proceedings. I cannot thank the Attorney-General enough for bringing this bill forward. We just heard from the previous speaker that there was so much evidence provided in that royal commission. There are two volumes of that royal commission dedicated to the horrific crimes that were committed in my hometown of Newcastle. My community, I dare to say, along with those of Ballarat, probably experience more of the ongoing pain and trauma of child sexual abuse that occurred in institutions that utterly betrayed the trust and faith that were put into them at the time. The profound and ongoing effects of those are seen and lived every day in our community. Taking up those remaining recommendations that go to assisting vulnerable people to not have to repeat their story again and again and instead allow for pre-recordings of that evidence to be used throughout criminal proceedings is a great step forward. It has been one that survivors and victims have asked for for a long time now, and it is great to see this Albanese Labor government putting that into law. This legislation also advances theme 2 of the first National Action Plan of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030. That is to underline support and empowerment of victims and survivors. The national strategy recognises that the effects of child sexual abuse can be cumulative, complex and long lasting. I think I indicated before that communities like Newcastle can attest to just how complex and long lasting those impacts are, not just for victims and survivors but also for their families and all of those who knew and loved them. It's devastating. This legislation will also be supporting the Standing Council of Attorneys-General's workplan, which is to again strengthen criminal justice responses to sexual assault. That workplan runs from 2022 to 2027, and it seeks to bring all the states and territories and the Commonwealth together to take collective and individual actions to improve the experiences of victims-survivors of sexual assault in the criminal justice system. So you can see that this legislation is really building on a lot of important work done before in terms of the royal commission, but it is also an integral part of implementing aspects of the national plan and the attorneys-general's workplan in terms of strengthening the criminal justice responses to sexual assault. You might ask: why might that be the case? There are probably not many women in Australia who would ask that question, but there might be some in this chamber who perhaps haven't been as closely associated with a shocking case of child sexual abuse or who aren't across the prevalence of sexual violence in our communities. I don't know a single woman who has not at some stage in her life given serious consideration to these matters. It is still, tragically, the case in Australia that the majority of people do not report sexual assaults. We've got some statistics, and I am the first to underline the fact that it is very difficult at times to work through the data that is available. There are variant survey methods that are being applied, but it is estimated that some 200,000 sexual assaults occur in Australia each year, and only 11 to 13 per cent of those are ever reported to police. Of that group, only about five per cent make it to trial and, of that group, only about two per cent result in a conviction. These are damning statistics. It is little wonder that, when we try to put our minds to why so few people are choosing to report, it is quite confronting to us as a society, because women—and it is predominantly women. I do acknowledge that there is a proportion of men who are victims and survivors of sexual assault, especially in the case of the child sexual assaults that occurred in our institutions. The reasons that people give for not reporting sexual violence and sexual assault in our communities is that most times they are related to the offender or they are known to that offender. Their relationship to that offender is deeply complex, and that is a profound barrier to seeking justice. They lack confidence in our justice system, and I think those statistics I mentioned earlier give you a sense of why that might be the case. They fear reprisals and stigma. Let's not forget the deeply troubling and erroneous view—but no less embedded mythology—in our communities that women lie about sexual assault. This is still prevalent in so many circles. Anything we can do to now break down these barriers to justice is a good thing. There was a slight glimmer of hope when I looked at the statistics, in that sexual assault reports to police are steadily rising. We are seeing some increase over time, so perhaps some of those barriers are beginning to break down, but we have an enormous way to go. Legislative reform like that before the House today is an absolutely important part, and I am so profoundly grateful to this government and the Attorney-General for not shying away from this legislative reform that is required. But let's not kid ourselves: what has to accompany legislative reform is really profound cultural change in our communities. That is the really hard slog work, and that has to be accompanied by comprehensive, evidence based community education campaigns that make very clear to people the drivers of gender based violence. We know one of the very big drivers of gender based violence is the deep gender inequities that continue to exist in this community. I am so proud to be a part of a government that is putting gender equality at the centre of everything we do. Every piece of legislation we have considered in this House has had a gender lens run across it to ensure we are doing the very best we can to not just do legislative reform to assist victims and survivors but work in those areas that will go to addressing and preventing these shameful harms, crimes and acts that continue to have far too great a prevalence in our communities today. Many before me have gone to the detail of this legislation; I really appreciate the thoughtful contributions from before. What is so good about this legislation is it really is putting the victims and survivors, and their experiences, back at the centre of our legislative thinking. I think the privilege that is now being given to lived experience in the adviser panels the Attorney-General has put together—in fact, most ministers across a range of portfolios now have these fantastic expert panels that are advising them at each step of the way that are made up of people with lived experience. This is a great step for lawmaking in this country. I applaud all the ministers, and especially the Attorney-General in this context, for making sure the lived experience of victims and survivors is at the centre of our thinking and our drafting of laws now. There will be many people in my community much relieved to see these amendments being made here today. Sadly, in my community I have many people who have children who are victims, who are still surviving, and parents who, to this day, grieve the loss of their child who was subjected to horrific acts of crime in those very institutions that purported to care for them. I say to those families, on the tragic