2024-02-27 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 27 February 2024

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

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 1 12:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Thank you to all those who have joined us here in the chamber today. I am going to commence my final contribution to this place in the same way I began my first one, in acknowledging the Gweagal people of the Dharawal nation of southern Sydney—a very special people, because they were the first to engage with Lieutenant James Cook on 29 April 1770. That place in Kurnell is a very special place. We speak a lot about reconciliation in this place, as we should, and my experience of that place as each and every year we gather in a ceremony of reconciliation, I think, speaks to the best spirit of that. I also spoke about that place in my maiden speech in this place. I said that it was important that we recognise this site, and I am so pleased that over the time that I have been here, we were able to achieve that. On that site now, there is—artists call it an installation, others would call it a monument, and some might call it a statue—call it whatever you like, but I know what it means. There is the totem of the Dharawal people, the whale, and it's beautiful. There are many other installations around the shore, but the one which is most striking, as the tide comes in, laps on it and recedes, is the skeleton of a whale, but it is also the skeleton of a ship like the Endeavour. On each of the rings of that skeleton is inscribed the journals of Lieutenant James Cook. If you haven't been there, go there. It is a wonderful place to reflect on how two stories become one. For me that's what reconciliation with Indigenous people has always been about. We weave together the individual strands of individual Australians of so many different backgrounds and experiences, from our Indigenous peoples to the most recent citizens. Each strand unique, but together weaved as one. For me that site will always mean that, and it's wonderful to acknowledge it here today, as well as the artists and the so many who made that possible. As was my practice as Prime Minister, always, when acknowledging Indigenous Australians, I would also in the same breath acknowledge those men and women who served Australia in our defence forces, both those who served in the past and those who serve now, for the simple reason that they are the providers of our freedom. Everything we have in this country we owe to them. In one of my early days—the member for Blaxland is here—we trekked Kokoda together in the spirit of bipartisanship. He was a little quicker than me and still is. We trekked Sandakan, we trekked the Black Cat Track up there in northern Papua New Guinea and we also went on to Gallipoli. At the end of those treks we would stand together with the young people who were with us—whether it was at the Bomana cemetery or in Lae or Sandakan or elsewhere—and we would hold hands, look at those tombstones, thank them and commit ourselves to living lives that would be worthy of their sacrifice. It was incredibly moving. And we would say, 'They gave their tomorrows for our today.' So it is easy for us all in that spirit to acknowledge our defence forces, those who serve in them—and serve in them today, far from here and nearby—and simply say thank you for your service. Today is not an opportunity to run through a bullet point list of things. It is, importantly, an opportunity for me to simply express my thanks and appreciation and admiration for those who have made my service here in this place possible and to pass on what I hope are some helpful reflections from my time here that may assist those who continue to serve. Let me begin with my thankyous. Firstly and importantly, to my constituents in Cook: it has been my great privilege to have served you as your local member in this parliament for these past more than 16 years, where you have been kind enough to elect me on six separate—six successive—occasions. I thank you for the tremendous and steadfast support you've provided to me and my family, who join me here today, during this time. Whatever was going on at the time, whether it be success, failure and everything in between, when I returned to the electorate—and those who know the area will know what I'm talking about—and particularly as I went up the rise of the Captain Cook Bridge and descended into God's country itself, the shire, I would feel a great sense of belonging. I would feel a great sense of reassurance and peace. All of us who live there know this. This is as much, though, about the people as it is the place. It is home and always will be. Mine is a community that is unashamedly proud of our country, that deeply values family life and what it takes to live a life that keeps families together, that works hard. They take responsibility for themselves. They appreciate and respect both their own and others' good fortune, and they are generous to those around them, celebrating their successes or providing a hand up whenever and wherever it is needed. It is also a community that enthusiastically shares and supports and maintains the important community and social infrastructure that preserves our way of life. It is a community that does not leave it to others, including the government. Mine is a community that does not look for what it is owed but what it can contribute, for how it can make a contribution, not take one, both nationally and locally. They are a community of patriots, and I am pleased to describe them as such in this place. In both my local and my national roles, including as Prime Minister, I have always been guided by the strong local values of my community—family, community, small business—and what I describe as the fair go for those who have a go. This is what makes the shire and southern Sydney such a great place to live and raise a family. And there are plenty of quiet Australians who understand that as well. Ever since I was first elected, I have always seen it as my job to try and keep it that way, and I believe I have honoured that commitment. I particularly thank the myriad of community organisations, sporting clubs, school communities, volunteers, small businesses, church and charitable groups that make our local community, as they do all of our communities, so great and so resilient, including my beloved Sharks. These groups and organisations are the heart of our community, and I've always enjoyed the role I have played to support and enable them in their efforts, and I'm proud of what we have been able to achieve altogether in our community over this time. I also want to thank my many local Liberal Party supporters and members, in particular Mike Douglas; Louise De Domenico, who was also on my staff; and my conference chairman and great friend, Scott Briggs, for always keeping the local show on the road. A special thank you also to our neighbours and friends in Lilli Pilli, Port Hacking and Dolans Bay. You had to put up with more than most—cameras, security, traffic, the odd protest and home invader. To Jamie and Anna and to Joe, Chrissie and Stan, I look forward to continuing return the favour of mowing your lawns for years to come. It will be quite some time before I settle that debt! A big thank you also—I'm sure Jenny would agree—to Rob and everyone up at D'lish. As politicians we know that we are the tip end of the spear. Yet, behind us, there are so many people who we are supported by. They are incredible, dedicated, professional, intelligent, loyal, good humoured, sacrificial and amazing people who, for reasons that I suspect will never cease to amaze all of us—and it certainly humbles us—choose to commit themselves to the causes that we have identified and we seek to champion as members of this place and, when we have the opportunity, in government. They become a family. They support one another. They form close and lasting relationships, together embarking on one of the great seasons of our lives. I have been blessed in this area more than I could ever deserve. From my local office team in the shire, especially to Julie Adams; to the incredible professionals who headed up and worked in my prime ministerial and ministerial offices, especially Dr John Kunkel, Phil Gaetjens and Anne Duffield; and to my longstanding original staff Latisha Wenlock and Julian Leembruggen, who is here today: the journey would simply have been impossible without you all, all of those you ably led and all who worked together in these causes, so many of whom are here today—and I thank them for being here. There are too many of you to mention all by name, and nor do I wish to injure your reputations by doing so! But I hope you all feel the full partnership of our service together and what we were able to achieve and contribute. Thank you. I also wish to thank all those who cared for me and my family over the years when I was Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister now would know. To our household staff at the Lodge and at Kirribilli, led by the beautiful Trina Barrie and the incomparable Adam Thomas: you provided a space for Jen, Abbey, Lily, Buddy, Charlie and I to be a family. Thank you. To the members of my close protection team at the AFP over the years, who continue to look after us even on the odd occasion these days: thank you. I want to specially mention Travis Ford and Jen McRae, who were terribly injured in the line of duty, protecting me in a terrible car accident in Tasmania. I will always be grateful for your sacrifice. When their colleagues rushed to them at the scene, their first words—not knowing what had occurred—were: 'Is the boss okay?' Thank you. To Mick: I'll be in touch about that fishing trip we talked about, as we promised each other on the road on so many occasions. To my parliamentary, ministerial and cabinet colleagues with whom I served over the years, some gone from this place now and many still here: I want to thank you for your support and your dedication. As your leader, you gave me your best in some of Australia's most difficult times. I asked you to follow and you did, and together we achieved an election victory that none thought possible, and we kept steady hands on the tiller during the greatest set of challenges that have confronted our nation since the Second World War. Thank you for your service. For the opportunities afforded to me by my party leaders over this time—to Brendon Nelson, to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: thank you. To my now party leader, Peter Dutton, with whom I served in cabinet through all the years of the coalition government: thank you for your respect, your loyalty, your support and your consideration, especially that which you've shown me as a ministerial colleague, as Prime Minister and as an ex-PM in your party room. Jen and I both appreciate the kindness and generosity you and Kirilly have shown to both of us and our family. For the great friendship and encouragement afforded to me by some very special friends as colleagues, to Big Mac, my Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack; and Catherine: thank you. To Josh Frydenberg, who I was speaking with this morning, and my deputy leader and Treasurer: thank you, Josh. To Marise Payne, to Greg Hunt, to Michaelia Cash, to good old Benny Morton and to Alex Hawke, who sits with me here today and who keeps me entertained each question time still—there's plenty to entertain us: thank you. And to those who've gone from here—to Steve Irons and Stuart Robert, who I flatted with for many years; to Lucy Wicks and the incomparable Bill Heffernan, who I flatted with for the first six years and survived; and Louise Markus—thank you. To the broader Liberal Party members and our supporters led by Andrew Hirst, John Olsen and Nick Greiner, thank you. To those who supported me from the Public Service as a minister, Treasurer and Prime Minister, thank you, especially for your service during the pandemic, which I extend to everyone in the Public Service, who showed the true spirit of what public service was with sacrifice and dedication. Thank you to Phil Gaetjens, who was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but, particularly, thank you also to Professor Brendan Murphy and Professor Paul Kelly, who became well-known figures. To General JJ Frewen, thank you. To General Angus Campbell and Greg Moriarty, thank you for all you did to help me secure AUKUS. When I left the job after the last election, when we lost, I remember saying to them, 'Now, please don't stuff it up,' which they are not, together with the Minister for Defence. To the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to the members of your government and to Bill Shorten, we have contested fiercely in this place. I've had my wins and I've had my losses, but I wish you all well in your service of the national interest. Too often in this place we confuse differences of policy with judgements about peoples' intent and motives. This is not good for our polity. We may disagree but we need to honour the good intentions of all of us. I wish you well in your service, as I've said, and I especially want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the special kindness and respect that you've shown to me in this place since the last election and here again today. To the Prime Minister and your now new fiancee, Jodie, congratulations on your engagement. Jen and I wish you all the very best for your life together. At some point, this all ends and, while there are no hard feelings, I'll obviously be supporting my colleagues and Peter Dutton to ensure that that day hastens sooner rather than later. But, when it does, you will look around and Jodie will be there, and I can assure you—as Jen has been to me—it makes a world of difference. When I first entered politics, the former member for Parramatta, Julie Owens, who many of us remember well, gave new members some good advice at our orientation about making sure you do not neglect the friendships you had before you came. I took this advice very seriously. I'm even more pleased that my friends and family did. Thank you to our wonderful friends that are here today—to Karen and Adrian Harrington; to David Gazard, the 'Gaza man'; to Arthur and Ingrid Ilias; to Bill and Anne Knock; to Peter Verwer; to Scott Briggs, who couldn't be here today; and to Lynelle Stewart—we love you very much and appreciate you. To my Christian pastors, Brad and Alison Bonhomme, to Mike and Val Murphy, to Joel and Julia A'bell, to Jock Cameron and to my brothers in Christ, Andrew Scipione, John Anderson and Lloyd Thomas, who's here with his wife Fi today, thank you for your prayers, your counsel and your encouragement. I also especially want to thank Bishop Antoine Tarabay and all of our Maronite brothers and sisters—I've become an honorary Maronite, I think, in the years past—and especially our dear friends Danny and Leila Abdallah, Bridget Sakr and Craig McKenzie, who have taught us all what faith is really all about. As most people know, subject only to God, my family is the centre of my life, and at the very centre of our family is Jen. I cannot imagine life without her. I love you, Jen, and always will—that is the cross you have to bear. Your love has been my stay and strength. You are the other half of our joined soul, who, by the grace of God, brought Abbey and Lily—our miracle girls—into our lives, who we celebrate and love. I thank Abbey and Lily for their own sacrifices as they have grown, necessitated by having a father in public life. They are beautiful girls in every way, as you can see, and I could not be more proud of them as a father. They are our joy and our delight, and I am so pleased that we can now have the time that was necessarily denied us for so long. In preparing for this day, Abbey and Lily suggested that I should play a type of Taylor Swift bingo, and I'm wearing the bracelet, by the way—it has 'ScoMo' on it. They said to try to work the names of every single Taylor Swift album into my remarks. Well, what's a dad to do? Here I go! It is true that my political opponents have often made me see red. When subjected to the tortured poets who would rise to attack my reputation, in response I have always thought it important to be fearless and speak now or forever hold my silence and allow those attacks to become folklore. Ever since leaving university—in 1989!—this has always been my approach. My great consolation has always been my lover Jen, who has always been there for me whenever I need her, from dawn and beyond the many midnights we have shared together. See, I'm actually a true new romantic after all. I can assure you there is no bad blood, as I've always been someone who's been able to shake it off! Anything for my daughters. I also want to thank, of course, Jen's mum, Beth, who is looking after the cat and the dog today, and Jen's late father, Roy, an amazing human being, for always being on my side; as well as Jen's siblings, Gary and Cecily, and all their families. Finally, I thank my mum, Marion, who is here with my late father, John, today together. I also want to thank my brother, Alan, of whom I am extremely proud. My family, growing up, were the dominant example for my life. They taught me that life is about what you contribute, not what you accumulate. They taught me about the duty and dignity of public service, but, beyond this, I would never have known God and my saviour, Jesus Christ, if it was not for them. I can think of no greater gift. Okay, that's the emotional stuff done! You're not used to seeing that side of me. Having said my thankyous and expressed my appreciation, I would now like to reflect on just three things I have learned along the way that may help those dealing with the challenges of the future who continue in this place. The first of these is that, without a strong economy, you cannot achieve your goals as a nation. All good government must start with nurturing a strong, innovative, dynamic, entrepreneurial, market based economy. In the 1980s we threw off the shackles of the federation institutions that Paul Kelly, who is here today, wrote about in The End of Certainty as holding our economy back. This led my generation into 30 years of economic change that, despite some missteps along the way, including a recession we had to have, produced the longest period of continuing economic growth that any nation in the modern world has known. There have been strong contributions made to this achievement by both sides of politics, which I acknowledge—always, though, with Liberal and National support. As we entered the pandemic, I was pleased that, after almost six years of painstaking fiscal effort, we had restored our budget to balance and maintained our AAA credit rating. This was achieved by focusing on economic growth and containing growth in public spending. At the time, our government had the lowest rate of growth in public spending of any Australian government for decades. This would prove vital in the years that followed. Having saved for a rainy day, it was now raining. It was pouring, and we had to respond. Australia would emerge with one of the lowest fatality rates from COVID in the developed world. When compared to the average fatality rates of OECD countries, Australia's response saved more than 30,000 lives. We were described as the gold standard of COVID responses by Bill Gates at the Munich security conference and the second-most COVID prepared nation by the Johns Hopkins Institute. This will always be to Greg Hunt's great credit and that of all those he worked with—his eternal credit. It is also true that, during the pandemic, the rate of death by suicide actually fell and remained down in 2021. This was nothing short of an answer to prayer and the extraordinary efforts of our mental health workers, professionals and services, and I want to acknowledge Professor Pat McGorry and Christine Morgan, who were incredible supports to me during that time. Our plan was not just about saving lives but about saving livelihoods as well. This was achieved with Australia emerging with one of the strongest economies through COVID. Our historic economic response kept 700,000 businesses in business, it kept more than a million Australians in work and, despite these unpredicted outlays, Australia was one of just nine countries to retain a AAA credit rating. Our response was timely, it was targeted and it was temporary. We responsibly retired measures as soon as it was prudent to do so, leading to a historic reduction in the actual budget deficit, with the budget even moving into structural surplus during COVID. As Josh asked me to remind everyone this morning, the unemployment rate had a '3' in front of it when we left. JobKeeper and the myriad of economic supports—designed by Josh and me, with Mathias Cormann and later Simon Birmingham and the whole team at Treasury and the ATO—would have been fanciful had we not entered into this crisis with a tank that was full. We cannot take our economy for granted. Employers and businesses creating jobs is how you run a strong economy and put a budget into structural balance and keep it there. During my time in this place I observed that many of the old partisan differences on economic policy have, regrettably, re-emerged. In 2019 we fought an election on this and we prevailed in our miracle election win. Looking forward, we must be careful not to reinstitutionalise our economy. Such an approach will only negate the capacity we have as a nation to deliver on the essentials that Australians rely on; it will crush entrepreneurial spirit and that wonderful spirit of small business, and leave us vulnerable in the face of new threats to our sovereignty. That brings me to my second point. Those threats are there and they're real. During my time in this place, and especially as Prime Minister, we have seen an end to the post-Cold War period of globalisation and the emergence of a new era of strategic competition, where our global rules based order is being challenged by a new arc of autocracy. This arc of autocracy, which I referred to as Prime Minister, ranges from Pyongyang to Beijing to Tehran and Moscow—a chord of would-be regional hegemons who would prefer power to freedom and care little for the price their own citizens pay to achieve their ends. For this reason our government stood firm against the bullying and coercion of an aggressive Chinese Communist Party government in Beijing who thought we would shrink when pressed. Indeed, we not only stood firm but worked with our allies, our partners and those in our region who wished to protect their own sovereignty to counter this threat to regional peace, prosperity and stability. AUKUS, the Quad, new trading and defence relationships, the first ever comprehensive strategic partnership of any nation with ASEAN and others including PNG, and the Pacific Step-up—all designed to protect our sovereignty and stand up for a global rules based order that favours freedom, especially here in our own region in the Indo-Pacific. In this respect, I pay tribute to the work of Marise Payne and Dan Tehan, as well as Simon Birmingham. I thank the Trump and Biden administrations, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, my good friends Boris Johnson, James Marape, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and Robert O'Brien. I pay tribute to late and great Shinzo Abe and his successors, prime ministers Yoshi Suga and Fumio Kishida. The 2022 election may have provided an opportunity for Beijing to step back from their failed attempts at coercion, but we must not be deluded: tactics change but their strategy remains the same. We are not alone in waking up to this threat. Investors are now, rightly, pricing the risk of their investments in an authoritative communist China, while consumer advocates are waking up to human rights abuses and the environmental degradation that infects these supply chains. This requires continued vigilance and the connection between all spheres of policy to create and protect supply chains and integrate and align our strategic and military capabilities so we can protect our sovereignty and counter the threat that is real and building. In Tehran, we find the funders, trainers and apologists for terrorists, seeking to acquire the most deadly defence technology imaginable: nuclear weapons. Their green light for the Hamas terrorist attacks on innocents in Israel, on 7 October, is unforgiveable. In response to such overt attacks there can be no equivocation on where we stand as a representative democracy when another, who has been such a great friend of Australia, is under attack. There also can be no equivocation in calling out the anti-Semitism that has now occurred in this country, to our shame, and in other places across the Western Hemisphere in the wake of 7 October. To that end I am pleased to acknowledge the presence today of the Israeli ambassador, Amir Maimon, in the chamber today. Am Yisrael Chai. In Ukraine, fighting continues to rage two years after Russia's illegal invasion. I'm proud of our swift response to support Ukraine. This must continue and is utilising every resource and capability we can reasonably provide. Ukraine may be a long way from Australia, but the implications of a Russian victory will reverberate just as quickly in our own hemisphere, emboldening again those who seek to challenge our region. My third point is: how do we stand and on what ground? We stand on the very same ground that established our western civilisation and that inspired and enabled the modern, pluralist representative democracy we now enjoy. We stand on the values that build a successful, free society, like individual liberty, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, responsible citizenship, morality and liberty of speech, thought, religion and association. All of these stem from the core principle of respect for individual human dignity. So do representative democracy and even market based capitalism. This is a unique Judaeo-Christian principle. It is about respecting each other's human dignity through our creation by God's hand, in God's image, for God's glory, where each human life is eternally valued, unique, worthy, loved and capable. This is the very basis for our modern