circumstances in which they lost their children: I hope we honour them and their lives in some way today by removing some of those very stubborn barriers to justice that people have experienced in Australia. The profound and ongoing impacts that sexual violence has on the lives of so many people in the communities we represent in this House is a constant reminder to me. If we can make the criminal justice system a place where people have confidence they will be afforded justice, that will be a very good thing. I just want to pay tribute to all those advocates, all of those survivors and all those that have worked on the criminal justice system for many, many decades now trying to get a better and more just outcome. I say thank you for your service to our communities. I don't underestimate how difficult that work is. If this has been triggering for anybody, I do want to remind all survivors and victims that, please, there is support. Reach out. 1800RESPECT and other organisations are there. We hear you, we believe you and let's get justice for you too. 12:00 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I acknowledge the powerful speech by the member for Newcastle. The National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children says we must 'bring sexual violence out of the shadows'. That's very true. Recent ANROWS data shows that sexual violence rates in Australia are high. Fifty-one per cent of women in their 20s and 34 per cent of women in their 40s have experienced it. First Nations women report three times as many incidents of sexual violence as non-Indigenous women. One in 25 men have experienced sexual assault. More than one in 10 girls experience sexual abuse before the age of 15. The statistics are horrifying, and the horror doesn't end after the attack. The common impacts of sexual violence include mental health issues like anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, a reduced capacity to work and study throughout life and social isolation. Sexual violence comes with an enormous personal cost and a cost to society, so how can we bring it out of the shadows? The answer is that we have to support victims to come forward and to dismantle the power imbalances and gender stereotypes that stop them from doing so. Brittany Higgins was brave, but her experience has been a stark reminder of just how hostile it can be to anyone who pursues justice for an alleged sexual crime. How many times did you hear a woman say during her trial, 'Why would you put someone through it'? I say 'her trial' because often it is. Certainly from observing how these cases play out in the public arena most women would not. I again acknowledge the comments of the member for Newcastle in noting how few cases come to trial and the shameful statistics around that. Many victims-survivors describe the court process as 'horrific' and 'retraumatising'. The adversarial system is stacked against them, and then there is the media reporting that comes with it, some of it utterly shameful. The purpose of the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 is to strengthen the protections for victims-survivors of child sexual abuse and vulnerable people in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The amendments relate to Commonwealth crimes and do not apply to sexual violence offences in state and territory legislation. As the Law Council of Australia says, victims-survivors can face barriers within the criminal justice system and are at a particular disadvantage compared with other witnesses being called to give evidence about their experiences. Among the provisions in this bill, evidence of sexual experience or reputation of a vulnerable adult complainant will not be allowed unless the court is satisfied that the evidence is substantially relevant to a fact in the proceeding, and recordings of evidence by a vulnerable person will be allowed to be used in any subsequent trial or retrial. Both of these provisions are important because they will minimise retraumatisation. This is particularly relevant to those who've been affected by child sexual abuse, which leaves people with lifelong trauma. The last thing we want to do is retraumatise them in the system. I commend the government, particularly the Attorney-General and his team, for this bill. It fixes some of the existing gaps in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. But, today, I call on the government and, indeed, all of us to do more to address sexual violence. This is something that shouldn't just happen in this place. These are conversations that we need to be having everywhere in our communities. More funding is needed to address current service black spots and waiting times for sexual assault services. As it stands, survivors are being told to wait months for trauma counselling. In the eastern region of Victoria, which includes my electorate of Goldstein, the waiting list for counselling is six to eight months. The Sexual Assault Crisis Line is the central after-hours coordination point in Victoria for responding to sexual assault. It can consistently respond to only 65 per cent of calls because it's so understaffed and underfunded. Waiting list times for men's behaviour change programs are too long. Men using violence are also on months long waiting lists. What happens to the men, women and children in-between? We need dedicated prevention funding for sexual assault services and resourcing for schools to ensure effective consent and respectful relationships education. More funding is needed to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities have the resources to design and implement culturally safe and trauma-aware healing programs. Right now there are major gaps for women's safety that must be addressed. As Fair Agenda says: Reporting a sexual assault, and trying to get justice, closure or healing should not cause someone further harm. Too many rape survivors are hurt by the… "justice" system. … At the very least, legal avenues for reporting sexual violence should not be traumatic; they should hold the people responsible for sexual violence to account; and they should provide victim-survivors with agency and choice when seeking justice. Multiple reviews have been conducted. Hundreds of recommendations have been made. Attorney-Generals around the country have acknowledged that reform is needed, and committed to some of the changes necessary— But more needs to be done— 31,000 people reported sexual assault to police last year—most of them women and girls. We can't wait years to address the harm this broken system is doing to people who need it right now. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 97 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS National Apology to the Stolen Generations: 16th Anniversary 97 12:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to talk today about specifically what the government is doing to close some of the gaps in the area of water policy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It's simply not okay that in 2024 Australia still has communities where you can't access safe drinking water. Our government believes that, as a basic human right, every Australian should be able to access secure and clean water—of course for drinking and sanitation but also so that communities can be built on and expanded. We know that water needs to come first in our remote communities so that housing can be built, so that health infrastructure can be built and so that education and other social goods can follow. That's why last year, as part of the government's Closing the Gap implementation plan, we announced $150 million to deliver clean and reliable water to remote First Nations communities. This has allowed us to undertake projects like installing pipes that are more resilient in our harsh climate, more able to withstand damage and easier to fix if leaks occur; treating water using water treatment technology that doesn't require expensive chemicals that are difficult to source and complex to handle; increasing the use of water sources that are sensitive to country, practical to supply and resilient to the effects of climate change; and, crucially, training local people with the knowledge and skills needed to maintain the new systems we're building so communities aren't relying on fly-in fly-out workers to fix broken water systems, waiting weeks at a time for that to happen. Delivering this water infrastructure can transform communities, and we're already seeing that happen. In Yuendumu, which is just one example, there is $11.1 million for three critical construction projects to upgrade and replace infrastructure and prevent leakage. In Milingimbi, we're investing $6.44 million in three projects to improve access and reliability of water supply in the area. I'll give one example of the flow-on benefits of these types of investments. In Milingimbi, this extra investment in water has made it possible to build 32 additional homes and extend 32 existing homes. You can't expand communities if there's not enough drinking water or if there's not enough water for the homes that are being built. They are just two examples of the $50 million that we've already committed of the $150 million announcement last year, and of course we're working very closely with states and territories to add to this list. This is the type of practical difference that additional funding for water can make. A community that doesn't have adequate water will also suffer from overcrowding. It will go without basic services. Now these communities have running water, more housing and more services. It's important to note that, under the previous government, there were water infrastructure investment programs. They could not deliver water in circumstances like this to remote Indigenous communities. These communities were left dry because of the way those previous programs were run, in terms of the restrictions around what they could fund. In November we also announced an important increase in funding for First Nations water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. We increased that funding to $100 million. We know how very important the health of our rivers is to our First Nations communities. Across the Murray-Darling Basin we've got about 40 First Nations groups that are absolutely determined and absolutely committed to seeing the river systems restored to health. The Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program was a promise made in 2018 by the previous government and broken by the previous government. Forty million dollars was promised and was never delivered. We'll finally deliver this funding and much more, with the first water purchases towards this program to begin later this year, making sure that communities get the water entitlements that they were promised and that they need. We know that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done to close the gap on water security, and we can't do it alone. We're working with state and territory governments, with local government and with First Nations organisations like the committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander water interests to make sure that we get full consultation. We're working with water users, scientists and environmentalists to make sure that we plan across this nation to identify where we need to deliver more safe and secure drinking water, to plan for that delivery and to make sure that we get those water security projects built. We're helping in this program also to build the foundations of many remote and regional communities so that they can prosper and thrive. Fresh water will always be a key to that. 12:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I want to speak about the Closing the Gap annual statement and some of the report cards that have been delivered that show how things are going in this country. The picture is not good. The Productivity Commission's report showed what many of us have known for a long time, which is that the gaps are not closing and that governments need to take a fundamentally different approach to the way that they engage with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The report said that actions by governments exacerbate rather than remedy disadvantage and discrimination, in many situations. This is the definition of institutional racism, and it shows how government departments and systems are reinforcing the disempowerment of First Nations people right across the country. The report was also a necessary act of truth-telling. It painted a true picture of what the 'government knows best' approach is doing to communities, and the clear need for a different approach. The attitudes underlined by criticisms contained within the Productivity Commission report are what keep First Nations people out of schools, hospitals, universities and workplaces. Out of the 19 Closing the Gap targets across 17 outcomes, seven are improving but not on track to be met, four are on track to be met, four are getting worse and four have no data to assess progress. We're expecting an update to the data early this year. Hopefully it will show some improvement, but, if the report from the Productivity Commission is anything to go by, we shouldn't necessarily hold our breath. On the anniversary of the national apology, the government handed down the annual report on the Closing the Gap implementation plan. We heard a number of announcements, including the creation of a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children's Commissioner, and the Greens welcome this announcement. There are also some simple things that the government could do now—right now—that would help significantly improve the lives of First Nations people. Medicare in prisons would make a huge difference, because we know that incarceration rates are appallingly high for First Nations people, especially in places like the Northern Territory. When you look at youth detention in the Northern Territory, you find that, in some places, almost everyone is a First Nations person. Medicare in prisons for First Nations people across the country would make a huge difference, and that's something the government could do right now. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 is also absolutely critical. We have an incredibly high rate of locking up children—and First Nations children in particular. Children as young as 10 do not belong in prison. We need to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. It's something that First Nations communities are crying out for. It's something that people fighting for justice are crying out for. It's a reform whose time has come. We're seeing some first steps—under pressure from the community, from First Nations groups, from the Greens and from others—in some jurisdictions, but the federal government has to take the lead. The government's got a very big megaphone and a very big ability to help corral the states and territories and push them to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14—to get those states and territories on board. Bear in mind: everywhere on the mainland at the moment, there's a Labor head of state. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 will go a long way to help close the gap and improve the lives of First Nations people. I would just ask everyone to reflect on whether they think the 10-, 11-, 12- or 13-year-olds that they know, in their life, deserve to be in prison—because that is what is happening to First Nations people, right across the country. People trusted this government when they said that they wanted to put First Nations people in charge of their own solutions. Now it's time for the government to put their money where their mouth is and start handing decision-making power to Aboriginal-controlled community organisations, because we know—and the evidence is clear, in so many places—that, when you do that, you get a better result. You get a better result because First Nations people have the solutions; they know what they need. First Nations people have sustained themselves for over 65,000 years. Governments need to support and enable community-led solutions, designed by communities for communities. This will allow for the diversity of the hundreds of nations to be taken into account and help ensure programs actually deliver what is needed for each individual community. Every government department and every minister has a role to play. Everyone needs to do their part. The Productivity Commission report said that, without urgent action, closing the gap risks becoming another broken promise to First Nations people, but this is bigger than just broken promises. It's life or death for so many of our first peoples. The Greens shared in the disappointment and could see the gutting effect having an unsuccessful result in the referendum had on so many First Nations people. We campaigned very hard for a successful outcome to that referendum. Certainly people in Greens electorates responded in record numbers, and I thank them and everyone else across the country who voted, but we got the result. It was not the result that we wanted, but we got the result that we did. But one of the things that became clear during the referendum was that, when you looked at the misinformation campaign that was spearheaded by the Leader of the Opposition—the misinformation and the untruths told about the history of our country; about the violence and dispossession and the effect that that has on First Nations people; and even about the proposals that were being put in the referendum. When you see the massive misinformation campaign spearheaded by the Leader of the Opposition and by others, it underlines the need for truth-telling in this country. Before the election, the Greens said, 'We actually think that we need to begin the process of truth-telling first because, if we have the process of truth-telling first, we start to lay the foundations for real reform.' The process of truth-telling allows First Nations people and others—everyone else—to come forward and tell their story about what the history of violence, dispossession and colonisation has meant for them, what it has meant for them in generations past and also what it means for generations now. When we have that process of encouraging people to come forward and tell the truth and encouraging everyone across this country to come and tell their stories, we can begin the process of healing. We begin the process of understanding and begin the process of people listening to each other. Then we can begin the process of having justice and healing and then move on to have a treaty. What we're seeing in Victoria is this process of truth-telling playing out at the moment. There are things that in the past might have been done differently in terms of setting it up, but, at the moment, it is bringing forward people to tell their stories. When you bring people out to tell their stories, especially in an environment where there is not a vote at stake and it is about increasing understanding, you start to create discussion and you start to create understanding. That lays the foundation for lasting reform. It was bitterly disappointed to see the referendum result that we did, but it was also incredibly disappointing not to see the government now get on with the remainder of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which we could start to progress now. Beginning a truth and justice process and this country and establishing a truth and justice commission at the national level goes a long way towards delivering First Nations justice and closing the gap, because it begins the process of laying a really strong foundation for reform. Having that informed and honest discussion about our shared history helps us heal and then move forward together towards a treaty. Given that we find ourselves in this situation now, the Greens are urging the government to press forward now with the establishment of a truth and justice commission and also beginning the process towards treaty, because it will take some time, but we've got to start now. In Victoria we can see the processes unfolding over a number of years. If we don't start now, it's going to be justice delayed. I urge the government to get on with the remaining elements of truth and justice and treaty. 12:24 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak today on the 16th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the Closing the gap annual report. I was here in Parliament House in 2008 when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered the formal apology to Australia's Indigenous people, with a special focus on the stolen generations, on behalf of all of us in the nation. It was an honour and a privilege to be present alongside so many people from my community in Newcastle. It was very important that the Labor government acknowledge that those laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments had resulted in the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and that those actions had inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. The apology was a powerful recognition of the destruction caused to families and communities at the hands of former governments and acknowledged the very real and ongoing pain and trauma caused by forced removals. Last week I was reading and reflecting on the life of one member of the stolen generation, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, a trailblazing Aboriginal woman and leader who died on Kaurna country surrounded by her loved ones just last Sunday. Like so many people in