understanding of human rights. With the advance of secularism in western society, we may wish to overlook these connections or even denounce them. But the truth remains. Human rights abuses were once called crimes against God, not just against humanity. They are, and they remain so. These truths are not self-evident, as some claim, as history and nature tells a very different story, though divinely inspired. You don't need to share my Christian faith to appreciate the virtue of human rights. I'm not suggesting you do. But, equally, we should be careful about diminishing the influence and the voice of Judaeo-Christian faith in our western society, as doing so risks our society drifting into a valueless void. In that world, there is nothing to stand on, there is nothing to hold on to, and the authoritarians and autocrats win. In the increasing western embrace of secularism, let us be careful not to disconnect ourselves from what I would argue is our greatest gift and the most effective protector of our freedoms—the Judaeo-Christian values upon which our liberty in society was founded. Even if you may not believe, it would be wise to continue to understand, respect and appreciate this important link and foundation. To conclude, you'll be pleased to note a warning about politics, where I've spent most of my professional life, as most of us here have. I know that all political philosophies and ideologies, including my own, are imperfect and regularly confounded by events outside our control. I experienced this firsthand leading Australia through the global pandemic. In my experience, the practice of politics is largely about contesting which approaches are less imperfect than others—in my view, those are the approaches of the Liberal Party—and then trying to humbly appreciate and compensate for their imperfections. It's like Winston Churchill's famous line, and I paraphrase: 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.' While a noble calling, politics can only take you so far, and government can only do so much. You can say the same thing about the market. You won't find all the answers there, either, and you won't find it in unrestricted libertarianism and more-command-and-control communism. In the Liberal Party, we have always believed in how great Australians rather than governments can be, with the true test being how we can enable Australians to realise their own aspirations. I suspect that much of our disillusion with politics and our institutions today is that we have put too much faith in them. At the end of the day, the state and the market are just run by imperfect people like all of us. While politics may be an important and necessary place for service, I would also warn against it being a surrogate for finding identity, ultimate meaning and purpose in life. There are far better options than politics. In The Dignity of Difference, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote that the great tragedies of the 20th century came when politics was turned into a religion and when the nation, in the case of fascism, or the system in communism, was made absolute and turned into a god. I leave this place not as one of those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. I leave having given all in that arena, and there are plenty of scars to show for it. While I left nothing of my contributions on that field, I do leave behind in that arena, where it will always remain, any bitterness, disappointments or offences that have occurred along the way. I leave this place appreciative and thankful, unburdened by offences and released of any of the bitterness that can so often haunt post-political lives. This is due to my faith in Jesus Christ, which gives me the faith to both forgive and be honest about my own failings and shortcomings. During my time as Prime Minister, the power and necessity of forgiveness was demonstrated to me most profoundly by the Abdallah and Sakr families, whose children were taken from them, and they found the strength in their faith to forgive. For those who perhaps may feel a bit uncomfortable with my Christian references and scripture references here or at other times, I can't apologise for that. It says in Romans 1:16: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.' It says in 2 Timothy 1:17: 'I am not ashamed for I know what I believe and in whom and I am convinced that He is able to protect what I have entrusted to Him until that day.' In that vein, let me quote one last scripture in this place as an encouragement to all who continue to serve. 2 Thessalonians 2:16 says: 'Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God and our father, who has loved and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and deed.' Thank you all those who join me here today or are listening elsewhere for your kind attention. As always, up, up Cronulla! 12:38 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I thank the member for Cook and the former Prime Minister for what was a very thoughtful, generous and warm final speech in this place. He has certainly left nothing on the field, and he can be proud of that fact. He has shown a real respect for this parliament in giving that speech here today and, importantly, a real respect for the people of his electorate, because none of us have other titles unless we have that very important one of MHR, member of the House of Representatives, for our particular electorates. I know that he is very passionate about and proud to represent the Sutherland shire for the electorate of Cook. I also give my respect to the former Prime Minister for the public recognition that he gave that all of us in this place rely upon so many others—our electorate officers, our ministerial staff, public servants and, as he said, our CPT. I well remember the news of the accident in Tasmania on that day. I spoke with the then Prime Minister on that day to check that he was okay and to check that the police officers who serve us and protect us were okay as well. I confirm that the then Prime Minister was very emotional about feeling that other people had been hurt in protecting him. That was to his great credit, and I acknowledge that. He has had so much support. We all ride on other people's shoulders to get here, and more important than any of the paid staff in various roles are, of course, the unpaid staff and they're sitting up there as well with you today. I can say, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, that Prime Minister Morrison was a truly formidable opponent, and that to win an election is a big deal. Not many people have done it. To be one of the 31 prime ministers is something that can never be taken away, and I know that when you leave this place, Mr Morrison, you'll always be former prime minister Morrison. In the United States, they acknowledge these things differently, of course, and I suspect you may go to the United States, as do other people afterwards, just so that you keep that title of Prime Minister! It's an interesting tradition. When I was first called 'Deputy Prime Minister' when I was there after 2013, I hadn't quite clicked at that tradition. It says something about the respect for the office, which is so important. We always knew that, whatever the circumstances, this was a person who would bring 100 per cent of his energy and determination to the political contest. That was something that was acknowledged by Labor. It won you the admiration of your Liberal and National party colleagues. In 2019, that was very successful in your election at that time. I also want to acknowledge the contribution that the member for Cook has made as a parliamentarian. Your first speech in this place was16 years and two weeks ago. More than half of that time was in government and indeed in cabinet, and, for nearly half of the time in government, you were serving as Prime Minister—as I said, one of only 31 people to know that incredible honour. You and I have had our differences, but we have absolutely agreed—absolutely agreed, and I hope that you have the same view that I have, which is that we do not doubt for one second that this is the greatest country on Earth and that our job, wherever we come from in the political spectrum, is to try and make the greatest country on Earth that much greater by what we do each and every day. As Prime Minister during a once-in-a-century pandemic, the member for Cook was confronted with a challenging set of circumstances and just so many unknowns. This was an unprecedented time. It was a time of real anxiety amongst so many Australians, especially in those early days. It required decisions to be made that, if you had said prior to 2019 that a government, with the support of the opposition, would literally work with states and territories to stop people leaving home, to stop social interaction, to stop the normal activity that we engage in in this great country, and that it would close borders, not just national borders but state and territory borders as well, you would have thought that was something of fiction—that that would not be possible. We shouldn't take for granted the fact that those decisions were made and that that required leadership by yourself as Prime Minister and by the premiers and chief ministers working together across the political aisle. It required us, as the opposition, to sit in the cabinet room for some discussions, as well as in this place, and say what hasn't often been said by an opposition, which is: 'Regardless of what happens, we will vote for what is put forward.' That is what we did, in order to provide not just political certainty but, critically, economic certainty and social certainty, and the confidence that the Australian public required of their political leaders at that time in order to make personal sacrifices. No-one had ever envisaged Australians being put in a position to make such sacrifices, whether as individuals, as businesses or through the family unit. In your speech today, you spoke about good intentions. I don't doubt that everyone at that time had good intentions. Not everything was perfect, but today is not a day to dwell on that. Today is a day to say that everyone went into those processes with good intentions, and I don't doubt for one second that that was the case. So many of those decisions were critical, and it was important to project confidence. The nation needed that confidence. I'm sure that in the solitary moments, of which there were too many for all of us, due to the COVID restrictions, you must have gone through some really difficult times in trying to reassure yourself that the decisions that were being made—big decisions—were the right ones. I don't doubt for one second that the motivation in that was absolutely right. In your first speech you said, 'Family is the stuff of life.' All of us know that serving in this place takes a toll on family life, including during that period, of course. For the member for Cook, I imagine this will be a day of some mixed emotions, as farewells always are. For your daughters this will be a day of joy. And congratulations, Abbey and Lily, on encouraging your dad to work in that Taylor Swift reference! It was quite an achievement to go through all of those album titles and add in some song titles as well, just to complete the picture—to fill in the blank space, so to speak. It is fantastic that you're joined by your beloved mum, Marion, and she is very welcome here. We've had private discussions—I'll let the gallery in on a secret: even the toughest of political opponents can have private discussions—and I know that today you'll be feeling a sense of loss for your father. Jenny, I want to take this moment to acknowledge the dignity and diligence with which you have performed your role in public life. It is a difficult role. There's no script or manual, unlike in the United States. It's a very different system. And I thank you, Scott, for your personal wellwishes for myself and Jodie going forward. You're right: you always think about the things that really matter and the people around you when you leave this place, which we all will—hopefully not for some time, but you do think about those things. Family is so important. I know how critical Jenny's support was for you during your public life, particularly during what was an incredibly difficult period when you were Prime Minister during the pandemic. On behalf of the nation, thank you to the Morrison family. As Prime Minister, I will be so bold as to say I speak on behalf of the entire nation because I do believe in that respect. Scott—I'm going break with protocol there and not be pulled up with a point of order—I wish you every success for your future. Thank you for the service that you have given to this place, to your community in the great Sutherland Shire, to your party, the Liberal Party, of which you are a proud servant, and to your nation. 12:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his fine and very heartfelt words in response to the contribution today. It's a day of deep emotion right across the chamber. That was evidenced in the Prime Minister's contribution. It was certainly evidenced in Scott's speech as well. On behalf of our party, I want to extend our heartfelt thanks to our 30th Prime Minister and the 14th leader of our party. I thank him for the sacrifice that he made for our country and I thank him for the way in which he led our party. Sixteen years is a very significant contribution to public life. That period has a punctuation mark today, but I'm sure in many ways it will continue. In his maiden speech, the member for Cook predominantly spoke about three issues: family, faith and the Australian vision. He also spoke about a fourth, which he spent a lot of time on today, which is forgiveness. There's a consistency in Scott Morrison that we saw 16 years ago, and that was evidenced again today. I think that's really what has been at the heart of Scott's continued success as a leader, as a prime minister, as a local member, as a father and as a husband. He has endeared himself to many colleagues over the course of his journey for that very reason. Scott was quite modest in his speech today, but we can go back through some of his significant achievements, not just as Prime Minister but as immigration minister and as Treasurer. He retained the AAA credit rating, presided over a series of decisions which were tough decisions but ultimately in the country's best interests and delivered us back to a balanced budget position after a fairly precarious inherited position. He made decisions that ultimately, although not known at the time, put our country in the best possible position to deal with the scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were many of us who worked closely with Prime Minister Morrison at that time, and it was confronting, certainly from where I sat. There were the initial briefings that we received from the Chief of the Defence Force, from the Chief Medical Officer and from the experts otherwise and there was the intelligence that we were receiving from Europe and about what was happening in North America and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, the decisions that Scott was able to take really steered us through a very difficult course and put our country onto a path that we should be very proud of. They were decisions in relation to the health portfolio, and the former Prime Minister rightly acknowledged Greg Hunt for the work that he did in literally saving lives. There are many things that you can hang your hat on after a 16-year career, but having had the leading role in saving tens of thousands of lives of fellow Australians who would not have survived otherwise has to be at the top of the tree. As Scott pointed out, they were not just lives but livelihoods. To this very day, whenever we move around and speak to individual business owners or employees, countless people across the country cite the fact that their business would not have survived. There are 700,000 of them and over a million employees, a million Australians, who ultimately would not have been in the position that they were without the decisions taken by Prime Minister Morrison, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and others who sat around that National Security Committee decision-making body. That is one hell of a legacy. But it didn't stop there. I think Prime Minister Morrison's crowning achievement has been the AUKUS deal that was struck between the United States and the United Kingdom. I can tell you it was no easy feat. The Americans had only shared their closest held secrets with the Brits in the 1950s, and, despite numerous requests from very close allies during the intervening period, they had not decided to share that secret and have that confidence in another leader up until their interaction with Prime Minister Morrison. It will be the underpinning of our security for decades to come in a very uncertain world. Scott Morrison has that as part of his legacy. It doesn't stop there. Scott was able to bring Japan and India together in the QUAD and form a very close relationship, as he said, with the then Japanese Prime Minister, who was tragically lost, but also Prime Minister Modi as well. They had a mutual respect for each other and they knew that it was in the best interests of our respective countries, but collectively, to be able to come together to provide support for each other, not just now but into the decades ahead. Again, that was a very significant achievement. I think it's true to say that the Prime Minister, as he then was, stood up immediately in a way that not many other world leaders did in relation to Ukraine. One of my proudest moments in this place, Scott, was seeing the decisions that you swiftly took to provide support to people, which ultimately went to your values of faith and family and your vision, particularly in relation to humanity. The decisions that you took and that we took in government supported the people of Ukraine and the bravery of President Zelenskyy and ultimately resulted in saving the lives of men, women and children to this very day. You spoke very passionately about the rise and the unacceptable incidents of antisemitism that we see in our country today. It is endemic and it is shameful. You had the courage to stand up, consistent with your long-held values, to call that out, to be a friend of Israel and to provide support to people, who, on 7 October, had suffered the most horrific attack since the Holocaust, when six million people were gassed. You stand as a world leader, as a result of all of that combined, that we can be very proud of. I want to say thank you, on a personal level. We did have an exchange in 2018, as I recall, but when we came out of the meeting that day you were gracious enough to extend the hand of friendship to me, and I pledged to you on that day that I would serve you loyally. Together, since that day, I think we've been able to bring our party together in a way that wasn't possible for the period after 2007. I'm very grateful that that friendship continues today and long into the future. I wish you every success that you deserve into the future. I wish Jenny and the girls every success. The two beautiful young adults we see today, Abbey and Lily, were little girls, and we watched them grow up. They might watch the footage now and think, 'Why did I wear that? Why did I say that? Why was my hair cut like that?' as my kids often do. You have so much to be proud of. In this place, as the Prime Minister rightly points out, family is often forgotten. There will be a lot of cynicism in some of the reporting of Scott's speech, with its references to his faith and to his God. In this age of inclusion those people, who would normally parrot the fact that we need to be more inclusive and that our society needs to be more tolerant, will be the people who scribe tomorrow in a cynical way the words that Scott—in a very heartfelt way—conveyed to us today. There's a significant amount of irony in that. It's not going to change. That's the reality of the world in which we live. For Abbey and Lily, they know that they've been born into an amazing family, and Jenny is central to all of that. She's been graceful, she has been supportive, she's been generous and the country saw in her—at that time and since—somebody with a very big heart and somebody who loved her husband very dearly. So I want to say to the Morrison family, thank you for sacrifice and thank you very much for the contribution that you have given to our country. To Mrs Marion Morrison today and, in his absence, to John, thank you very much for the values you've instilled even to the current generation. The legacy that you have presided over is significant in itself. My closing words are to Abbey and Lily. Thank you very much for facilitating that daggy dad moment, as well, where your father went through, at your wish, to detail the Taylor Swift songs. He got away with it and it shows the influence that you have on his life, which is a very special thing. We wish him every success and good fortune and good health into the future. He has served our country with great distinction and we honour him today as a leader of our party and as a leader of our great country. 13:01 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Jane McNamara is one of those rough-and-tumble, down-to-earth, say-it-as-it-is mayors we all know and love in regional Australia. She's been mayor of Flinders Shire, centred on Hughenden in north-western Queensland, for eight years. Jane is someone who can see a fake, a fraud, a phony or someone who is insincere from a mile away. She rates highly one Scott Morrison, the outgoing member for Cook. 'Give him my best,' Jane said when I spoke to her last night. 'Tell him I'm sending virtual hugs his way.' Mayor McNamara well remembers the member for Cook's visits to Cloncurry, Julia Creek and McKinlay during the terrible natural disaster that hit her region in early 2019. The people in those far-flung Queensland towns have not forgotten those visits and nor will they. The member for Cook as Prime Minister brought funding and, perhaps more importantly, hope to those flood affected communities and they appreciated it. It saved them. Not only did he stop by but he returned later to see how they were faring. That is the measure of the man and underlines the leadership he showed on that and many, many other issues. I was there in February 2019 when the then Prime Minister told officials to get financial assistance in the bank accounts of devastated farmers within 24 hours. Those farmers had endured years of drought, but when the rain came it fell in biblical proportions and almost washed away the spirit of those hardy cattle producers. They were on the brink. Three years of rain had fallen in just 10 days. The Prime Minister was having nothing of bureaucratic delays and obfuscation. 'Get the money to them and do it within 24 hours,' he insisted and instructed. It was a decisive moment—stirring stuff, Morrison style. On 24 August 2018, the day the member for Cook was elected Liberal leader and later Australia's 30th prime minister, we had a meeting immediately after his party room ballot. I remember it clearly. As the Nationals leader at the time, I sat down with the Prime Minister designate to sort out the directions our parties—different but together—would go in on certain pressing issues. There are a number of them. I recall writing down two words, the member for Cook did the same, and then we showed each other. Both of us penned the same thing: 'Drought visit.' It was the start of our successful working relationship. We were different but we were together, and that's the way it should be. The following week the member for Cook and I found ourselves with Stephen and Annabel Tully at their 72,843-hectare Bunginderry Station at Quilpie, more than 200 kilometres west of Charleville—a long way from anywhere, you could say. It is in the electorate of Maranoa, represented by now Nationals leader David Littleproud. As the member for Maranoa said at the time, 'they're bred tough but no one is immune from this ongoing drought'. And he was right. Indeed, the Prime Minister saw the value of wild-dog fences, and other pest and weed management practices. They were valuable lessons for him to see firsthand and get a better understanding of farmers and regional, rural and remote Australians. Prime ministers of this country need to be the farmer's friend. The member for Cook was, in his time in the top job. He and I had any number of serious matters to deal with as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister between 2018 and 2021. As I told Q+A: 'The golden age of Australian democracy'. Insert laughter here. But it was. Drought, bushfires, floods and then a global pandemic. The worst of those COVID-19 times brought out the best in Scott Morrison. He went above and beyond, working incredible hours to save lives and protect livelihoods. He was calm, publicly confident and dedicated. He was unflappable. I must say, our relationship survived some truly testing times for the nation and those even closer to home, such as the time when he stole one of my all-time favourite press secretaries, Dean Shachar, for his own office. Dean's in the advisors box now, and I'm still dirty on you, Scott, for doing that. But, anyway, we'll forgive and forget, as you've shown us the benefit of forgiveness today. Seriously, I do wish you, on behalf of the Nationals, all the very best, and I thank you for care, understanding of and delivery for those who lived beyond the bright city lights. Personally, on behalf of Catherine and I, and our family, thanks for your friendship, your support and your good humour. I'm not going to mention bad Santa, nor the census. Insert laughter here. May you, Jenny, your girls Abbey and Lily, and your mum, Marion, enjoy good health, happiness and every success in the future. Finally, Jane McNamara has a Droughtmaster—an appropriately named breed—steer named ScoMo 2. This, now 800 kilogram, bullock was a mere poddy calf, you'll remember, in the midst of the 2019 floods. And the Prime Minister gave it a feed as the cameras snapped happily away. Because of his fame from those photos, the calf got his name and a guarantee of a life of grazing. He won't know his life of contentment and happiness is due to the PM's intervention; he will not. In the same way, I guess, many Australians will never fully appreciate the efforts and work Scott Morrison put into ensuring that their lives, too, were better. Ultimately I believe history will be far kinder to the Morrison years of government than some are now. In the words of St John, Scott, you have fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith. Thank you. 13:08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 As we look to conclude the member for Cook's valedictory, I will just offer my brief comments. Thank you for your contribution to the community of Cook. Thank you for your contribution to the parliament. Thank you for your contribution to this nation. Go in peace as you embark on the next chapter of your life, my friend. BILLS 10 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024, Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 10