the House, I grieve her passing. Like so many Aboriginal people of her time, Lowitja's life was as extraordinary as it was heartbreaking. Lowitja's mother, Lily, was a Yankunytjatjara woman and her father, Tom O'Donoghue, was a first-generation Irish Australian. At age two she was taken from her mother and placed in a mission home in South Australia. Her name was Anglicised and she was prohibited from speaking her own language. There was harsh discipline and no love and, like many Aboriginal children the country over, she was raised to be a servant. Without a birth certificate, the white missionaries gave her the birthdate of 1 August. For those that don't know, that is the horse's birthday in Australia. It was the day that she celebrated throughout her life. I can tell you that in my time living in Fitzroy Crossing up in the Kimberley time and time again I came across people's births registered as 1 August. It says something about those times. Let's not kid ourselves that they were that long ago. At age 16, Lowitja was sent to Victor Harbour as a servant for a large family where she served for two years until she fought to train as a nurse. When the matron at the Royal Adelaide Hospital refused because she was Aboriginal, she took her battle to the state Premier and anyone else in government who would listen. She went on to become the first Aboriginal nurse, the first Aboriginal person named a Companion of the Order of Australia, the first Aboriginal person to address the UN General Assembly and the first chair of ATSIC, overseeing its most successful years, including leading very complex negotiations with then Prime Minister Keating following the High Court Mabo decision. Lowitja did go on to be reunited with her mother as an adult following a trip to Coober Pedy when she was working with the South Australia department of Aboriginal affairs. Her biographer, Stuart Rintoul, described how not long after arriving in Coober Pedy she heard a group of people sitting outside the store saying, 'That's Lily's daughter.' From there she learned that her birth name was Lowitja and that her mother was a heartbroken woman living in poverty in Oodnadatta. She had five children taken from her. In the weeks that followed, Lily waited for her daughter in the outback town of Oodnadatta, staring off into the desert. The reunion at the age of 30 was not an easy one. There was tension and there was a language barrier. These are stories repeated across the nation. Rintoul writes that she would later talk of their reunion as a lesson in 'the limitlessness of hope and the strength of patience'. Let me say that again: the limitlessness of hope and the strength of patience. So many First Nations people have demonstrated that limitlessness of hope and strength of patience over and over again. The national apology was one such moment. Of course, apologies are never the full stop in the process; they're just the very start. Each year we mark this anniversary, it is a timely reminder of how much work we still have to do as a country, as a parliament and as a community to help right the wrongs of the past, to address and improve the inequalities and injustices that remain and to help heal the ongoing pain and trauma passed down from generation to generation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member for Newcastle will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed. ADJOURNMENT 101 ADJOURNMENT Middle East 101 12:31 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It's a privilege to rise today and support the position the Australian government has taken in relation to the attacks the Houthis have been issuing on global commerce in our region. It is a problem for this government and our foreign policy in Australia that they have decided not to extend that moral support and ethical support to our partners and allies, the United States and many other countries, who are being impacted by the terrorist attacks backed by Iran in the Red Sea. Why is this important? This is very important because Australia has a very important role to play in the world today in relation to foreign policy. We are regarded as one of the most successful economies and societies, and, certainly in our region, have an enormous influence over many other parts of the world. But, also, primarily in Australia's own direct self-interest is our attachment to global commerce and, indeed, shipping. It's very important to note that most of our goods and services imported in this country come by ship. It's part of Australia's passion to import goods and services from all around the world and to export many, too, including a lot of produce. We rely on global shipping; it's the golden seam of commerce that runs around the world, the free trade system that enables so much prosperity, the ability to feed so many people around the world. Hundreds of millions of people are better off because of the security and safety of global shipping routes. When a state sponsored group attacks shipping commerce, the production of goods and services and the flow of goods and services through a critical route like the Red Sea, it is in Australia's direct interests to respond. I agree with the shadow minister, Simon Birmingham, who said that the complete lack of involvement directly on the ground is 'woefully inadequate'—but I think that's the polite version! Listening to the Greens, the real issue is that they have this notion that, if we somehow respond to a terror group attacking global shipping and undermining the entire free trade commerce system that exists in the modern world, we would be somehow violating peace in the world today, and that it would be more peaceful to allow terrorists to storm other people's ships with missiles and guns and to hold people hostage and steal their productive goods and services from their economies and take them for themselves—that it would be a violation of peace if we tried to interdict that. That's the position of the Australian Greens, somehow taken up by this government. I think it's disturbing that investigations have revealed the Prime Minister, who received this request—his department received it through the usual channels from the United States, who have taken direct action in relation to this—chose not to respond directly. PM&C reported there was no response from the Prime Minister in relation to this; it was left to the defence minister to decide that we couldn't or wouldn't provide a naval vessel to stop what is in effect piracy—but when it's sponsored by another state actor it has to take on a different characteristic. When you think about the record of the ADF and the governments of Australia in the past, we have had ships involved in the Middle East for a long time, fighting piracy. Piracy is an ongoing problem, but this is a new threat, a distinct threat. It is something that will push up the prices of all goods that are travelling by ship. In fact, for container shipping the impact is already being felt: all around the world, the costs per container are rising. The risk of the loss of production and safety in global commerce has a huge cost. So why would we leave it to the United States, India, Canada or other countries around the world to do something about it, when we are so reliant on global shipping ourselves? On any benchmark, it is in Australia's direct interests to respond to what is happening, with force, in the Red Sea, with our allies and partners who are committed to the free, safe passage of international shipping—a principle that we thought would have absolute bipartisanship. It isn't enough for the government to issue a press release to say, 'This is terrible, and we have conceptual support,' when, actually, Australia's direct interests are being violated as well. If we look at the interests of so many of our allies and partners in peace in the region, we would absolutely contradict the Greens. We call on the government to stare down the leaders of the Greens as well. Not only has our live export shipping been affected, not only have our productivity and exports been affected, but we will see costs per container rising. We call on the government to do something—not just to talk about it, not to give spiritual support, but to commit to real action with our partners the United States. Lunar New Year, Taxation 102 12:36 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Gongxi facai—which means 'wishing you to be prosperous' in Mandarin. This is said by Mandarin speakers around the world during lunar new year celebrations. In the comedian Ronny Chieng's translation, he says it means, 'I hope you get rich.' To someone not used to this direct translation, it might sound a bit shocking or even materialistic. But, in my opinion, to say, 'I hope you and your family prosper,' is hardly cold-hearted or materialistic; in fact, I think it's very honest and Australian. To wish for better times and to hope for better economic improvement in another person's circumstances shows solidarity in the face of hardship and hope for a better future. We naturally all know to pursue happiness instead of money. To wish someone a happy new year places little demand on the person wishing it. After all, another person's happiness is unique and individual. To wish someone prosperity, on the other hand, requires a little more from us, and around the lunar new year the hope for prosperity gains a semisacred significance. In our culture, one would be hard pressed to find a more sacred value than the idea of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Years of stagnant wages meant that expectations had been slowly tarnished, but that primary source of prosperity is now returning, under this Labor government's wage policies. We have seen wages grow by four per cent in the September quarter—the fastest annual growth since 2009. I can't think of anything more sacred from a country to a citizen than to say, 'Everyone here gets a fair go.' This lunar year, I do wish for everyone to be happy—and to be not just happy but prosperous as well. I am committed to the improvement of material circumstances for my community and to be there for my community during these cost-of-living pressures. We, as a country, need to be comfortable with confronting the economic realities. So let's talk about some basic economic concepts here, and a concept called diminishing marginal utility. It simply means: money matters more when you have less of it. In the Morrison formula for the stage 3 tax cuts, the most basic economic facts were nowhere to be seen. Labor's improved tax cuts are going to help the people hit hardest by the cost-of-living pressures: those on middle and low incomes. We are putting more money back into more people's pockets. I can't conceive of the wasteful attitude that spurred the coalition government on to embrace inequality and saw those on the lowest bands of income get nothing. People in my community know that a bulk-billed GP appointment is a lifesaver when the private GPs are out of reach. Cheaper child care and a working mother's income are game changers for a family doing it tough. A small amount of money means a lot to a family with little, and it means not so much to someone with a lot. Diminishing marginal utility is so basic that this change is such a great idea, so much so that the opposition would rather not talk about it, waving it through as if they never opposed it. Middle Australia is the foundation of our economy. As of July, 85 per cent of my electorate will be better off and will have money where it matters, which, in a cost-of-living crisis, is back in their pockets. The thing that I'm really excited about is the way that this will have a positive impact on young Australians. More than 90 per cent of young Australians will have more money in their back pocket. This will also have an incredibly positive effect for women in my community. The truth is that we want to give everyone targeted relief and do it in a way that doesn't increase inflation pressure across the economy. We are being intentional. We listened to our community, and we acted. The Albanese Labor government is on course to deliver its most sacred promise, which is a better future for all Australians. So I say gongxi facai, and I wish everyone in my electorate and across the country a happy Lunar New Year. Australia: Resources 102 12:41 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I hold up this map. I carry them around with me and hand them out. I say, 'What's that?' and they say, 'It's a map of Australia.' Everyone says it's a map of Australia. A government member: Where's Tassie? Mr KATTER HX4 It's a map of Australia shorn of the eastern seaboard—a little 100 kilometre strip there—and shorn of Victoria, but who'd miss Victoria! Mr Hastie 260805 You dropped Perth out. Mr KATTER HX4 Yes, we dropped Perth out, but everyone in Western Australia hates Perth, so I don't think anyone in Western Australia would object to Perth being taken out. If you take Perth, Victoria and that little narrow coast out, it's basically still a map of Australia. It has 92 per cent of Australia. There are 1.2 million people living there. Do you think that 250 years ago we Australians, with 250,000 people, had the right to hold onto a country bigger than Europe, the same size as America or Brazil and almost as big as China? Do you think we had a right to do that? I don't think we did, and I don't think we do now. There is a chilling aphorism at the bottom of this map: 'A people without land will look for a land without people.' That was von Clausewitz's On War, the greatest book ever written on the history of warfare. A people without land will look for a land without people. Have a look at the First World War, the Second World War and any bloody war you want to have a look at—and the Boer War before that. My family lost a son in every one of those wars. In that golden Australia, all of Australia's iron ore, aluminium, gas, gold, copper, silver, lead, zinc, uranium, oil and fertiliser and almost all of Australia's coal and cattle come from that area. There's no-one living there. Do you seriously think that that is going to continue? The history of the world says you're kidding yourself. I pay credit to Scott Morrison, but, then again, his family, the Gilmores—Dame Mary Gilmore is on the $10 note; his mother's a Gilmore—come from my homeland, the mid-west. If you want to draw a map of Queensland, and you