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

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 10 13:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank everyone who was involved in the previous discussion for what is certainly the House at its best. I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024, the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 and the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Rearrangement 10 13:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023: (1) on Tuesday, 27 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and continuing without interruption until: (a) no further Members rise to speak, at which point, debate being adjourned; or (b) the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm; (2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bills being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10 pm; or (c) a later time, specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 28 February at 9 am; (3) on Wednesday, 28 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and continuing without interruption until debate concludes or no later than 5.30 pm, at which point: (a) questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill, and any message from the Governor-General under standing order 147 being announced; (b) any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without amendment or debate; and (4) following the conclusion of proceedings on the Help to Buy Bill 2023, the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 being immediately called on, and any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without amendment or debate; and (5) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. For the information of members, if you look at the pace at which this debate has been going, while allowing people their full speaking time, a whole lot of people have been going short. I expect we'll probably be able to come close to finishing the debate tonight. If we're able to do that, it will leave time tomorrow for a much longer consideration in detail period than we've had for any other bill. I expect that would be more than enough. This motion simply says that, at 5.30 pm, if there are any remaining procedures to take place, they would take place at that point in consecutive occurrence. The reasons we're doing this on Wednesday rather than leaving it to Thursday are twofold. One is that, by going late tonight, we should have more than enough time for everyone to speak, including people who want to go for their full speaking time. Secondly, on Thursday—and I'll move the motion for this tomorrow—we have the address from President Marcos, which means capacity to finish the legislation at that point won't be available. I commend the motion to the House. 13:11 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin We won't be supporting this gag motion from the government. This is yet another time in which this parliament is being treated in this way. Let me be very clear to the Leader of the House that we never object to sitting late to deal with legislation, which is essentially covered by his clauses 1 and 2. We always, where practical, oppose the guillotining of debate, and that's really what the government is doing here in clauses 3 and 4, regardless of the words just spoken. These would require that any remaining questions be put immediately without a debate at 5.30 pm, as the manager said. But, ultimately and in practice, it means there will be no further speakers on the second reading. That is essentially where we're at. Irrespective of consideration in detail, we think it's very important that our members get an opportunity to speak on the second reading. Let's not forget housing is a monumental crisis in this country. That's what the bill deals with. I think it's only fair that all members get a reasonable opportunity to speak. The bill can be debated when the House next returns in March. I can understand why the government would seek to move this bill. The Help to Buy scheme is quite an embarrassment at the time of the housing crisis, which has been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. We have this paltry bill lobbed up to the parliament to replicate a scheme that exists in virtually every state around the country to create more shared-equity places, when there are literally thousands of shared-equity places that are going unused in those state schemes because Australians don't want these products. It's clear—and we've seen this before from the manager—that the government is so desperate for a win on Thursday that they're again trampling on the rights of the House. I had the benefit for many years of the very effective Manager of Opposition Business, as he was, being a bastion for the rights of members. He was a champion for the rights of members to have an opportunity to represent their electorates on matters of importance. The reality is that there are few issues more important to Australians at the moment than the housing crisis that's been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. How on earth does that Manager of Opposition Business that I recall in my mind accord with a now habitual process of this government guillotining debate? I think it's concerning. Unfortunately, it's left again to the opposition to make sure that we have orderly and proper legislative process. I can understand why the government has not been particularly pleased with the debate on the Help to Buy Bill thus far. I can understand it is quite an embarrassment when you have inconvenient facts, like the futility of the scheme and the fact that it's very unloved around our country. I can understand why they would not want that being debated. But it wasn't the opposition who chose to introduce it. It wasn't the opposition who waited nearly two years before introducing this bill. It isn't the opposition who is hopelessly late. And, as I outlined in my contribution to the House at the time, when the government are two years late in delivering their homework and that homework is lobbed up in the state that this bill has been lobbed up, I can understand it is a source of absolute embarrassment. But in the end the Leader of the House should take that up with his minister. His disappointment in the minister should not manifest itself in guillotining debate to spare themselves the embarrassment that is caused each time they hear inconvenient facts, like that there are thousands of shared-equity places already going unused around this country. So, what's the answer to the housing crisis? More shared-equity places. It's nuts. That's why I move the following amendment to this motion: That paragraphs (3) to (5) be omitted. For the benefit of members, this simple amendment to the motion will just strike off the offending clauses (3) and (4) as circulated. It will also remove clause (5), which gives the government special powers to dictate the arrangement of business, again breaking every high-minded argument made by the now Leader of the House. I look forward to him channelling his former self and wholeheartedly supporting this motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Coleman 241067 I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance today. Debate adjourned. BILLS 12 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 12

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

Second Reading 12 13:18 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin On a different note, I want to confirm, as I have said in private discussions with the minister, that the coalition won't oppose this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024. We have some experience on this side of the House in dealing with the consequences of the High Court decision in Douglas, which were far reaching for veterans in a social services way and in a tax and myriad other financial ways. The former government and now the current government are seeking, through this bill, to address the issues that emanated from a different interpretation from the High Court in the Douglas decision. So, in that spirit of understanding, we won't stand in the way of the bill, but we will seek further assurances that there are no unintended consequences resulting from this bill, the unintended consequences essentially being any negative consequences for our veterans community. There's a little under a thousand people, we're assured by the government, who are likely to be impacted by these changes. They are essentially changes to the treatment of the assets test and the way in which the payments, which were the subject of the Douglas decision, are now treated. There are no adverse consequences for that cohort of just under a thousand people. Again, the government's given us an assurance—and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity—in seeking to ensure that those people who have served our country, as the former prime minister in his valedictory speech just said, who sacrificed to much to defend the freedom of our nation, are not in any way worse off as a result of these changes. We will seek to have this bill in the Senate go to a committee because, I must say, there have been some requests to us from the veterans community on a couple of issues to ensure that, as is promised, there are no negative consequences. We've sought assurances and advice on these matters from those veterans as well, and there does seem to be some uncertainty, which would benefit from this bill going to a committee and being examined in more detail. I appreciate the haste with which the government wants to legislate these changes, but I think that, for the veterans community's sake, we should really run the ruler over this closely, again not because I doubt the sincerity of the government but because this is a notoriously complex area and we shouldn't in any way, shape or form, for the sake of haste, progress this bill with any conceivable risk of veterans being worse off. Some of the concerns from stakeholders have been that clarification is needed on whether these amendments in the bill will exclude military disability pension income streams from asset assessments with regard to myriad family law matters. I won't go through all matters individually, but it's fair to say that a number of those concerns have been grouped with those who have financial orders and others in relation to family law matters. We also believe clarification is required on how the bill will affect the eligibility for family tax benefits, childcare subsidies or the low-income healthcare card. We believe that, ultimately, in the absence of the government having reached out to those groups and clarified precisely what the consequences would be, it should go to a committee. That will ultimately be a decision for the other place, but that is my preference, and the basis upon which we will be supporting this bill in the House is making sure we get those absolute assurances, because we do not want a situation where the government declares with certainty, as they have to me and as they have publicly, that no-one will be worse off. Indeed, the minister in the second reading speech gave a very clear indication that not only was the purpose to ensure that no veteran was worse off but that, in fact, no veteran would be worse off in practice, so it was concerning for me that a couple of the welfare organisations still had these questions, which also indicated a lack of consultation with the government in relation to them. If I may provide any advice to the minister, it's that, in treading in this space, you are well advised to consult very closely with veterans, because they understand their personal circumstances better than anybody. That is certainly the approach I took as a minister in the former government with regard to taxation matters that resulted from the Douglas decision. I won't detain the House on what I hope ultimately becomes a fairly uncontroversial bill to clean up understanding of the law in light of a High Court interpretation, but I reiterate to veterans that we are supporting this bill on the basis that there are no adverse consequences for any veteran. We've had those assurances from the government. We're concerned that the government hasn't necessarily assuaged the fears of veterans' organisations who've raised the matters that I've just outlined, so in that spirit we look forward to the government providing those assurances. And we think that going to a committee to briefly look at this to give comfort to veterans, who deserve that comfort, that they won't be worse off as a result of these changes is important, and that's the basis upon which we will be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 13

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 13 13:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks This bill is called the Fair Work Amendment Bill, but it should be called the 'fix up the extraordinary incompetence of the Albanese government bill' because this is the bill where the government twice accidentally voted for criminal penalties for people who breach provisions of its right-to-disconnect stop rules. On two occasions, without actually realising that is what they were doing, the government went into the Senate and said that people who breach those rules should be guilty of a criminal offence. This is the most basic issue of competence, and it is a damning indictment on this government. It's not that surprising, because they outsourced this piece of legislation to the Greens. This was the Greens idea, of course, and the government enthusiastically went along with it. They even helped the Greens draft the bill. So they helped the Greens draft the bill; they worked with the Greens on the bill but then they claimed they didn't understand they were actually criminalising the activity. Government officials in Senate estimates have confirmed that the government and the department were aware of this amendment. I'll read directly from what those officials said: The department was aware of the amendment. It had provided advice to government on the drafting of the amendment and assisted with the drafting of the amendment … So the government's fully aware of the amendment on this so-called right-to-disconnect issue and nobody realised. The minister for workplace relations didn't realise. The Leader of the Government in the Senate didn't realise. Nobody in the government leadership team realised that they were about to walk into the Senate and vote to criminalise people who may breach this new provision. It is absolutely extraordinary! It's no surprise that there has been so much condemnation of this. The CEO of Wesfarmers Group, Rob Scott, who employs 120,000 people, said: But what has now happened is we've created additional red tape and complexity in what is already a very complex workplace relations system. That can't be good for anyone. He goes on: We're reducing flexibility, we're making it harder for harder for businesses to comply. And that can ... not only bad for businesses, but bad for wages over the long term. On top of all that, the government accidentally criminalised any breach of this provision. The government wants to add complexity. It wants to add red tape. It wants to make it effectively harder for people to comply. But do you know what it wants to do most of all? What the government wants to do most of all is curry favour with the Greens. The government needs the Greens to get legislation through the Senate. So when the Greens come up with something like this, including this extraordinary provision to criminalise breaches, the government goes along with it. It's a terrible indictment on the incompetence of the government. We will not be opposing this amendment because it seeks to cure this extraordinary incompetence, but what an extraordinary reflection this is on the chaotic incompetence of the Albanese government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Parsons, Mr Cecil 14 13:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I would like to extend my condolences to the family of Cecil Parsons, known universally as 'Boz', who has died at the age of 105. Boz was a bomber pilot in World War II. He completed 25 missions over occupied Europe before arriving in Darwin and flying raids against the Japanese in New Guinea and the Dutch East Indies. Boz was twice mentioned in dispatches and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for being 'a capable pilot who had shown ability to carry out any type of operational flying coolly and skilfully' and 'special missions by night in conjunction with the Australian Army'. After the war, Boz joined Connellan Airways, delivering the mail to remote Territory cattle sessions before becoming a teacher in Victoria. He still had his pilot's licence when he last visited Darwin 10 years ago at the age of 95. He is survived by Barbara, his wife of nearly 77 years, a fellow RAAF officer and World War II veteran. Vale Boz Parsons, an absolute inspiration to me and to so many other Australians both in and out of uniform. He was a truly great Australian. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister would also want to add his condolences to the family. Rural and Regional Health Services 14 13:31 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I rise to again speak about regional health care. Getting an appointment with a GP in my electorate has never been more difficult than it is today. An influx of population coupled with GPs reaching retirement age and the changes to the distribution priority areas have resulted in untenable numbers of people attending the emergency department out of pure desperation. Bulk-billing rates are the lowest we have seen in my electorate, with Cleanbill recently finding that not one regular GP practice offers bulk-billing to all patients and only a handful continue to bulk-bill for existing pensioners. We are yet to see any positive flow-on from the tripling of the Medicare incentive. I met with a local GP, Dr Debra King, last week. She runs three practices in my electorate on the Mid North Coast with her husband. She was extremely concerned about the new payroll tax burden that is being placed on New South Wales GPs next financial year. This unnecessary tax will completely wipe out any benefit that the boost to the Medicare rebate has given and cause multiple practices around the regions to close. I urge everyone in New South Wales to put pressure on the Minns government to prevent this impending burden on our already stretched GP practices. We simply cannot afford to lose more GPs. Para Hills Cricket Club 14 13:33 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin In January the Para Hills Cricket Club celebrated its 60th anniversary with a gala dinner and a night of reunion, reflection, recognition and reminiscing. Established in 1964 when Para Hills was a new developing community, the club initially played in the Hard Wicket Para Districts competition. In 1971-72 the club joined the Adelaide Turf Cricket Association, with Captain Bob Jones leading the A grade to an A8 premiership in that first year. By 2023 the club had scored 19 senior premierships and 14 junior premierships, four of those in a row from 2019 to 2023. The success of the club can largely be attributed to the loyal group of committee members, volunteers and local players. This has resulted in 51 people receiving life memberships for their dedication to the club. The club continues to grow and has now introduced a junior girls pathway and an inclusive league team which were also 2022-23 premiers. In 2023 the Para Hills Cricket Club was awarded the South Australian Cricket Association community club of the year. Congratulations to President Tyson Roling and all the present and past club members, players and supporters on a wonderful first 60 years. My best wishes to the club for its future growth plans. Lindsay Electorate: Luddenham Show 14 13:34 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to talk about the amazing village community of Luddenham, which the honourable member for Hume and I proudly share. It will be my pleasure this weekend to officially open the 118th Luddenham Show. The Luddenham Agricultural, Horticultural and Industrial Society Treasurer and Progress Association Vice-President, Wayne Willmington, informs me that the Luddenham Show society was formed in 1891. It is one of three show societies in New South Wales that own their own showground. He also said that, at the time of the society's first show, the then Nepean Times stated, 'Luddenham may fairly lay claim to having the best show ever held in the colony.' Since 1891, 15 shows have not gone ahead, due to wars, droughts, COVID and horse flu. In advance, I want to thank the amazing team who year in, year out put on this fantastic show. I'm a proud Western Sydney MP with semi-rural patches like Luddenham where we have amazing local farm producers and small-business owners. Luddenham is home to many families who have called the area home for multiple generations. Wayne's family have Willmington Road named after them, which connects The Northern Road with the village's shops and schools. I cannot wait to open the 118th Luddenham show. Renewable Energy 15 13:36 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Andrew Forrest put it succinctly in his National Press Club address yesterday when he described the difference between a politician and a political leader. The former creates division and criticism to get attention at the ballot box; the latter is elected for their genuine care for their community. Forrest criticised the coalition, who he said are putting at risk the acceleration of our transition to renewables. Our government's policies, though, like Rewiring the Nation, the Hydrogen Headstart program and the Capacity Investment Scheme, are already great drivers of major change, which he well and truly acknowledged. Captains of industry like Twiggy are calling for greater cooperation from political leaders to accept the reality that the global transition to green energy makes economic sense and to ensure Australia is in a position to take advantage of the immense opportunity this transition brings. Instead of blithering on the so-called virtues of small modular nuclear reactors—or, to use his words, those 'misinformed, unscientific, uneconomic, plucked out-of-thin-air bulldust of nuclear policies'—we can move faster and harder into the renewable future. If the opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will not listen to government, the economists, the scientists or your communities, then perhaps they should take a listen to industry. Stop bickering, whining and creating division. Get on board or get left behind. Banking and Financial Services 15 13:37 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I had a person come in. They had lost $32,700 out of their account. They're just an ordinary person. She looked like she'd retired, and $32,700 was taken out of her account. It was robbed from her through the bank's operations. My own wife had $746 vanish out of one of our accounts. Monique Ryan called a meeting here, and over 200 people—I counted—came to the meeting. The government is doing nothing about this. Before, if you robbed a bank, it was the bank that took the hit and quite rightly so. It was a shortcoming in their security system that led to the robbery. But there's a shortcoming in their security system and there are robberies going on 100 times a day, and there is nothing being done about it. The banks take no responsibility for their own incompetence. They've also knocked back cheques. Carol Mackee, a constituent and a very prominent person in the sugarcane industry in northern Queensland, tried to cash a cheque, and the bank said, 'Oh, no, we don't cash cheques.' Banks don't acknowledge cheques anymore. What the hell do they do? They can't secure our money, they can't provide a medium of exchange and they don't provide any money for housing, outside of principal— (Time expired) Rochford, Mrs Kerrie 15 13:39 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today I would like to rise to commend Kerrie Rochford on her 40 years of service to Green Point Christian College. Kerrie has a long history at GPCC, where she was instrumental on a committee investigating the establishment of a Christian school in the early 1980s on the Central Coast. Since 1989, Kerrie has taught at the Green Point Christian College, teaching subjects such as primary music and primary sport, and undertaking the role of year advisor and secondary drama teacher. In her role as drama teacher, Kerrie has directed and produced several school musicals and drama productions, and these have been a real highlight for many students over the years, creating lasting memories. Kerrie leaves behind a legacy of faithful dedication to the Green Point Christian school community. I would like to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives today to thank Kerrie for her 40 years plus of tireless work at Green Point Christian College and for helping establish the school and educational institution on the Central Coast, teaching for over three decades and being a strong role model for both female and male students from right across the Central Coast and regions afar. I wish you, Kerrie, all the very best in your retirement and hope your