want to pick the demographic centre, the exact centre, of the landmass of Queensland, you'll come to Hughenden, where the Gilmores come from. Anthony Albanese has visited Hughenden not once but twice. It's a tiny little town, and he's visited it twice, because, to give the Prime Minister his due, it sits right in the centre of the landmass of Queensland. It is on a key road which he put the first federal government moneys into. He can claim the credit for cutting costs in the giant fruit and vegetable producing area that I represent in Far North Queensland and the giant food producing area of Victoria. That road has cut 2,000 kilometres off the round-trip. He will have the honour of giving the first federal moneys to that road. It is also the home of the biggest wind farm initiative in the country. It is the best site in Australia by a fair distance. Twiggy Forrest has a proposal for two 1,000 megawatt wind farms at Hughenden. What I want to talk about is a group of people who said, 'We're not going to let our town die.' Why did it die? Because the ALP federal government, Mr Keating, deregulated the wool industry. The industry had carried this country for 200 years, and he destroyed it. Within three years it was gone: 78 per cent of the sheep herd was gone. You deregulated the industry and you destroyed this nation's greatest asset. Anyway, that's past tense now. The incoming Labor government—representing the workers—wiped out 12,000 jobs on the railways. Hughenden was a railway town. They took 1,500 jobs out of the town. The railways union didn't have one single stoppage, because they're controlled by the ALP. The Liberals keep saying, 'The unions control the Labor Party.' No, it's the other way around. The ALP controls the unions, and here was a classic example of it. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 103 12:46 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Last year I met with some excellent VET, vocational education and training, providers in my electorate. They are registered training organisations that care about their students, that met all accreditation standards and that produced skilled and satisfied workers. They told me they could not compete with dodgy RTOs—RTOs that recruited from overseas, bringing international students to Melbourne by advertising that there were no assessments, no classes to attend, and no practical placements required, and that a certificate would be guaranteed. The only promise they made was that the so-called students could work here. Work visas are not the purview of the vocational education and training system. The excellent RTO providers are now very pleased—in fact, they're over the moon—about the changes brought about by Labor's recent VET bill. Some years back when I was at the nurses union, a member alerted us to a very unethical situation with an RTO at a nursing home where she worked. The owner of the nursing home had set up an RTO to train aged-care workers. The thing was, in order to gain the required certificate, the students were told they had to do six months clinical placement with no pay, no minimum hours and no industrial protections at all. Basically, the RTO was being used to garner free labour for the provider's own nursing home. These are just two examples of dodgy providers exploiting the system and students for personal gain. I'm proud to say that the Albanese Labor government is unequivocally committed not only to education but also to the integrity of our education system. We know that having access to a great education from early learning and schools right through to universities and TAFE is the ticket to a lifetime of opportunity. Unfortunately, the vocational education and training sector under the previous government was neglected and overlooked. Upon election it was clear we'd inherited the worst skills crisis in 50 years. The number of people completing apprenticeships had been falling for more than a decade. The VET sector had endured underfunding, deregulation, loose rules of market entry, a complete lack of national cohesion and an obsession for competition at the expense of strategic collaboration. Fixing a fractured skills and training sector is vital to the health of every single sector of our economy. I'm proud to say that the Albanese government is committed to lifting quality and ensuring the integrity of our vocational education and training sector. The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 passed by the House just this week continues this critical work. The bill ensures that the Australian Skills Quality Authority has the powers to take swift action to deter and remove non-genuine or unscrupulous registered training organisations and apply greater scrutiny to new RTOs. The bill will support the majority of providers, who are actually doing the right thing. Our VET sector is here for students to build a better future for themselves and to deliver the skills our country so desperately needs. One of the many wonderful education providers in my electorate is the Preston campus of Melbourne Polytechnic. At this fabulous campus, thousands of local students study at a state-of-the-art facility as they train for a variety of critical industries, ranging from cutting-edge courses in information technology and cybersecurity to community services, health support, age and disability care, hospitality and so much more. I visited recently to see some of this cutting-edge technology when they were training plumbers of the future through virtual reality goggles so they can feel what it's like to crawl in under houses, crawl into tunnels and actually do plumbing work on a virtual reality basis. It's absolutely cutting-edge teaching technology, and that's being delivered at our local TAFE. Wherever students train, be it through Labor's hugely successful fee-free TAFE program or through private providers, they should be assured they are receiving quality training. We want to ensure Australians and those from overseas that choose to access our VET sector can be confident in the high standards of training delivered. There are over two million Australian students in the VET sector, a sector that supplies half the skills to our economy. We must support it. We must ensure that we weed out dodgy providers who undermine the system and who are trying to take advantage of students. That's why our legislation is so important, and I am very proud to support it. Cost of Living 104 12:51 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise today to address the cost-of-living crisis at home and across the country. It's clear that Australians are facing financial pressures, with families and businesses struggling to cope with the rising costs caused by this government. The Prime Minister promised over and over again that Australians would be better off under a Labor government. We are still waiting for this Labor utopia to emerge. Instead, families and businesses are facing the highest interest rates since 2011. They are struggling with the skyrocketing costs of food, electricity, gas, mortgages, school expenses, insurance and rent. People are having to make tough decisions about their budgets—fuel versus food, whether to keep up with their private health cover and whether they can take that holiday later in the year. I know many hardworking families and businesses who are digging into their savings just to make ends meet. Young Australians are among the hardest hit. Last year, more than three million people were hit with a 7.1 per cent hike in their student loans thanks to Labor's exploding inflation. HECS debts are forecast to increase by 15 per cent. It is harder for Australians to save for a house deposit. The Australian dream of owning a home is slipping further away from future generations. I feel the frustrations of young Australians. They want to buy a home. They want to start a family. I understand that. It's a growing frustration that needs to be resolved by this parliament and this government. I also know a lack of affordable housing options and rising rental costs are pushing people into homelessness. There are people in my community with good jobs relying on food banks. Some are seeking refuge in makeshift tent communities. We have kids living in tents and caravan parks. This is a disgrace. WA Labor's underinvestment in public housing means waiting lists are growing longer, continuing the cycle of housing insecurity. Instead of obsessing over pet projects like the failed Voice referendum, the Prime Minister and WA Labor should be focused on easing everyday pressures for all Australians. The people in my electorate know the truth: Labor will not fight for Canning. Important projects in my region have been scrapped by Labor. The upgrade of the Peel Health campus is barely even on the drawing board. Recent Productivity Commission data revealed that Western Australia is the worst in the nation when it comes to seeing urgent patients on time. Ambulance ramping has exploded 1,500 per cent since WA Labor was elected seven years ago. Labor's healthcare record in WA is nothing less than a disaster. It's worse, as well, on the roads. In my community, in the proud, historic town of Pinjarra—it's a beautiful place—there's a danger that runs right through the town centre every single day: more than 700 heavy haulage trucks thunder through Pinjarra, some carrying large loads of Jarrah wood and also resources and equipment to be used in the mining sector. That's a sector many of my constituents have jobs in. As our region continues to grow, that number will rise. But, back in 2017, 84 per cent of the Shire of Murray's electors voted yes in a referendum for a deviation which would divert hundreds of trucks away from the centre of town each day. With their support, I secured $200 million from the former coalition government for the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation. But, just over a year ago in a stunning betrayal, Labor slammed the brakes on this project. Labor promised it, then they delayed it and then, after putting it on the backburner for a year, they axed it altogether. Deputy Speaker Chesters, you are a regional representative. You understand how important roads are. It was a real kick in the guts for our people in Pinjarra. Talking to everyday Australians is something the Prime Minister does not do. It's something that the state Labor MPs in my regions—the member for Mandurah, the member for Dawesville and the member for Murray-Wellington—have stopped doing. If they did, they would be alarmed at what they would be hearing from people. Labor has forgotten what matters to Australians. The people in my community did not ask to be belted with Labor's cost-of-living and housing crisis. They did not ask to suffer under a broken health system. Labor does not listen, and it does not fight. I make a guarantee to my constituents, the people of Canning—and I understand that the member for Tangney is a constituent of mine. The Liberal Party is fighting for you, Member for Tangney. Peter Dutton is fighting for you, and I'm fighting every day to put you front and centre. Taxation 105 12:55 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney As an elected member of the 47th Parliament, I have the honour and the privilege of representing the constituents of Tangney. It is a position that I do not take for granted. As a community-minded man, I always approach situations calmly, knowing that it is often not the loudest voice that is the most impactful but the one who observes, plans and responds with reason and facts. I know that our government—the Albanese Labor government—is one that really listens to the pulse of the nation and responds accordingly to the genuine needs of all Australians. We are in government not to play politics; we are here to make a positive impact on the lives of everyday working people. Considering the pressing cost-of-living crisis that has gripped our country, I'm proud of Labor's tax cut initiatives. It is a balanced approach that is not just about benefiting some but creating relief for all. Many of my constituents have reached out regarding the tax cut from both perspectives: for and against. The feedback that I have received after people have looked into what the government tax cut means for the majority has been overwhelmingly positive. No-one is worse off, and equity has truly prevailed. I will share with you some of the feedback that I received from my constituents. One said: 'I stood to benefit from the original stage 3 tax cuts but my three adult children would not, so I agree this decision has been very welcome, and our family love it.' Another said: 'The economic circumstances are now very different than when the tax cut was legislated, so this decision that the government has made is both fiscally responsible and principled.' Another said: 'The Australian public overwhelmingly wants what is best for their community and will forgive a "broken promise" when it is for the right reasons. This is definitely the right reason.' And another said: 'Any tax reform should focus on supporting the lowest-paid and most vulnerable members of our community. Thank you for making the right decision for Australia!' Tangney is a talented electorate that encompasses the values of hard work and perseverance. We do so because we want the best for ourselves and our families. From those employed in skilled trades to white-collar professionals, from teachers to higher education students who have just started their first job, every person is working towards a better future. Our government understands this and knows that the challenges faced by everyday, hardworking Australians have increased and that everyone deserves a helping hand. These tax cuts will do just that. These decisions will foster an environment where prosperity is shared by all. It is not just lip service when we as a government say that we will deliver for all Australians. We are a government that is dedicated to building a society where opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status. We are a government that leads with empathy and understanding and commitment to the wellbeing of all Australian citizens. May this tax cut be a testament to our vision of a fair and inclusive nation, and may the benefits of economic growth continue to be distributed equally as well as equitably for all Australians. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:0 1