next chapter is as fulfilling as your time at the Green Point Christian College. Housing 16 13:40 Mr GEE 261393 Calare There was a time in this country when the great Australian dream of homeownership was the birthright of every Australian. But, with the housing affordability crisis, that dream is slipping away before our eyes. We all know it. We hear the stories of despair in our electorates every day of young people and young families being shut out of the property market. That's why I introduced into this parliament my first private members' bill, which would ban foreign property speculators from buying homes and units in Australia for two years. Many countries have already introduced such a law, including our Commonwealth cousins in Canada and Singapore. Since the COVID pandemic, the activities of overseas property speculators have been ramping up big time. The National Australia Bank's recent residential property survey found that the market share of foreign buyers in new Australian housing markets in October to December 2023 grew, for the fifth straight quarter, to a 6½ year high of 11 per cent. In New South Wales, foreign buyers had a 15 per cent market share. We could make thousands of new homes and units available to Australians immediately, without having to take years to build them, by putting a pause on foreign property speculation and giving more Australians their shot at the great Australian dream. This is not about turning our backs on the world; it's about putting the interests of Australians struggling to get into the market ahead of the interests of cashed-up foreign property speculators. Dunkley By-Election 16 13:42 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston This Saturday, voters in the electorate of Dunkley have an important choice at the ballot box. Dunkley is an electorate made up of mortgage holders, rent payers and working-class Australians. These are decent and hardworking people who make Australia and these are the people who will benefit the most when it comes to Labor's tax cuts. The Albanese Labor government has committed time and time again to supporting those who helped build this country and who contribute so much to the economy. We have introduced measures to help communities, including cheaper child care for those with little kids, cheaper medicines, electricity bill relief, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk billing, fee-free TAFE, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for the 13.6 million taxpayers across this country who will receive them, which is 2.9 million more than who would benefited from Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. I know that voters in Dunkley this weekend have a choice between a local candidate Jodie Belyea who supports billions in targeted relief and a Liberal mayor who has only increased the pressures on families, with massive local government rate hikes in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Do the good people in Dunkley want to give their vote to a party who will rip up Medicare, that votes against wage growth and who has said no to our plan, at every step of the way, to help Australians? The choice is that simple. A vote for Julie Belyea is a vote for a local voice committed to helping the community of Dunkley. (Time expired) Lyne Electorate: Community Events 16 13:43 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I'd like to congratulate and extend my thanks to Karen O'Reilly, who, after 40 years of teaching—16 of them at Wauchope Public School—has made the decision to retire. Thank you so much, Karen, for your dedication to the education of our youth. Your legacy will doubtlessly live on in the young lives you have touched. I'd also want to congratulate Blake Stewart and Cali Elmer of the Crowdy Head Surf Life Saving Club, who have been named the Lower North Coast branch's Junior Lifesavers of the Year. You can be proud of yourselves. Your volunteering skills make our beaches safer. Also, the incredible achievement of Domonique Wyse and Simone Ducker need to be shouted out. They both won their zone final in the Sydney Royal AgShows NSW Young Woman competition and will now progress to the state final. Domonique represents Taree and Simone represents Wauchope. At the Sydney royal in March we'll see them grace the final, and I wish them the best of luck. Finally, congratulations to Gloucester local Di Relph. Di has been awarded Rotary's highest honour, the Paul Harris Fellow award, for her tireless volunteer work, most notably her service to the community op-shop, which has been part of Di's life since it opened in 2019. It's estimated that they've raised $100,000 since operations began. It's an incredible achievement for Di. Thank you for your service. Grocery Prices 16 13:45 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence After Monday last week, many Australians may have felt something known by the German word schadenfreude. That emotion was felt after seeing the Four Corners episode on supermarket power. We got a front seat witnessing the career implosion of the now former CEO of Woolworths, Brad Banducci. He attempted to smugly deflect an expert's opinion about their dominant power in the food and grocery market, a market that is concentrated to such a significant extent that it dwarfs comparable markets in countries like the US and the UK. It's such an overwhelming level of market power and concentration that shoppers, suppliers and farmers alike are going on record talking about the many negative impacts that such market conditions are having, from farm gate to table plate. No market is well served by two companies with a combined market share of 65 per cent, and neither are everyday Australians, particularly those in my electorate of Spence. The Albanese Labor government appointed Dr Craig Emerson to lead the review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, an important first step forward to curb power. The supermarkets are so imperious that they seem to think they are answerable to nobody but their shareholders. All sides of this parliament are now in lock step when it comes to the supermarket giants. This government is standing up for farmers, for small businesses and for consumers. Sessarago, Mr John (Sess) 17 13:46 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I rise to speak in memory of a truly great teacher and mentor, Mr John Sessarago. Sess, as he was lovingly known, was farewelled last week at Fairholme College, a school he had taught at for 36 years. John was born in Roma to Brian and Elizabeth and was brother to Gaby and Chrissy. He was also the very proud father of Jamee and Georgie and even prouder husband to Kristen. John was one of those teachers who didn't just believe in his students; he went out of his way to put that belief into them. One of these times is recalled very well by one of his more famous students, Cathy Freeman, who says: In my time at Fairholme College, as a 14 and 15-year-old, a teacher named John Sessarago told me I could be an Olympian like Florence Griffith Joyner and Carl Lewis … He gave me a photograph of myself high-jumping with his handwritten quote that read, 'It is our doubts of today that limit our realisations of tomorrow' … Sess, as he was affectionately known, grew my self-belief at a time when I was so unaware of what my future might bring, with his generosity and spirit and kindness of heart. That was the kind of thing that Sess did. There are countless other students who had similar interactions, and I'm so pleased to say that on the wall of my own home there is a photo of John with my own daughter, with an expression of his kindness, care and compassion. Our community is much the worse for his passing. Rest in peace, John. Women's Economic Security 17 13:48 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Today the gender pay gap in Australia is at its lowest in history. Last week ABS figures revealed the national gender pay gap has dropped to 12 per cent. This comes as a direct result of the work of the Albanese Labor government to drive a better deal for Australian women, and I want to thank and congratulate the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, my ACT Labor colleague, who has been a driving force behind this change. Today we saw the Workplace Gender Equality Agency release, for the first time, data on the gender pay gap for every company with more than 100 employees. Here in Canberra, on the positive side, the gender pay gap at the Raiders NRL club is down to 2.6 per cent, and the Canberra Labor Club has a pay gap of 1.5 per cent. Congratulations to the Hellenic Club of Canberra, with a pay gap of zero per cent. At the Australian National University, the pay gap is at 7.6 per cent and at the University of Canberra it's only 2.3 per cent. It's clear that, while our nation is on the right track, many in corporate Australia really need to lift their game in this regard, and it's to their own great benefit. Diversity at all levels of organisations, including leadership, drives the strength of the organisation. Diversity shouldn't be the icing on the cake, rather it is the cake. This Labor government is committed to ensuring that women, and indeed all Australians, earn more and keep more of what they earn with our tax cuts delivered from 1 July this year. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 17 13:49 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning There's one thing you can guarantee when the Labor Party comes into government, and that's higher taxes. Australians are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis and now Labor is coming for their cars. The last thing that Australians need right now is a new tax on new utes and family vehicles. Labor's new car tax will add thousands of dollars to the price of new SUVs, utes and four-wheel drives to subsidise the cost of electric vehicles for those who can afford them and those who don't travel far to make a living. If you're dreaming of buying a LandCruiser, that'll go up by $25,000. A Ford Ranger, the bestselling car in Australia, will be an extra $6,150. My family gets around in a Ford Everest, like many local families I know. Families need big cars to get around in, as I saw last week when I dropped off and picked my children up from school. In the car park there I saw Rangers, HiLuxes, a D-MAX, Prados, Outlanders and other vehicles. Tradies and farmers rely on utes for work. The climate change minister is failing to meet his 82 per cent renewables plan, so he's proposing reckless plans like this, and he doesn't care that it's going to make things harder for regular Australians. It's going to put many family cars out of reach for families who save for these vehicles. The cost-of-living crisis is here. Interest rates are up, rents are up, groceries are up and bills are up. Families and tradies don't need any more financial pressure than they are already feeling. Gender Equality 18 13:51 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan What do Aussie women want? They want to be counted, they want to be heard and they want to be paid fairly. The 2022 election saw the highest number of women elected to this place and this is making a real difference. The Labor Party is a party of action and we are acting on closing the gender pay gap. Some things should not be secret, and pay is one of those things. That is why we're shining a light on this issue. I am proud to say that the gender pay gap is currently the lowest that it has been in history. Now women can, in workplaces of more than a hundred people, look up to see if they are being paid fairly—and fairness is what the Labor Party is about. That's exactly what Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts are about. Under Labor's tax cuts more women will keep more of what they earn as they start to earn more. Ninety per cent of Australian women taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut, thanks to Labor. A childcare worker, a disability carer and an aged-care worker will get a bigger tax cut, thanks to Labor. It's gender-equity-lens policy design that brings a real benefit to women. The gender pay gap is the lowest it has been on record because of Labor. Today's figures are also a call to action. We must double down on our efforts. Under Labor, women will earn more and keep more, where the Liberals want you to earn less and work longer. Page Electorate: Dairy Industry 18 13:53 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Unfortunately, I have bad news for my community today. Woolworths have withdrawn Norco milk from over 90 of its Sydney stores. Sydney is the biggest milk market in Australia, and this is terrible news for Australia's largest owned dairy co-op. Not only that, I see from the Woolworths brand product labelling that they are now sourcing ice cream sticks from Slovenia and the Woolworths brand one-litre tub ice cream from New Zealand. Norco have just opened their ice cream factory in Lismore, post the 2022 flood, and this is a slap in the face for the dairy farmers in my region and the ice cream factory workers. As we know, Woolworths have taken a stand on a couple of things quite loudly lately. They put millions of dollars into supporting the Voice referendum—against the majority opinion of their customers and, I assume, their staff, given the vote on the Voice. They also took a stand of not stocking Australia Day merchandise, partly because of sensitivities around the day. I ask Woolworths to take a stand for dairy farmers in my region and the workers at the ice cream factory in Lismore. Woolworths were represented at the reopening of the ice cream factory in Lismore a few months ago. I get that Woolworths does not support Australia Day, I get that they were happy to pump money into a pro-Voice referendum— (Time expired) Housing 18 13:54 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise to talk about power couples. Let's reflect on some of the very best. We've had Cleopatra and Mark Antony, Barack and Michelle Obama, TayTay and Travis, Beyonce and Jay-Z, and Posh and Becks. But there is a new power couple that I want to admire today. The new power couple is the Greens and the Liberal Party. They are the new power couple working together and coming together to do important things. These are important things like delaying the investment of $10 billion to build 30,000 social housing homes, including 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence. The new power couple of the Greens and the Liberals came together to block a bill to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. The new power couple of the Liberals and the Greens stalled a bill to reduce emissions from some of Australia's largest emitters. The power couple of the Liberals and the Greens worked together to hold up Labor's 2023 budget package, which included things like increasing JobSeeker, study allowance and the single parenting payment. Now the new power couple of 2024, the Liberals and the Greens, are teaming up to work in the Senate to block Labor's Help to Buy scheme. These people literally want to stop Australians buying their own home. But we on this side are going to deliver for the Australian people. We're not going to team up like the new power couple that is the Liberals and the Greens. We're going to deliver for the hardworking people of Australia. Services Australia 18 13:56 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Services Australia is a shambolic mess, a dysfunctional agency that prioritises itself over customers. As the Sydney Morning Herald has reported, Services Australia has a backlog of about 1.1 million unprocessed new claims across a range of payments. The number of Australians who have been forced to abandon their visit to a Services Australia centre is skyrocketing. For example, at the Parramatta centre 1,036 Australians abandoned their visit, up by more than 200 per cent. In Bendigo, the rate was up by almost five times. Australians are waiting longer to receive crucial welfare payments, with new figures showing processing times have blown out under this government. According to documents tabled by Services Australia at the February Senate estimates, we know that people applying for the low-income card are now waiting five times longer compared to when the coalition was in government. We also that know Centrelink call wait times continue to skyrocket under the Albanese Labor government, with figures revealing Australians are often waiting more than 45 minutes to speak to somebody. Indeed, documents tabled during estimates reveal that the performance has gotten dramatically worse since Labor took office. Those who call the families and parenting line have seen call wait times more than double under Labor. Who's responsible for this mess? The member for Maribyrnong, who is doing, even by his own standards, a hopeless job. He must do better. Taxation 19 13:57 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It is a great day here in this parliament and an exciting week because our government's bigger and better tax plan is on its way to be debated in the Senate. We know how important this tax plan will be to the people of Victoria and, in fact, to the whole of Australia. It means that 84 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under this plan when the Senate passes this bill. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers will now receive a bigger tax cut. Those are the priorities of this government. We are making sure that people will earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is the core of this plan, and that is what we are delivering. Nurses, teachers and truckies will all be better off. Ninety-five per cent of them will get a bigger tax cut because of this plan. One of the most important things we're doing with this plan is making sure that people on the lowest of incomes actually get a tax cut. So people earning under $45,000 will get a tax cut. Under those opposite, they got nothing—absolutely nothing. That's the priority of those opposite. In our reformed plan, those taxpayers earning under $45,000 will actually get a tax cut. That's the commitment from us. Our plan means that people will earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's what a good, responsible government does in this cost-of-living crisis. Mobile Black Spot Program 19 13:59 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The Auditor-General's investigation continues into the shameful round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, where Labor gave a hundred per cent of funding in New South Wales and Victoria to Labor seats, and, across the country, they gave 74 per cent to Labor seats. The Minister for Communications is so concerned about this that she has put formal submissions to the Information Commissioner defending her decision to provide no documents at all about her involvement in round 6. If there's nothing to hide, provide the documents—hand them over to the Information Commissioner and make them public. But the minister won't do that. There's a very, very obvious question. She doesn't want to, because this is an absolutely shameful use of public funding. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 19 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 19 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week. He is attending the G20 finance ministers meeting, and I will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 19 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Prime Minister promised Australians before the last election that the government's first job is to keep people safe; however, the Albanese government has released at least 149 hard-core criminals from immigration detention, including seven murderers and 37 sex offenders. Why has the minister failed to apply for an order to re-detain a single one of these killers or sex offenders? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Spence is warned. 14:00 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I refer him to the answer I gave in the last sitting week in which I said 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. Our top priority is keeping the community safe and, unlike those opposite, we have confidence in the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to do so. We also recognise it is in no-one's interest to put in place an application that does not succeed. Rushed applications make no-one safer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right will cease interjecting. When the House comes to order I will hear from the member for Gilmore. Taxation 20 14:02 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts help Australians, in particular women taxpayers, and what is standing in the way of these tax cuts? 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank my friend the member for Gilmore for her question and I thank her for hosting me at Nowra once again the weekend before last at a successful country conference. On 1 July this year our government wants to deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them. We want people to earn more and we want people to keep more of what they earn but there are some barriers to this. The barriers to this are, of course, the Liberals in the other place moving amendments to restore the principle of their unfair tax cuts on stage 3, and the Greens political party have foreshadowed amendments to kick it all off to a committee so the Senate can talk about it some more by the end of the month. We want these tax cuts to pass this week, because women in particular will benefit from our tax cuts. Ninety per cent of women will be better off than under the old Morrison plan. This government has put economic opportunity for women at the heart of our agenda. Today we have required large companies to publish their gender pay gap and what that is about as transparency, making sure that people are aware of exactly what companies are doing. This has added to the support we have for feminised industries such as the 15 per cent aged-care worker increase that we have put in place. But those opposite do not even support that. Senator Canavan has gone onto the media saying the latest gender pay gap report is 'useless' and would encourage men to support men's rights activists like social media identity Andrew Tate—Andrew Tate! He said, 'This gender pay report must be the most useless set of data that a government agency has ever collected.' So while some of those opposite are out there saying this is a 'good thing' and even claiming credit for it, others are out there saying it is 'completely useless'. What the Senate can do, with the support of the Liberals and the Greens, is to vote for these tax cuts, and vote for them today. Vote for people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn—not stand in the way like the Liberals and the Greens want to do in the Senate. This is what Australians deserve to deal with cost-of-living pressures. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher is interjecting continually during question time. He was yesterday and he's started today. He'll cease interjecting. We've only had two questions. Migration: Housing 20 14:05 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Buying a first home is getting harder and harder for young Australians. The share of rental properties available to rent is now 54 per cent below where it was at the start of the pandemic. Yet the Albanese Labor government has granted over 500,000 visas in the last year, with 1.6 million arrivals projected over the next five years. Where on earth will these people live? What additional stress will this record number place on Australia's housing crisis? The SPEAKER 53517 I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Once again, in terms of asking questions to the correct minister for their responsibilities, I know that it's possible for the Prime Minister to take any question or for it to go to any other minister, but the direction of questions is consistently—if you listen to the whole preamble and where the question is headed—going to a different minister to the person who has policy carriage. The SPEAKER 53517 I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI As is well known, included in the ministerial responsibilities for the minister for immigration are the criteria that need to be decided upon before he settles on the figure of 500,000 people a year. The reality is that the minister needs to take into consideration, as he would, the advice from Treasury, Finance and other departments about the impact of this Albanese government decision to bring in 1.6 million people in five years. Housing is a key part of that. 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I think I'll sort this out by taking it, as someone who has responsibility for housing and migration. If they want to do something about housing, they can support the Help to Buy scheme. If they want to do something about housing, they can support our Housing Australia Future Fund. If they want to do something about housing issues, they can support our housing accord to deliver an extra 1.2 million homes. And, if they want to talk about migration, the Leader of the Opposition had this to say, in 2022 after the election, during this term: We do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear that the number needs to be higher. He went on to say: … we need migration. The government announcement to increase the permanent migration intake has been delayed because of union pressure. He boasted and went on to say: … I brought in record numbers of people from India, China and many other countries. It wasn't just him; the deputy leader had a crack too: 'We know that business urgently needs a workforce and much of that workforce needs to come from overseas. We could have had a campaign to attract those workers who, by the way, have got other options. They don't come to Australia; no-one understands this better than regional MPs.' Then we had the shadow minister for immigration. Mr Tehan 210911 When? Mr ALBANESE R36 Don't worry, you didn't miss either, sunshine! He said: … we need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back. He was out there calling for more and more. When we talk about asylum seekers, of course, the former deputy secretary of the immigration department, Abul Rizvi, had this to say about this bloke while he was in charge: In total, there were between 100,000 and 120,000 asylum applications lodged while Dutton was in charge. The is by far the largest number of asylum applications under any immigration minister in our history. Indeed it was. The record-holder for backing in big immigration is sitting right there. Gender Equality 21 14:10 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How does publishing of the gender pay gap work alongside other reforms by the Albanese Labor government to lift women's economic equality? 14:10 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Higgins for the question and her championing women's equality in this place. Of course, the Labor government is delivering on our promise to lead the way in closing the gender pay gap in Australia. Last year we passed legislation that would increase transparency and reporting for gender pay gaps, and today this data has been released. If those opposite were serious about this issue, they would immediately ask Senator Canavan to withdraw his comments about this data. If they are serious about it, they will rebuke him for the comments that he has made about the release of this data. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has published gender pay gap data for nearly 5,000 Australian private sector employers for the first time ever. This is a historic step towards transparency and accountability in addressing gender inequality. We have seen a median total remuneration gender pay gap of 19 per cent or equivalent to $18,461 a year. Thirty per cent of Australian employers have a neutral gender pay gap of within five per cent of zero, and that is good news, but it also means that over two-thirds of employers have a gender pay gap, which means that the majority of Australian workplaces have a long way to go to close their agenda pay gaps. In every industry in Australia, the median of what a woman is paid less than the median of what a man is paid. For all employers, the publication of their gender pay gaps is a call to action: a call to focus their performance on gender equality, to take action and to improve it. For employees and for consumers, this will provide insights and information about where they work. Women continue to be overrepresented in lower-paid roles and underrepresented in more senior, highly paid roles. That is why this government is working so hard to drive better outcomes for all workers, especially for women. Its actions are making a difference in women's lives—like the tax cuts that you are stalling at the Senate. They are tax cuts for every Australian woman taxpayer and will put money back into the pockets of Australian women. This plan will see a tax cut for every single woman who pays tax in Australia. Our plan will see Australian women taxpayers receive, on average, a tax cut of over $1,600 from 1 July and will see a bigger tax cut for over 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers, or 5.8 million of them. Labor's efforts are already delivering outcomes for women, with the gender pay gap now at a record low. The publication of gender pay gaps as a critical tool continue this important work to ultimately achieve gender equality in Australia. If those opposite were serious, they would rebuke Senator Canavan for his comments and they would absolutely make sure that they passed Labor's tax cuts in the Senate today. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind the minister—I didn't want to interrupt—of standing order 65, about addressing remarks through the chair. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Dementia Australia 22 14:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from Dementia Australia as guests of the member for Forrest and Senator Helen Polley. I welcome the outgoing CEO, Ms Maree McCabe AM, and the king himself, Mr Wally Lewis AM. On behalf of the House, welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Reserve Bank of Australia 22 14:14 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the Reserve Bank review, the Greens have opposed the government's proposal to remove its power to protect renters and mortgage holders from unreasonable interest rate rises. Former Prime Minister Keating and two former RBA governors have publicly agreed with us that big political decisions like interest rate rises require political accountability. Will you admit that your government was wrong to try and give up its power to overrule unreasonable interest rate increases, and back the Greens change to the bill? 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler What's surprising here isn't that the Greens political party have that position; it's that some of the Liberal Party are saying that they will back you on that as well. We'll see what happens in the Senate. We had an RBA review and the government's response is all about reinforcing the independence of the Reserve Bank to deal— Mr Taylor 231027 Don't stack the board then! The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for Hume! Mr ALBANESE R36 with monetary policy and the government's responsibility through the budget to deal with fiscal policy. We want them, of course, to work together—which is what we have been doing, which is why we produced the first budget surplus in 15 years. Senator McKim has shown through his sniping from the sidelines that he knows nothing about how the RBA functions and he doesn't understand the review. He has found a kindred spirit in the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer was consulted by the Treasurer for more than a year. He has never once mentioned any proposal to override power as a concern. This only shows that it's all about political posturing and opportunism and not a considered— Mr Taylor 231027 Stacking the board! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is going to cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer or be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 view about the policy. What is clear is that not only cannot the shadow Treasurer get a question to the Treasurer in question time but he has no authority amongst his colleagues who are trying to go down a populist route. Now, the Treasurer has done his best to be bipartisan, reasonable— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 The light shines upon the member for Groom, but it doesn't make him any brighter! The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment. Mr ALBANESE R36 I withdraw. Senator Hume has said this, which is beyond my comprehension: 'In fact, it keeps the RBA more independent if the government can override them.' That's the position of their shadow minister in the other place. If you want to side with the Greens, you can wear it. We expect economic irresponsibility from them, but we expect a little bit better from mainstream political parties. Gender Equality 22 14:18 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will be the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms help close the gender pay gap? 14:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Newcastle, someone who's always advocated that releasing gender pay gap data is effective. You'll always have people on this side know that releasing that data is effective. You will only find those on the other side of politics anyone arguing that it's useless. With the data that's just been released, we now know we have the gender pay gap at its lowest ever level, and overnight we've had the release of the company-by-company data. The days of secretly paying women less than men are now over. That's as a result of particular changes that had been made by law by this government. It's part of a suite of measures aimed at closing the gender pay gap. There was one time in the previous term when there was a sharp fall in the gender pay gap. It was in the November 2020 figure. But it wasn't because women's wages were suddenly rising; it was because lockdowns happened and male wages collapsed. That was the only time that you had a sharp closure of the gender pay gap. The view of this government is that the way to close the gender pay gap is to get wages moving and to look at where there is a disadvantage in feminised industries and change the laws so that those wages move too. The data that's been published shows that 30 per cent of businesses are published in the target range, but, for more than 60 per cent of companies, women are still paid more than five per cent less than men. That's why this government has taken the measures that it has. It's why we've banned the pay secrecy clauses. It's why we've expanded access to flexible work arrangements. It's why we now have a positive duty to protect against sexual harassment. It's why we established 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. Every one of these changes deals with participation as well. Every one of these changes corrects a system which has structurally disadvantaged women workers. It should be the case that, when you go to work and you work hard and you get paid, that pay simply reflects the effort you've made and what you have brought to that job. But, as we see with company after company after company, women are still in a situation where that gap, while lower than it has ever been in the history of it being recorded, is still structurally too high. As long as there are those opposite who think that acting on this and publishing this data is somehow useless, we will have a group opposite that has no intention of closing the gender pay gap, which explains why they have opposed each of the laws we brought in to close it. Ms Ley 00AMN You know about bullying women on worksites. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease objecting, or she'll be warned. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 23 14:21 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. I refer the minister to his response in the House yesterday where he asserted that, as a result of the government's new family car and ute tax, the Australian people are going to have access to cheaper fuels. Can the minister explain the government's plan to reduce the price of a litre of petrol? 14:22 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. It's quite clear from this question, from the position that they have adopted on the RBA and, in fact, from their entire record when they were in government that the Leader of the Opposition has adopted drongo economics. What is quite clear from the policy that has been announced by our minister is that we want Australian motorists to have the same benefits that motorists in the United States, in the United Kingdom, throughout Europe and, in fact, in the majority of countries around the world have. That is access to better fuel efficiency standards in their motor vehicles. What that means is that, when they pull out of the petrol station, they know that every litre of fuel is going to go further because they have the most efficient fuel standards in their vehicles in the world. The member for Hume may want Australian motorists to pay more for every kilometre that they travel, but we on this side do not. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The member for Barker has had a good go. He is warned. Health Care 23 14:24 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How many of the Albanese Labor government's 50 Medicare urgent care clinics have now opened, how are they helping to strengthen Medicare and how is the government working cooperatively with states and territories to improve health services after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh First, on indulgence, may I add my welcome to Maree McCabe and thank her for her long leadership at Dementia Australia, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families who are impacted by dementia. It's one of Australia's most important patient organisations. I also want to thank the member for McEwen for this important question, because, as he knows, we did promise for 50 Medicare urgent care clinics to be opened over the course of last year. Instead, we delivered 58. They are open seven days a week with extended hours, are available for walk-ins and, importantly, are fully bulk-billed. We plan to deliver even more this year. Our dear friend and colleague Peta Murphy promised to deliver an urgent care clinic in Frankston—one of a series of commitments that she made and delivered for better health care in her community. Since 30 June, that clinic has delivered more than 12,000 services to the people of Dunkley. More than one in three of those services have been delivered to kids under the age of 15, providing an option for anxious parents who need urgent care for their kids out of hours, on the weekends or simply when they can't get into their normal GP—like Amanda, who wrote to us and said: 'I'm so grateful for this service. I took my two-year-old for review today when I couldn't get an appointment. She was seen straight away. They gave wonderful and timely care for my boy, who is now on the mend.' It's better urgent care when and where people need it, but it's also an option that means people don't have to go to the hospital. More than 60 per cent of patients attending the Frankston clinic say they would otherwise have had to go to the Frankston emergency department, like Paul, who said: 'We really needed attention when most of the GPs were closed for a closed head injury. It kept us from having to visit the Frankston emergency department. Thank you.' That's why, as the member for McEwen points out, our government has worked so closely with states and territories to ensure that these urgent care clinics are located where they'll have the most benefit for hospital systems. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition had a different idea for relieving pressure on our hospital EDs. It wasn't a new model of care. It wasn't a network of new clinics. Instead, he announced in his first budget as health minister that he wanted states to start charging a fee at the emergency department, fitting out all of our triage statements in the 750 public hospitals around Australia with EFTPOS machines. That was his idea of relieving pressure on EDs. It's fit for a man, of course, who wanted to introduce a GP tax as well. We are proud of the legacy Peta Murphy led and the measures that we've put in place to make it easier and cheaper to see your doctor in the electorate of Dunkley. We're determined to protect those measures from this man. Fuel Efficiency Standards 24 14:27 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The managing director of Mazda Australia, Vinesh Bhindi, has said of Labor's new family car and ute tax: … the timeframe is too ambitious, and secondly maybe the government hasn't really educated themselves on the costs that would go to the consumer … Yet the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said, 'No particular model will go up.' Who is right—the managing director of Mazda or the minister for climate change? 14:28 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Bowman for that question. It feels a bit like groundhog day. These are the same people that said that, frankly, the minimum wage would wreck the economy, tax cuts for all Australians was Marxist economics and a war on hardworking Australians, and the weekend would be over and there'd be no more barbeques for everybody. We all know that what those opposite say is, frankly, demonstrably untrue. Now, of course, we are seeing it again. Instead of making claims that they know are false, those opposite need to explain why they think hardworking Australians should be denied access to cars that are cheaper to run. That is the campaign that those opposite are running. They need to explain why he wants Australians buying a new car to pay more for petrol than they need to. Again, I want to quote a very auspicious Australian, I will say, on this matter. They're someone who might have known a thing or two about the introduction of fuel efficiency standards. I remind the House that, when this very good member at the time stated they were looking to introduce fuel efficiency standards, this is what they said: … when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction … what we'd call utes … There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here. Who said that? That was, of course, the member for Bradfield, when he was introducing the fuel efficiency standards back I think in 2018. We know that Australians are missing out on fuel savings because those opposite did not have the courage of their convictions when it came to fuel efficiency standards. Right now Australians are missing out on millions of dollars of fuel savings that they could have saved if this government had actually pursued at. On this side of the House we want Australians to have greater choice of new vehicles and to spend less of their hard earned cash on fuel. Taxation 25 14:30 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts support workers who deliver essential support services in the community? 14:30 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Reid for her question. We visited some such workers just last week in her electorate, and I thank her for sticking up for the workers in her electorate and right across Australia. The Albanese Labor government is delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer, which will divide meaningful cost-of-living relief for middle Australia on 1 July this year. Under Labor's tax plan the average Australian worker will get more than double the tax cut they would have received under the previous government's plan. This means workers will have more money in their pocket on 1 July. Indeed, 84 per cent of taxpayers will now receive a bigger tax cut. Some of the workers who will keep more of what they earn because of Labor's tax plan are our social and community service workers. These workers are often the first port of call providing support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The support provided by these workers touches the lives of those experiencing poverty, disadvantage and hardship. These are the workers that are delivering our government's escaping violence program, working day in and out facilitating financial assistance and providing confidential support for people who have recently left a violent intimate partner. These caseworkers deserve to keep more of what they earn. These workers earn approximately $88,000 a year, and under Labor they will receive a tax cut of $1,879. That's $800 more than they would have otherwise received. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting our community sector workers. This has been evidenced not just by the bigger, better tax cuts but by our decision to increase indexation and supplementation payments to more than 700 community organisations. These payments are critical to ensure that community service workers get the wage increases they are entitled to. It is clear from our actions that our government want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people to work longer for less, and nothing demonstrates this more clearly than their vocal opposition to our bigger, better tax cuts. Of course, the opposition have called our tax cuts Marxist and an electoral scam. They have made their intention clear in the Senate. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance: it was in fact a commendably tightly drafted question. There is no basis for the minister to be getting into the territory she's now getting into. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the minister to return to her answer. Ms RISHWORTH HWA This government is putting the tax cuts through the Senate now. Those opposite should not play petty politics. Get out of the way. Support our tax cuts. Support middle Australia. This government will, while you do not. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Republic of Fiji: Parliamentary Delegation 25 14:34 The SPEAKER 53517 I am delighted to inform the House that today we are joined, in the gallery, by my friend the Honourable Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji, who is alongside six Fijian members of parliament. On behalf of the House, bula vinkaka to our visitors and colleagues from Fiji to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 25 14:34 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Yesterday the minister claimed there would be no purchase price impact, despite the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries estimate that Labor's new family car and ute tax could cost $38 billion in penalties over five years, based on 2023 sales, and these would be paid for by Australians. Why is the minister refusing to be upfront with the Australian people about the impact of this new tax? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I do not need the sound effects for dramatic— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! 14:35 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The reason I appreciate the question from the honourable gentleman so much is that it enables me to correct several of the myths and misinformation that the opposition is peddling in relation to this policy, including the one that the honourable member just perpetuated. In relation to the FCAI's figures, the FCAI themselves have said, since releasing that figure, that it was 'a very simple analysis', and they went on to say, 'We're not saying that sales from 2023 will be replicated. We're just saying that, if it was replicated, this is what the cost would be.' Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Their own modelling, which they've submitted, indicates that they're going to increase EV sales. And just— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. There is far too much noise. I cannot hear a word that anyone is saying this chamber. Ms Ley 00AMN You should check with Albo first. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! I don't know how many times—when I'm speaking it is definitely not the time to interject; trust me. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting as well. I give the call to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Mr BOWEN DZS And just in the last half an hour we've seen evidence of that, with the announcement by Toyota that they are about to start importing their first-ever electric vehicle into Australia, which we very much welcome, which indicates very much that this extra choice for Australian people is something that can be delivered. It's not just us who believe this. The member for Gippsland might want to have a little word in the shell-like ear of our old friend the member for Bradfield, who has dealt with these sorts of scare campaigns in the past and, I must say, very eloquently and very commendably and very efficiently—knocked all the scare campaigns away in his very eloquent op-ed in the Australian, which is still on his website as we speak, today. It's still up on his website this afternoon, where he said, 'The evidence from overseas is that there will be no increase in prices for any car.' And he was right. My new year's resolution was to be kinder and fairer to the opposition. I'm going to start with the member for Bradfield by quoting him approvingly on a regular basis because he deserves nothing less! He made the case. In relation to others, again I draw the attention of the member for Gippsland to Hyundai, Volkswagen, BMW, Kia and Volvo, who have all welcomed the government's new vehicle efficiency standard—all of them. And motoring organisations—the NRMA, the RACQ and the RACWA, for example, who called for us to do exactly what we have done. The real question for the opposition is: why do they want to stand in the way of better choices and better savings for motorists right across Australia. Why does the member for Gippsland, whose average constituent drives 17,830 kilometres a year, not want that constituent to receive $1,417 worth of fuel savings if they buy a new car in 2028. Why is the opposition so against better choices for Australians? Why are they against— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS even their own policy that they took to the last election? Because they don't believe in better choices for motorists. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wright, the member for Groom and the Leader of the Nationals are warned. Taxation 26 14:39 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting our manufacturing industry? How will Labor's tax cuts benefit Australian food manufacturing workers? Are the facts about the impact of the government's policy being disputed? 14:39 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I thank the member for Bendigo, and I also want to note her keen and enduring interest in food manufacturing, particularly in regional Australia. Food manufacturing is the single biggest sector of Australian manufacturing, directly employing nearly 200,000 Australians and providing huge value-add to our agricultural sector. It's the economic and industrial lifeblood for many regional towns and outer suburban communities, and a vital part of our growing manufacturing sector that now employs more than 930,000 Australians. Over 85,000 new jobs were added to the sector compared to when those opposite were last in government. Forty per cent of employees in food manufacturing are women, and we're supporting manufacturing workers by helping them to earn more across the manufacturing industry. Workers are earning $144 more per week on our watch, and Labor's tax cuts will mean the average food and beverage manufacturing worker will get a tax cut of $1,206. It's clear: earn more and keep more on this side; work longer for less on that side. That is the big difference. I'm asked whether the facts about the impacts of what we are doing are being disputed and the answer is: absolutely, yes. We've seen the mindless obstructive negativity of those opposite. When we wanted to invest in manufacturing capability, they voted against the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. When we want to shield manufacturers from the worst of the energy price rises, they vote against our energy price relief. They're only interested in talking about manufacturing if they can talk it down. Surprisingly, it's the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who wrote an op-ed in the Australian calling a manufacturing sector a 'graveyard' and also goes on to say—and it didn't stop—'littered with the bodies of once great companies claiming that the rate of insolvencies was higher than it's ever been'. It's just a futile attempt because, when those claims have been examined independently, they're not supported by fact. It's not the only doozy. I still remember when the deputy leader said that there were no electric utes anywhere in the world and then that became awkward. Mr Taylor 231027 How's the nickel industry going, Ed? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been continually interjecting nonstop during question time and this answer. She is warned and the member for Hume is also warned. Nonstop interjections through every answer are just unacceptable. For the remainder of this answer, I don't want any more interjections. The minister has the call. Mr HUSIC 91219 No claim too outrageous; nothing stands in the way. I don't know if George Costanza has been hired as a special strategic advisor—'It's not a lie if you believe it.' It's very much the case in terms of the deputy leader. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland will leave the chamber under 94(a). Mr HUSIC 91219 Australian manufacturing is alive and well. We're backing it and we would expect better from those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The minister just used an unparliamentary term, and he should withdraw it. A government member: He's quoting Seinfeld. That was an interjection about nothing. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I didn't hear it. Was it an unparliamentary term? Was this the Seinfeld reference? To assist the House, I'll ask the minister to withdraw. Mr HUSIC 91219 I absolutely withdraw. Thank you. Mayo Electorate: Health Care 27 14:43 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. A Head to Health adult mental health service was promised for my community of Mayo in early 2022, nearly two years ago. When will this service open its doors? 14:44 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Mayo for her question. I take the opportunity to point out that the member for Mayo has an electorate which had the second largest increase in bulk billing in November and December. It was an 8.9 per cent increase in bulk billing, with 13,000 additional free visits to the general practitioner in those two months. She points out, though, a very important commitment made by the former that we have committed to continuing. That is the establishment of a Head to Health centre in Mount Barker in the Adelaide Hills. The Head to Health service is a new model here in Australia. It, like the urgent care clinics, is a walk-in service; you don't need to make an appointment. It's fully bulk billed, so fully free of charge. It is designed to provide a service for people who need urgent mental health support. That might be a person experiencing very real distress, who needs some support in the immediate sense and then a referral, perhaps, to another service or back to their usual practitioner, or people with more severe and complex mental illness, for whom there are limited services—I think members across this chamber would agree—right now. We're establishing a network of 61, including five services in South Australia. Two are currently open: one in the centre of Adelaide and one in the member for Barker's electorate in Mount Gambier. And three of them will be opened over the course of this year: one in Mount Banker in the Adelaide Hills, one in northern Adelaide and one in Port Pirie in the member for Grey's electorate. I'm advised that the tender was completed by Country SA Primary Health Network, the PHN, that covers, I think, the entirety of the member for Mayo's electorate. That tender was closed at the end of last year, and the intention is to have that service operating by mid to late 2024. Homeownership 28 14:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures, particularly for those Australians who are trying to buy a home? And what is standing in the way of that assistance? 14:46 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Solomon for that great question. We do know that some people are doing it particularly tough at the moment, which is why we're working to deliver real assistance to help ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Through our plans to boost wages and our new tax cuts, we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Come 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. That's 13.6 million Australians getting a tax cut. The vast majority will be getting a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan. We also have a plan to help Australians who want to buy their first home or buy a home. Our Help to Buy shared-equity program will be life changing for tens of thousands of Australians. It will provide a pathway to homeownership for people who have been locked out. It is targeted and aimed at low- and middle-income earners deliberately because we know that many renters could service a mortgage, but they can't get the deposit. Help to Buy will help these low- and middle-income Australians get over the hurdle of a deposit and enjoy ongoing savings thanks to smaller repayments. Eligible participants will only need a two per cent deposit for the program. The government will then support them with an equity stake of up to 30 per cent for existing homes or 40 per cent for new homes. We know that Help to Buy will be critical for many Australians, because we have heard from them about what this will mean. Like Chris from Canberra, who said, 'Without Help to Buy he would not be able to afford a property for many years.' And like Gemma from Sydney, who said, 'Help to Buy would completely reorientate my life.' And then there's Stephen from Brisbane—I'm not sure if it's the member over there. I doubt it. He said that he has enough savings to buy through shared equity but not without this help from the government. These are real people who need this real assistance to get into homeownership. But what do we have? We have those opposite and those over here who are blocking this. Those opposite and their friends in the Greens are teaming up again to again stop Australians from getting into housing. They've already teamed up to delay the Housing Australia Future Fund that will deliver— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM 30,000 social and affordable home for those Australians that need them most. And now they're joining forces to keep low- and middle-income Australians locked out of homeownership. We have a mandate to implement this program. We took this to the last election. The party over here, who claim that they want to support more Australians into homeownership, should be supporting it. Indeed, we've already helped more than 100,000 Australians into homeownership through the expanded and improved Home Guarantee Scheme. This week they have a chance in this place to support getting more Australians into homeownership, and they should be supporting the 40,000 Australians that will benefit from it. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 28 14:49 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax. In my home state in Victoria in 2023 78 per cent of sales were either SUVs or light commercial vehicles and utes. The top-selling cars were the Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux and Isuzu Ute D-Max. Industry analysis shows that they would attract penalties of up to $17,000, $14000 and $13,000 respectively by 2029. Why does this Labor government want to punish Aussie families and tradies for their choices? The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the minister, I want to hear from the member for Goldstein on a point of order. Ms Daniel 008CH Under standing order 100, questions must not contain statements of facts unless they can be authenticated nor contain hypothetical matter. The question is based on a false premise, and we should not be spreading disinformation in this chamber in questions or answers. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Petrie will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Petrie then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask all members to show respect when members are taking points of order. That was utterly disrespectful. Whilst I understand the member's point, and she is entitled to raise a point of order, the— An opposition member interjecting— Mr Rob Mitchell M3E You should apologise for the way you were talking to her. You're a coward. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! I want to hear from— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I didn't hear what was said. I'm trying to deal with the member's point of order. There is a lot happening today. I am just going to ask everyone for silence so I can hear from the member for Wannon. Mr Tehan 210911 It would help the House if the member for McEwan withdrew. The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the member to withdraw. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for McEwan. While the member is correct on standing order 100, I can't vouch for everything that is said in every single question or answer. I expect the member for Flinders has done her homework and research, but I am not the judge of whether that research is accurate or not. The minister will be able to respond on whether he believes the member to be correct or not, whether he believes that— The member for Goldstein on a point of order? Ms Daniel 008CH I would merely say facts are facts; they are not a matter of opinion— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. 14:52 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I again very much welcome the question and the chance to correct the misinformation being put by those opposite. The member for Flinders would be interested to know that her average constituent drives 18,911 kilometres a year and would save $1,503 in fuel costs if they had access to more efficient cars. The member for Flinders might want to explain to her constituents why she is against more choice for them. This is the latest example in a long line of misinformation we have had. We have had the continual claims from those opposite about car prices. The analysis released by the minister for transport and I made very clear that in no country that has introduced vehicle efficiency standards have increases in the price of cars resulted from that policy. The member for Bradfield agrees with that. He said it himself on many occasions when he was very eloquently putting the case. This is just the latest example of misinformation. We saw the Leader of the Opposition last week talking about the current situation— Mr Taylor 231027 You're the master of misleading. The SPEAKER 53517 I have been very generous with the member for Hume and explained to him in quite a lot of detail about his interjections and being warned. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). This is not how question time will operate. The minister will be heard in silence. Mr BOWEN DZS The Leader of the Opposition said last week on 9 February: Now, we have some of the highest efficiency standards in the world in terms of our vehicles … There are a couple of small problems with that statement. You could argue about whether they were the highest or the lowest if they existed, but the fact of the matter is Australia doesn't have any fuel efficiency standards—a point that was made by the member for Bradfield in his op-ed in the Australian when he said: Eighty per cent of the global vehicle passenger fleet is subject to fuel efficiency standards, but Australia has none. We've seen other examples. A man who's received a bit of attention in question time today, Senator Canavan—not the most outrageous thing he said, but it's pretty outrageous—said the government of Australia has decided to introduce the world's most aggressive emissions limits on vehicles here in Australia. This is clear misinformation when you consider, I confess to the House, the standards that the minister for transport and me are consulting on proposing are less ambitious than those that exist in Europe, New Zealand and other key markets. We have carefully designed them to deliver benefits to the Australian people—$140 billion in benefits to all Australians between now and 2050 and $12 billion in fuel savings for motorists by 2030. The average new car buyer in 2028 will cut their annual fuel cost by around a thousand dollars. Health benefits, which is why this policy has been welcomed by the Australian Medical Association as well as the peak motoring groups such as the NRMA, called for by the RACQ and RACW, and welcomed by Hyundai, Volkswagen, BMW, Kia and Volvo, to name a few. This is what good policy looks like: careful consultation over a 12-month period, taking many submissions and putting Australian motorists first, while those opposite put Australian motorists last—equal with the motorists in Russia, where the Leader of the Opposition wants to align his policies. Taxation, Tertiary Education 30 14:56 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support workers and students in the education system? 14:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland On 1 July every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. That includes childcare workers. A childcare worker on $40,000 a year will get a tax cut of more than $600. It includes teachers. A schoolteacher on, say, $90,000 a year will get a tax cut of more than $1,900. It also includes nurses. A nurse on $75,000 a year will get a tax cut of more than $1,500. A lot of these jobs require a university degree. On the weekend I released the Universities Accord final report. As I told the House yesterday, we'll release the first stage of our response to the report in the next few months. One of the things that the report recommends is financial support for teaching and nursing students when they're doing their prac. It makes the point that if you're a nursing student you're spending 800 hours working in a hospital where you're not paid. If you're a teaching student, you're spending about 600 hours in a classroom where you're not paid. To do these pracs you're often having to move or travel long distances and sometimes you may have to give up your part-time job. A lot of us in this place know how important those part-time jobs are when you're at university. Working at Sizzler helped get me through university. The Prime Minister worked at Pancakes on the Rocks when he was at university—am I right? Mr Albanese R36 Indeed. Mr CLARE HWL The minister for local government worked at Pedro's Mexican Restaurant and the member for Hinkler worked as a paid lifeguard when he was doing his engineering degree at university. I see him nodding. The minister for aged care served tea and coffee with her mum in an aged-care centre when she was studying at university, the minister for skills—my bench buddy over their—worked in a petrol station and on an assembly line to get himself through university and the member for Paterson pulled beers at the Brewery in Newcastle. A lot of us, all across the chamber, have stories like that. You worked in a butcher shop, didn't you? Right now, there are millions of hardworking Australians doing these jobs full-time—cooks, waiters, bartenders, assembly-line workers, aged-care workers. Every one of them who pays tax will get a tax cut on 1 July. All Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut because we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Donations To Political Parties 30 14:59 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Prime Minister. Voters have a right to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. Opposition members interjecting— Ms CHANEY 300006 Real-time disclosure of all my donations. The government has a longstanding commitment to real-time disclosure— The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume her seat. The same rules apply to everyone. There's going to be silence so questions can be heard. No matter what's being said, the questioner has to be heard in silence. That goes for everyone in the chamber. The member for Curtin will start her question again. Ms CHANEY 300006 Voters have a right to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. The government has a longstanding commitment to real-time disclosure of political donations over $1,000, but this hasn't happened, because the government has indicated it wants opposition support on electoral reform. Time is running out to implement transparency before the next election. Why won't the government make good on its promise and pass this legislation immediately with crossbench support in both houses? We need transparency now. 15:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question and for her genuine commitment to transparency. We have, through our minister, engaged in good-natured, good-faith discussion with the crossbenches but also with the opposition because we want to put in place electoral reform that lasts over a period of time, that doesn't seek to secure a political advantage for any particular side of politics or, indeed, for independents running either. I've had representation, as you would be aware, in meetings I've had with the crossbench but otherwise as well from people who've been supportive of the crossbench being enlarged, if I could put it that way, by people who put forward different positions with regard to the range of transparency measures which we have historically supported. We do support disclosure for all donations above $1,000. That's something that we, in fact, had in place, but it got changed by the former coalition government. It's something that we think is entirely appropriate. It is important to have faith in the political system that we know where donations are coming from. The billionaires funding the Advance campaign of misinformation at the moment are a great example of where it is appropriate to have— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Mr ALBANESE R36 I thought they had nothing to do with the banks—nothing to do with them at all! It's a very coordinated campaign. It's an example where you see a bloke who's trying to smile more and be a little bit nicer and less nasty has the more overt nasty stuff being run by the Advance campaign so he can just run the little-bit-nasty stuff. It is important that transparency occurs. We're committed to it. We've received the JSCEM report. We look forward to acting on it, but we do want to act in a way that brings the maximum amount of support for it, because the fact is that, on a range of issues—I can think of at least two that have been raised today—because of the coalition of the Liberals and the Greens blocking them, we can't get things through the Senate. That's why we want to reach out across the chamber to make sure that any proposals are carried— (Time expired) Regional Australia: Taxation 31 15:03 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the economic times and delivering tax cuts for Australians who live in our regions? 15:04 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the wonderful member for Paterson for the question and the amazing work she does in her electorate, where 75,000 taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,500. That's 87 per cent of taxpayers in the electorate of Paterson who will be better off under Labor's tax cuts. I'm proud to be part of a government that puts everyday Australians—most importantly, those who live in our regions—at the forefront of decision-making. We want to make a real difference to people living in our regions. We want people to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. We have delivered. People across regional Australia will receive a tax cut on 1 July. Labor's tax cuts mean that a water and sewer apprentice in Roma on $42,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $714—they wouldn't have received a tax cut under the plan from those opposite. Under Labor's tax cuts, a hardworking first year teacher in Deniliquin on $95,000 will receive a tax cut of $2,054; and a dairy farmer in Harvey, Western Australia, on $67,000 a year will see a tax cut of $1,354. Those opposite want to see people work longer for less in our regions, while we want to see people earn more and keep more of what they earn. I hear directly from Aussies around the country when I travel in my capacity as Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. I listen to communities and I talk to them about the things they want to see and the actions that they want our government to take. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people in regional Australia are seeing more from this government than they did from those opposite in 10 years. We have tripled the bulk billing incentive. Under our plans, 660,000 people and small businesses have had upgrades to their NBN connections. We've seen more mobile phone black spot towers rolling out—life-saving upgrades in our regions. We've helped 13,000 people get into their first home with the Regional First Home Buyers Guarantee. We've made early childhood education cheaper for 1.26 million families, including 265,000 families in regional Australia. Not to mention backing a wage increase for those on minimum wages through Fair Work and a 15 per cent pay rise for aged care workers across our communities. The Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering for our regions. We're committed to delivering tax cuts for every Australian worker, and we want them to earn more and keep more of what they earn. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 31 15:06 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In my home state of Tasmania in 2023, 81.1 per cent of vehicle sales were either SUVs, light commercial vehicles or utes. The top selling cars were the HiLux, Ford Ranger and the MG MG3. Industry analysis shows that they would attract penalties of $14,000, $17,000 and $11,000, respectively. Why does this Labor government continue to punish Aussie families and tradies in the bush where they're trying to earn a living? 15:07 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Again, it appears that I appreciate the question more than the honourable member appreciates being asked to ask it. Perhaps the honourable member is a little bit embarrassed about opposing a policy which would save his constituents $1,009 a year in petrol costs by giving them a choice of better cars in this country. Now, the honourable member in the question that was written for him, has mischaracterised, of course, the policy design that has been put forward and consulted upon by the minister for transport and I. I'm a little surprised the question got through tactics because the chair of the tactics committee is the member for Bradfield. The House will be shocked to learn that he has views about this matter and about the availability of utes in countries with fuel efficiency standards. He pointed out, for example: So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction. Essentially, what Americans call pickup trucks and what we'd call utes, like the Chevy Silverado. There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here. What the honourable member and those opposite are seeking to convince the Australian people of is that Australia will be the only country in the world where we introduce efficiency standards and the price of vehicles go up as a result. It didn't happen in the United States in 1975, Japan in 1985, China in 2005, South Korea in 2006, the European Union in 2009, Canada in 2011, Mexico in 2013, India in 2014, or, I think the Prime Minister's personal favourite, Saudi Arabia in 2016. Those woke warriors at it again! That is why, for example, Hyundai has said: We think we will soon have a world-class Efficiency Standard in Australia and we're excited by that. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS They continued: With the Standard in place, Hyundai dealers will still have great vehicles to sell, customers will have great vehicles to drive, and we will be doing our bit to reduce emissions in line with Australia's commitment to decarbonise. That's just one company. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI It was a very tight question, and it's hard to imagine that the minister is relevant when the question went to the fact that the HiLux goes up by $15,000— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Dutton 00AKI I haven't finished. The SPEAKER 53517 You've made the point of order on relevance, and I've got that. You don't need to state the question again. Mr Dutton 00AKI I have the right to give a point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 You've given it, so I'll hear from the Leader of the House. The SPEAKER 53517 If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go into further detail regarding his point of relevance, he doesn't need to explain in great detail what the issue is. I understand that he believes the minister is not being relevant to the question. Mr Dutton 00AKI [inaudible] consideration. I can't give a point of order when he stands here. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House will assist the House by taking his seat. I just want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that there's one point of order to be taken, and that's on relevance. That's not an excuse or a reason to restate the question or to add extra, new information. That has not been the practice. Mr Dutton 00AKI I don't seek to do any of that. I seek to give the information so that you might be properly informed so as to rule on the point that I'm making on relevance. How can it be relevant when the minister has not mentioned the fact that, under the government's proposal, the HiLux goes up by $14½ thousand— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Under the standing orders and the Practice, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and all members—because this came up yesterday and has been coming up today—the point of order should not elaborate or make extra points. Whilst I appreciate the right of the Leader of the Opposition to make a point of order, it is simply not the case to be able to add extra statements or extra comments, so this is not going to continue on. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't made a ruling. I'm explaining the process to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI To be very clear, there is no additional commentary that has been included. I read directly from the question asked by the honourable member. There was no additional information introduced, so to characterise it in that way is to misrepresent the point of order that we made. If your point is that you're going to rule that additional points of order can't be made on the basis that I've made them today, then, with respect, that is outside of the standing orders. The point I made was to quote directly from the question from the honourable member. That is completely and absolutely in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition has the right to raise a point of order. I want to be clear that the minister does not have to answer each aspect of the question to be relevant, and he's not obliged to answer every part of the question, as has been the ruling from Speaker Smith, Speaker Jenkins and Speaker Bishop, which I have in front of me. It is important, going forward, that the minister is being relevant, but he doesn't need to answer exactly every aspect of the question. You're entitled to raise the point of order. We agree on that. The minister is answering the question and is being directly relevant. You may not like the answer—I appreciate that—and it may not be the answer the member— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're just going to get on with the answer. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The member for Barker has the call. Mr Pasin 240756 During the course of that discussion, there were not one but two unparliamentary remarks from the member for McEwen, and I ask that you ask that he withdraw both. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 To assist the House—it's going to assist everyone if everyone ceases with their interjections while I'm dealing with points of order—I'm going to ask the member for McEwen, if he's made an unparliamentary remark, to withdraw. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I haven't—and, as the standing orders state and is reps practice, what is an unparliamentary remark is not political sensitivities, which is what we're getting from that side. But I'm happy to withdraw if it helps you in the House. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker and the member for McEwen will cease their interjecting. So no more interjections from the member for McEwen or the member for Barker; that'll help us greatly. Thank you. For 45 seconds, we'll hear from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Mr BOWEN DZS There are some of us who know that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is untrue. It is not just the member for Bradfield. I will finish with some support for the member for Bradfield from Senator Sharma, who said on 5 February: Well, we are adopting increasing fuel efficiency standards and that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that, and the fleet should be progressively getting cleaner and a lower intensity of emissions. The Leader of the Opposition should be more like Senator Sharma. Financial Scams 33 15:16 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Werriwa will just resume her seat, and the member for Barker, who's on a warning, who has had quite a bit to say this question time, will now leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Spence will also leave the chamber under 94(a). That is unparliamentary. The member for Spence then left the chamber. Ms STANLEY 265990 My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. How is the Albanese Labor government's fight against scammers helping Australians keep their money safe and ensuring people keep more of what they earn? 15:17 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the amazing member for Werriwa for that question. I also thank her for organising and inviting me to a great gathering at the Liverpool Catholic Club last week to discuss this very issue. In fact, it came the day after the member for Newcastle invited me to attend a gathering at the Souths Merewether to inform her constituents about these important consumer issues. It is worth advising the House that it's now 297 days since the coalition has had a consumer affairs spokesperson. It is important— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will state his point of order, not just give a statement. Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance. There was nothing about us asked for in that question. There really wasn't. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The question was about how the government is fighting against scammers and helping to keep Australians safe and keep more of what they earn, so, whilst the minister can explain the reasoning behind that, it is not within the standing orders for him to do a compare and contrast within this question. He has the call. Mr JONES A9B The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that Australians earn more and that they keep more of what they earn. If they're saving that money, investing or shopping online, we're committed to ensuring that we keep people's money safe. Now, we've come from a long way back, because when we came into government there was an appalling track record left to us by the former government. Annual losses to scams were $3 billion a year. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I want the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that statement, and then she can leave the chamber under 94A. Ms Ley 00AMN I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. Mr JONES A9B I'm making the point that, if we continued the policies adopted by others, those losses per annum would go from $3 billion to $6 billion to $12 billion over the term of this parliament. The good news is that, because of the policies that have been implemented by the Albanese government, they haven't. In fact, for the first time in years, we're seeing scam losses actually decline. They've declined because we have put in place a range of measures, including standing up Australia's—in fact the world's—first national antiscam centre, which is taking the fight to scammers. You can't keep people safe unless you're keeping their money safe, and we're dedicated to ensuring we're keeping people's money safe. We've stood up the National Anti-Scam Centre. We've got the Australian Securities and Investments Commission pulling down fake websites. There have been over 4,000 already. My friend the Minister for Communications is working with the telecommunications companies to ensure that they're blocking more and more—in fact millions—of those menacing SMS messages. There's more work to come. Of course, it's not game over. We've got to continue taking the fight up to the scammers. It's why this year we'll be implementing tough new codes of practice. Those codes of practice will put obligations on banks, social media companies and telecommunications companies to ensure we are doing more and more to keep people's money safe. We will not adopt the same policies of those opposite, which saw scam losses double, and then double, and then double again. We're committed to keeping people's money safe, because we want them to earn more, to keep more of what they earn and to keep their money safe. Fuel Efficiency Standards 34 15:21 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax. In my home seat of WA in 2023, 79.8 per cent of sales were either SUVs or light commercial vehicles and utes. Top-selling cars are the Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger and Isuzu D-MAX. Industry analysis shows that they would attract penalties of around $14,000, $17,000 and $13,000 respectively. Why does this Labor government want to punish Aussie families and tradies for their choices? 15:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I don't think the House will be surprised to learn that constituents in the honourable member for Durack's electorate drive particularly long distances. The average constituent of the member for Durack drives 23,154 kilometres a year and would save $1,841 a year by having more efficient vehicles from 2028 onwards. The member refers to Western Australia. Perhaps those sorts of savings are why the RAC WA—the peak motoring group in Western Australia that actually represents the interests of motorists, drivers and consumers—called on the government to introduce 'a mandatory impactful national FES', 'aligning Australia with the rest of the developed world' as a top priority. That's exactly what we're doing. We're aligning Australia with the rest of the developed world to give Australians the same access to fuel-efficient vehicles that those in the United States, Europe, New Zealand, China and India have. The only people who don't have access to those fuel-efficient vehicles as a matter of government policy are the motorists of Australia and Russia. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, and he says, 'nyet'. 'No, we're not having that. Nyet! We're going to stick out there with Russia as the only developed major economy without access to fuel efficiency standards.' Well, that's not good enough, as far as we're concerned. It might be good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, who has no plan for motorists to get access to more efficient vehicles and no plans of his own, despite the fact that, to their credit, the member for Bradfield and the then member for Kooyong tried to implement this policy in 2017, went to the then shadow minister for transport, who is now the Prime Minister of Australia, and said, 'Look, this is going to be controversial, but will we have opposition support?' The then shadow minister for transport said, 'Yes, you will, because it's good policy.' We will back good policy, because that's what leadership looks like. It's seeing a good idea that might not be your idea and backing it. That's what the now Prime Minister did, and he is now the Prime Minister of Australia. The current Leader of the Opposition isn't doing that. Perhaps that's why he won't be Prime Minister of Australia. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 35 15:25 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the new vehicle efficiency standard give Australians more choice and make it cheaper to run new cars? What is standing in the way of giving Australians access to cleaner cars? 15:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Fraser for his question. Of course it was Roosevelt who said that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. But fear is all they have over there. There's just a second-hand scare campaign running on empty and the warmed-up leftovers of governments past. To those opposite, a car is nothing more than a scare campaign on wheels. We've seen it with utes. We saw it when, in the 2019 campaign, they said that electric vehicles would end the weekend. Fuel standards are about giving Australians more choice of the latest vehicles that are cleaner and cheaper to run. That is why we offered bipartisan support when the Liberal Party, under that minister, wanted to introduce fuel efficiency standards. Every other developed country in the world has fuel efficiency standards except one: Russia. The Leader of the Opposition can line up with Vladimir Putin. I'll line up with the United States and the rest of the developed world. Russia is a country as famous for the quality of its cars as it is for the quality of its democracy. But this bloke thinks it's okay. He was down there in Dunkley at the used-car yard happy to stand up and try to sell the Morrison scare campaign from back in 2019. The Leader of the Opposition's used-car model is noisy, unreliable and only turns right. It only works in reverse and won't ever go forward. It only goes backwards. It won't drive in Melbourne at night—you've got to remember all of those migrants. And it's made entirely of glass. It's a bit of a bold design move from this guy. Like the bulldozer from Cook, who has left, it's designed to wreck, not to build. What we're doing is building a stronger economy. What we're doing is saving Australians money. What we're doing is boosting their wages. What we're doing is cutting their taxes. What we're doing is building in new efficiencies—not being afraid of the future but shaping the future. If you don't, the future sorts you out. The fact is that you can't just pretend that this is not happening. When I was transport minister as far back as in 2008, there was research being done on an internal combustion engine. It was all about future vehicles that are cheaper to run and are more efficient, which is what our policy is about. I table the media release from today 'Toyota launches all-new bZ4X BEV' about a new SUV being launched by Toyota, and on that note I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 35 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE National Ban on the Use of Asbestos: 20th Anniversary 35 15:28 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Asbestos was banned in Australia on 31 December 2003. On 7 December last year the Parliamentary Friends of Asbestos Related Disease acknowledged this historic anniversary. The anniversary was an important occasion to acknowledge the many people who work tirelessly to raise awareness of asbestos related disease. While every effort was made to acknowledge these wonderful people, the key advocacy group from Western Australia, the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia, the ADSA, was missed. So I wish to make amendments now. For decades the ADSA has been fighting for the rights of asbestos victims, including people who worked at the infamous mine in Wittenoom and the people who lived in that town. The ADSA pioneered groundbreaking legal action and worked closely with stakeholders, including trade unions, to raise public awareness of asbestos risks and look after the injured. As Mr Laurie Kazan-Allen rightly highlighted in his email to me, it was a glaring omission not to acknowledge the ADSA in the 20-year commemoration. So today I rise to thank them for their incredible work over many years. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 36 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 19 of 2023-24 36 15:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 19 of 2023-24 entitled Effectiveness of the Department of Health and Aged Care's performance management of Primary Health Networks: Department of Health and Aged Care. Documents made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 36 15:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's bad decisions and wrong priorities driving up the cost of living for Australians. 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— 15:30 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It's very clear—and if there was any doubt before question time there's no doubt now—that this government's terrible decisions are driving up the cost of living for Australians. There seems to be a parallel universe because the members of the government, from the Prime Minister down, seem to be telling Australians that they've never had it better. They come in here with smiles on their faces, and they're very self-satisfied, very pleased with themselves—the Prime Minister seems very pleased with himself—which just shows how disconnected the modern Labor Party is from Australians who are doing so terribly tough out there. For many Australians, it wouldn't be a surprise that the Prime Minister is so disconnected from what is occurring out there because this is a man, quite frankly, who, between Taylor Swift concerts and Katy Perry concerts at billionaire's homes, we wouldn't expect to have the time or bandwidth to focus on what Australians are going through. We heard before the election that the Prime Minister would make life easier for Australians, and the truth, the sad truth, is that, 20 months after the election of the Albanese government, Australians are poorer. There's no simpler way to put it than that. Australians are now poorer because of the decisions of this government. You'd think that members opposite, anyone connected to their electorate, would hang their head in shame rather than come in here looking very self-satisfied, as they do, talking about tax cuts that won't start until 1 July, while there are people now $8,000 a year on average worse off. That doesn't even account for the millions of Australians with a mortgage. If you're an Australian with a mortgage, you're not $8,000 a year worse off; you're $24,000 a year worse off. Under this government we've seen rents increase by 26 per cent. We see first homebuyers at their lowest levels for over a decade. We see new home starts at their lowest levels for over a decade. We see approvals at their lowest levels for over a decade. What that means is, if Australians thought Labor's housing crisis in 2023 was bad, Labor's housing crisis in 2024 and 2025 is going to be even worse. I'll come back to housing, but, in the time that the Prime Minister has been jetting around feeling very satisfied—there's no celebrity that can come to Australia without the Prime Minister mobbing them in some way, shape or form. There's no celebrity that's safe in this country. There is no celebrity or international pop star that can fly into Australia and fly out without being mobbed by our Prime Minister. In that time, when the Prime Minister said he would reduce energy prices for the average Australian by $275, what's actually happened? Electricity is up by 20 per cent. Gas is up by 27 per cent. How on earth is every member opposite going to explain to their electorate when people quite rightly ask, 'Where on earth is my $275 reduction?' Not only have we not seen reductions, but we've seen increases. I think the disconnect between the government and what Australians are facing is the most concerning thing here because Australians' faith in this place has got worse since this government has been in power. You can understand why, when they look at members opposite walking into question time every day and basically telling Australians, 'You've never had it better,' and 'That the government deserves a pat on the back,' that they would feel as though they're being gaslit. Most Australians would think, 'What parallel universe do these people live in?' Then we see a policy from this government to smash the vast majority of Australians who purchase new cars in this country with their new tax on family cars. Who on earth would think in this economic environment that of all the priorities, 'What do Australians need desperately?' they need a new tax on family cars. And it's a new tax on the most popular family cars in this country. I'm sure the Prime Minister really wasn't planning on finishing question time talking about their new tax on family cars, but it's pretty clear that the Prime Minister needed to mop up after the member for McMahon. I'm sure he didn't want to be doing that, but what he didn't do in that answer was tell Australians and level with Australians on the costs that Labor's tax on family cars will impose. Here we've got what I think are very conservative and very generous estimates to the government of what the impact of their tax on family cars will be. They include an additional $11,020 for a Toyota RAV4, a $12,180 increase for an MG ZS, a $25,000 increase for a Toyota LandCruiser, a $17,950 increase for one of the most popular new cars in this country—a Ford Ranger, a $14,490 increase for a Toyota HiLux and a $13,830 increase—a tax on Australian families—for an Isuzu D-Max. What does it say about the priorities of this government that at this time—when the average household is $8,000 a year worse off, when the average household with a mortgage is $24,000 a year worse off, when they've seen an increase in their rent of 26 per cent, an increase in their food of 10 per cent, an increase on their electricity of 20 per cent and an increases on their gas of 27 per cent—that the solution to those problems is yet another tax on the family car? In the list of twisted priorities in my time in this place, I'm yet to see something as extraordinary as this. A housing crisis that is unprecedented in this country, a hapless housing minister with no idea and no plan, sitting in her office with absolutely no clue of what to do. So what pitiful thing does the government bring to this chamber? They bring their Help to Buy scheme or, as it's more colloquially known in the community, 'the forced to sell scheme'. A shared equity scheme from this government that I suspect many people would question at its face: who really wants to co-own a home with this Prime Minister and this housing minister? Putting that aside for one moment, which genius could come up with an idea to create 10,000 shared equity places when there are already schemes throughout the country that are not being used because nobody wants these products? In fact, in New South Wales you might ask, 'How many places are left out of their scheme?' For the New South Wales shared equity scheme, on which the government's Help to Buy scheme is based, how many places are left? Is it 10 per cent of places left? Is it 15 per cent or 20 per cent? No, that would be far too generous to this government. There are 94 per cent of places left. Si I imagine there are thousands of these products available. Australians do not want them, for a range of reasons, including that if your income goes above a certain level you can be forced to sell your home. So you come home really happy and excited to tell your partner and family you have had a pay rise, but, if that pay rise takes you above the income threshold, the government can sell the house from underneath you. No wonder there are 94 per cent of these places left in the New South Wales scheme and places left in the Victorian scheme, the South Australian scheme and the Western Australian scheme. Why on earth would that be a priority for this government? It just shows that they do not understand the pressures and cost-of-living crisis faced by Australians. (Time expired) 15:40 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Thank you so much to the opposition for the opportunity to discuss the priorities of the government and what we are doing to provide real support for Australians on the cost of living. We just heard a whole lot of drivel from the opposite side. We know that the cost of living is biting into household budgets. That is in no small part due to 10 years of complete policy ineptitude and inaction by the previous government—10 years of keeping wages deliberately low, 10 years of policies that saw people with languishing wages, 10 years of a climate change policy debacle and 10 years of allowing energy costs to run out of control. We are a government that listens. We have made every policymaking moment count. Relieving the cost of living without raising inflation has been our No. 1 priority. Those opposite's policies? Nothing. Nada. Zip. They are a policy void. They've voted against every good policy we have put forward to manage the cost of living. They have done absolutely nothing to support this government in helping households manage their budgets. What they have done is scaremonger and discredit good policy. Today we saw an important report that showed how stark the gender pay gap is. The gender pay gap matters. It matters to women; it matters to families. We know the gender pay gap costs the Australian economy $51.8 billion a year. We know that 62 per cent of private employer gender pay gaps are over now over five per cent in favour of men earning more and 50 per cent of all employers have a gender pay gap of over 9.1 per cent. In the context of cost-of-living pressures, this means that women are essentially bringing home 80c to 90c for every dollar that a male worker brings to the supermarket or has in his bank account to pay the bills. Let me be incredibly clear. The pay gap matters when it comes to cost-of-living pressures. It matters for single mothers looking after their kids. It matters for young women working in cafes and paying rent. It matters for families paying a mortgage and relying on dual incomes. So when a particular senator today has said that today's release of the national gender pay gap material is 'useless data that breeds resentment and division' I believe we need to pause and unpack what this means. This points to a person and an alternative government that do not care about the pay that 50 per cent of Australians bring home. It points to a mentality, an ideology, that would rather see women doing the ironing, like a well-known former prime minister said, than earning money and supporting their families. The senator seemed to say the silent bit, the bit that regressive misogynists think but never actually say. And the world shudders when they do say it. It's like when the previous prime minister said women were lucky not to get shot for protesting against that government's complete lack of empathy and effective policies for women. This gives us an insight into the dangerous and sexist agenda of the alternative government. This is a shambolic group of people who, in the simplest terms, don't care about the financial pressure that Australians are feeling. They don't care about increasing the real wages of Australians. In fact, we know it was their policy to deliberately keep wages low. They don't care about looking after people. They don't care about bringing down the cost of living for Australians, and they vote against every single measure this government puts forward. They would rather run scare campaigns and not upset the apple cart that is gender inequality. They're a group of people disinterested in workers, in women and in the real worries and pressures on Australians. Let me assure you Labor is a government that listens. And we don't just listen; we act on what we hear. That's why our No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and the cost-of-living challenges. It's why the Prime Minister has announced that, come 1 July, Labor will deliver a tax cut for every single Australian. That's 13.6 million people with more take-home pay in their pockets—from teachers to nurses, from truckies to cleaners, from hospo workers to childcare educators. If you're a uni or TAFE student who has a part-time job and rents, you'll benefit. If you're a working parent who feels the pinch of rising costs, you'll be better off. If you're nearing retirement and working part time, you'll have more money in your pocket. If your name is Sue and you work in construction, you will benefit. If you went to Taylor Swift and you love your mum and you work three days a week as a receptionist, you will benefit. Every single Australian will be better off under Labor. That's more cost-of-living relief for lower income and middle-income Australians. But this builds on an additional $23 billion in targeted relief—targeted relief that the opposition has opposed every step of the way. This includes making medicines cheaper by allowing people to buy two scripts for the cost of one, making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor by making the biggest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history, providing energy bill relief through rebates and capping the prices of coal and gas, making child care cheaper and expanding paid parental leave, building more social and affordable homes, and making the biggest increase in rent assistance in 30 years. We've done all this while delivering the first budget surplus in 15 years and taking stronger action on climate change and creating a record number of jobs, not to mention overseeing significant wage rises. I want to be clear. We know the pressure that households are under when it comes to rising rent and mortgage repayments. I know in my electorate of Cooper there are share houses that are selling their couches on Marketplace, as people have to move back into their parents' houses when they get a rental increase of $1,000 a month. A whole generation of young people feel like homeownership is out of reach for them for the rest of their lives. It's clear that only Labor can be trusted to help more Australians into homes that they own. We've helped more than 100,000 people across the country into homeownership since the election. Help to Buy will bring homeownership back into reach for tens of thousands of Australians, but the Greens and Liberals are now standing in the way of this vital new assistance—again. And why? Because—it's no great surprise—they're more interested in painting the picture of a crisis than being part of a solution. They're willing to make political sport of the financial misery of people doing it tough. We're doing everything we can to boost the supply of affordable homes, through the Housing Australia Future Fund. We know people want to live close by to the jobs and opportunities we're creating in communities right across the country. Through the National Housing Accord Facility we have an ambitious target to partner with the states and territories to build 1.2 million homes over five years. I feel like a mum teaching kids to share and play nicely when I say we need everyone to work together and put their petty political agendas to the side. We need to work across all levels of government, across all parties, to reach across the corridor and engage with the private sector in order to fast-track development and get more Australians into more homes. We know Australians feel under pressure from the cost of running their cars and crippled by the lack of meaningful choices we have in Australia. That's why we're giving Australians more choice of cars that are both cleaner and cheaper to run, through our new vehicle efficiency standard. This is good for household budgets, and it's good for the environment. Right now, 85 per cent of the global car market operates under a standard, and Australia is in poor company. We join Russia as one of the only developed countries that don't have efficiency standards. The United States has had a policy in place for 50 years. Historically Australians have only been able to choose from a limited range of cars and a limited range of manufacturers. Under Labor, this list will grow and expand to have new options: new hybrid cars, more electric vehicles and more zero-emission cars. I'd like to wrap up by returning to my first point: we are hearing the difficulties people are feeling right now. We know that Australians deserve roofs over their heads and food on the table and that they need these to be affordable. This is our priority, this is what Labor governments care about and this is what Labor governments deliver. 15:50 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's misguided priorities for Australia. Mallee voters don't buy Labor's song-and-dance routine that they are the party of tax cuts. Stages one, two and three income tax cuts were under the coalition's policy. On stage three, Labor told us 100 times they would back them in. Then we are told to believe the Prime Minster had some 'road to Damascus' insight—an epiphany to shift the narrative on tax cuts. Voters remember governments that break their promises, and these governments are consequently found to be untrustworthy. We on this side will be reminding voters. Another area of massive destruction of this Albanese Labor government is on the reckless rush to renewables: 82 per cent by 2030. Mallee is ground zero for this rollout, with wind-turbine cowboys stirring bad blood in my regional communities, pitting mate against mate and farmer against farmer with secret deals that never come to fruition. But the bad blood will remain. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Andrew Dyer, has called out this deplorable behaviour in his report on energy; the energy proponents botched community consultation. From local experience in Mallee, I can tell you: that report is the tip of the iceberg. This cowboy energy sector needs regulation, and the Nationals are working closely on ensuring regional communities have a voice and on ensuring that social licence is secured fair and square, not through proponents' underhanded behaviour, with handouts here and there, but through genuine approval from communities. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, doesn't care, just like he doesn't care whether the residents of Mallee and their fellow Australians will ever see their $275 energy bill relief. Energy bill relief will be another broken promise, because only the mother of all subsidy programs could see, in net terms, that $275 reduction be delivered under energy bill hikes on Labor's watch. But Labor aren't done hiking the cost of living for regional Australians; their family car tax, dressed up as a fuel emissions standard, is a cruel initiative that will rob regional Peter to pay inner-city Paul. Paul will be there, showing off his new electric vehicle on Lygon Street subsidised by the government, but Mallee residents like Peter will have no choice but to pay up to $25,000 more for their family car just so Paul can feel pious that he's supposedly saving the planet. Labor's family car tax is designed to halt inner-city Labor seats from falling into Greens hands; make no mistake. Those are the seats with the highest EV take-up, and I won't let Labor pretend regional Australians will catch up with their city cousins on EV ownership. Take Toorak, for instance, in Melbourne, where they have 24 times the EV take-up than either of the largest centres in my electorate, Mildura and Horsham. One Mallee car dealer told me that the push for electric vehicles was impractical in regional areas, saying, 'We lack the infrastructure of public charging stations.' This dealer told me there are issues with EV longevity and resale value, with some American dealers reducing sale prices by more than $5,000 as EV prices nosedive when they need new batteries. Battery replacement costs are so high that replacing an EV makes better sense than replacing a battery. Perversely, Mallee residents will pay extra when buying their SUV or family farm vehicle under Minister Bowen's plans to pay for EV subsidies. I spoke confidentially to one dealer last week who faces laying off a quarter of his 40-strong workforce due to the impact of Labor's family car tax. Dr Charlton I8M Absolute garbage! Dr WEBSTER 281688 You can say 'garbage' all you like, sir. The reality is these are the dealerships—through you, Deputy Speaker Claydon. Manufacturers are being monstered by the minister, and I hope that all comes out in the wash very soon. We all want to see lower emissions and more efficient cars, but Labor's city-centric spots are on full display. Yet again Labor robs the regions to secure votes in the cities. 15:55 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I must say that the irony of standing up to talk on an MPI about bad decisions while made in government brought on by those opposite is certainly not lost on me today. So much of what our government is dealing with is a result of nearly a decade of bad decisions by those opposite. In the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, we had times of drift, denial and delay from those opposite, yet they come in here today and bring on this MPI! Those people over there spent nearly a decade in chaos, focused on each other and their own internal leadership problems. There was nearly a decade of climate denial and inaction on one of the most pressing problems our country and, indeed, the world is facing. There was nearly a decade where they did nothing to reduce cost-of-living pressures. Certainly, reducing cost-of-living pressures for Australians was not at all the focus of those over there when they were in government. In fact, we can look at their record. Under the Turnbull government, they made the decision to support cuts to penalty rates to reduce the take-home pay of workers. From those opposite we had the thought bubble around wanting to increase the pension age to 70. If that had of happened, that would have taken the Australian pension age to one of the highest in the developed world. We had, of course, the admission from those opposite when they were in government that low wages were in fact a deliberate design feature of the economy they ran. That's right! Under a Liberal and National government, it was a design feature for Australians to own less. Yet they come in here and talk about bad decisions from this government. This government is doing all it can to put a laser-like focus on addressing the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. Today we have had highlighted another topical area of neglect that we saw from those opposite: their lack of support for women and their lack of efforts to close the gender pay gap in this country. As a result of the actions of our government, today we've seen, for the first time, the publication of gender pay gaps for nearly 5,000 private-sector employers in this country. This is a pivotal step in transparency and accountability in addressing gender inequality. It wasn't done by those opposite. They were not interested in doing this work of helping Australian women to earn more, helping Australian families to be supported because women in those families are earning more. Those opposite did not care about that challenge when they were in government, and it seems they do not care about it now that they are in opposition. Today we have Senator Canavan saying the gender pay gap report is 'useless data' because it doesn't even correct for basic differences like hours worked. The gender pay gap report is now the 'annual Andrew Tate recruitment drive'; it just breeds recruitment and division. That's the view of those opposite on the efforts to close the gender pay gap in the country. I have not yet heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he does not agree with Senator Canavan on that. That is incredibly disappointing because, as I said, what helps Australian families with the cost of living is Australian women earning more, Australian women having more in their pay cheques, and that is exactly what this government is trying to do. Under this government Australian women are earning more. Wages are going up. Under this government Australian women will get a tax cut. Every single Australian taxpayer is getting a tax cut under this government. Again, look at the industries that women work in—nurses, teachers. People earning $75,000 a year are getting a tax cut that's more than double what they would have got under those opposite. Those opposite didn't want people earning $45,000 or less to get a tax cut—people like sales assistants and receptionists. Our government is delivering them a tax cut. We are doing the work that those opposite failed to do, with their bad decisions over nearly a decade in government. We know that Australians need cost-of-living relief and we continue to focus on that through our tax cuts, through our support for health and, importantly, through our work to close the gender pay gap, ensuring that Australian women get to earn what they should and keep more of what they earn. 16:00 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The MPI is always a nice occasion to sit and listen to those opposite. I like to make sure I'm here for the whole debate, because you get some interesting insights. The member for Jagajaga just summed up quite nicely the challenges this government faces. With five minutes to talk about being in government for 20 months and outline the amazing achievements of the Albanese government, the member for Jagajaga spent four minutes talking about the opposition, talking about our side of this chamber. They're in government; they've got the ability to make decisions. The one minute she did talk about what they've achieved—we're talking about $15 a week in five months for the Australian people. That really sums up this Albanese government. The Australian public know and we know that, for all of last year and all of 2022, those opposite were distracted. The terms 'cost of living' and 'Middle Australia' were not used by the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. They've used the terms a lot in the last six weeks, since Christmas, but just using a word does not mean you're actually delivering for the Australian people. The Australian people know that. We get a little bit of frustration on the other side when we're talking about a car tax that's going to add up to $25,000 to the cost of a ute. There are a lot of tradies in Casey that are worried about this tax, and what do we get from the minister? The minister references the United States fuel efficiency system, but he leaves out a bit of the detail about some important differences. I'm going to quote from one industry figure: 'I don't think anybody would be opposed to us copying what they have in the USA, but what they've proposed looks like nothing like what they have in the USA.' What is this industry source talking about? In the US model, there is an exemption for certain vehicles. If a vehicle is over 3.86 metric tonnes, it is exempt from the fuel efficiency standard. Perversely, in the real world, that's one of the reasons that you see so many large vehicles in the United States. Manufacturers are making sure that they get above that 3.86 metric tonnes. So what's the proposal from this government in Australia? They are looking at a 4.5 metric tonne exemption. I'll let the Australian people in on a little secret about why they put it up to 4.5 metric tonnes. It's to get all the utes that the tradies of Casey need for towing their work trailers, and it's to get the family SUVs that you need in my electorate to make sure you can fit the pram in to take your children to school and to sport, because public transport isn't readily available in an electorate like mine. That is a core and fundamental difference. Every time the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy stand up and reference the United States fuel efficiency system, they are either willingly misleading the Australian people or they're not across the detail of what's involved in their own policy. It's one or the other, because that significant change is in their policy. And that sums up the Albanese Labor government. It's all about the headline; it's not about the detail. But the detail matters. That's why this will drive costs up. That's why it's not relevant to compare the US model. We know that this Prime Minister does not understand the challenges of the Australian people. The biggest question he has to work out is: what is he going to wear to Taylor Swift, and how does he make sure it doesn't double up when he goes to see Katy Perry at Raheen? That's the toughest decision this Prime Minister made on the weekend—the change in outfit from Taylor Swift to Katy Perry—because that's what he thinks about. He has been in this place since 1996. It revolves around the actions of parliament, and he is making sure he enjoys the trappings of the role for as long as he can. But that does not solve the cost-of-living crisis that the people of Casey and the people of Australia are facing today. 16:05 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Since the election of the Albanese government, there has been a single focus of this government: how to support working families and those worse off. As a representative of the people of Holt, it is my duty to advocate for policies that alleviate the burdens faced by families struggling to make ends meet, particularly in the outer south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, where my electorate is located and where the challenges are keenly felt. In my electorate of Holt, like many electorates in the outer suburbs, families are grappling with the relentless rise in essential expenses, such as housing, child care, health care and utilities. These pressures weigh heavily on the shoulders of everyday Australians, straining their budgets and limiting their opportunities for financial security and prosperity. This is why I am proud to be a part of a government with a plan—a plan to tackle this cost-of-living crisis. At the heart of this plan lies the implementation of cost-of-living tax cuts aimed at providing immediate relief to hardworking Australians, especially in those electorates like Holt and Dunkley. Under our plan every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut, regardless of their income—11.5 million Australians will receive a bigger tax cut than under the Liberals' plan. This tax cut, one that the coalition had to be dragged to support, will provide more relief to 90 per cent of Australians, especially those earning under $45,000 a year. How can the Liberals lecture us on priorities while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is running around on national TV stating that her party will unwind tax cuts for every taxpayer? I guess the people who stack the shelves at Woolies, like my former colleagues, or those who cook our Friday night takeaway are not a priority for the Liberal Party. In Holt, where families are feeling the pinch of skyrocketing living expenses, these tax cuts will make a tangible difference. For instance, a minimum wage worker on $45,000 a year will be $800 better off under Labor's plan. These tax cuts will extend to truck drivers, IT workers, nurses and teachers, like my sister-in-law Christine. With the average tax cut for residents of Holt being a substantial $1,321, these changes will bring significant relief to families. Our priorities go beyond just tax cuts. Labor's 10-point plan includes a range of initiatives aimed at tackling the root causes of the cost-of-living crisis. This is a $23 billion package to support working families. This package includes our priority for energy relief, a priority the Liberals have voted against. This includes our priority for cheaper medicines, again a priority the Liberals voted against. This includes our priority to get wages moving again, a priority the Liberal Party consistently votes against. When it comes to the cost of living, the Liberals always say no. We understand that true prosperity requires a holistic plan that addresses the cost-of-living pressures. This is why our plan encompasses measures to create jobs and boost wages. Getting people into work and giving them a pay rise is the No. 1 way to tackle the cost of living for families. Over 650,000 new jobs have been created since Labor came into government and, last year, Labor delivered the highest annual wage growth since 2009. We have got wages moving again for the first time since 2018. After a decade of Liberal policies that suppressed wages and wanted people to work longer for less, Labor's priority is very clear. We are committed to fighting tirelessly for policies that put the interests of working families in electorates like Holt and Dunkley first. 16:10 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies It's wonderful to see schoolchildren above us watching this debate. We have just heard from the member for Holt, and can I say something nice about the member? The member migrated to Australia when she was 11. She got a job at Woolworths and worked there for 15 years. I think the sense of perspective that she brings to a debate like this is one that means her contribution comes from a well-meaning place even if I don't agree with everything she says. I too arrived in Australia when I was 10, and I am grateful for my work experience at McDonald's. I want to say something about aspiration. We have heard a lot this week and in this debate about quotes from pop stars, and Taylor Swift is No. 1. The outgoing member for Cook did a very good job of quoting Taylor Swift. But I want to say something about another pop star, a country music star. His name is Jason DeFord, also known as 'Jelly Roll'. In November last year at Nashville, Jelly Roll won new artist of the year at 39 years of age. He gave a great speech. He said there was something poetic about him winning new artist of the year at that age. He said he wanted to say something to people who were struggling. He said, 'I don't know where you're at in life or what you're going through, but I want to tell you to keep going.' He said: 'I want to tell you success is on the other side of it. I want to tell you it's going to be okay. I want to tell you that the windshield is bigger than the rear-view mirror for a reason.' He said, 'It's because what's in front of you is so much more important than what's behind you.' In debates like this, we hear again and again the Labor members stand up and go straight to the rear-view mirror and not look through the windshield that Australians are looking through right now. What is through that windshield? This is what they see. Food is up nine per cent, housing is up 12 per cent, electricity is up 20 per cent, insurance is up 22 per cent and gas is up 27 per cent. In my home city of Melbourne, many young families are giving up on the aspiration of homeownership. If you take the medium household income and look at medium houses, that family can afford none of the 354 houses available in the suburbs of Melbourne. None. If you lower their expectations to look at what a medium-earning household can afford, for units it's 15 out of 354 suburbs. If we take the windshield metaphor, Australians are looking through a cracked windshield, the wipers aren't working and it's raining. While the Labor Party focuses on this side and the previous government, the Labor Party needs to turn its mind to the fact that it is now in government and it can do something about what Australians are seeing in front of them right now. We have seen lots of press releases about the great gift that is coming from the stage 3 tax cuts amendment. Of course we support that because it supports families across the board. But when you give the average family $800 with one hand and they are losing 8.6 per cent or $8,000 from the average wage with the other you are looking through the rear-view mirror and not through the windshield. We have a problem with government spending in this place. When you look through the Intergenerational report, which I've got here in front of me, on real 2022-23 incomes the executive in this place, Canberra, spends $25,000 per Australian. Not adjusted for inflation, that was $15,000 in 2002-03. And it's projected, in the Intergenerational report—again, not adjusted for inflation—to be $40,000. I urge the government to take a leaf out of Jelly Roll's speeches. He recently appeared before the US Congress. There was a hearing on fentanyl in January, and he's someone who has spent time in jail for dealing drugs. He said: I was part of the problem … I am here now, standing as a man who wants to be part of the solution. That is good advice for this government. 16:15 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke It is an undeniable reality that people across our communities are doing it tough—all across our economy, all across our country and in every state. The reality of that is not the government of the last 18 months. There have been a range of structural failings throughout the last decade when it comes to economic leadership in our country. To give you some flavour of that in terms of headline realities, we saw the worst productivity growth for half a century, under the last government. We saw a decade of real wage decline, and the worst part about that is that we of course know that that was, as the Liberals themselves say, a deliberate design feature of the economy over which they presided. We've seen our country saddled with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. These are the preconditions that set up our economy and indeed set up our communities to suffer over this last period of time. We know that the inflation problem, which has been such a key driver of the cost-of-living challenge facing our communities, was created and incubated under that former government. They failed utterly to invest in sovereign capability across our economy. They left us open to the international pressures that have ultimately thrust our economy into the high-inflation circumstances that it finds itself. To be fair, there are some international events that no government could necessarily have foreseen or necessarily managed the risks of—wars in both Europe and the Middle East chief amongst them. Nevertheless, what the former Liberal government did was design an economy and execute the policy settings for that economy that left our community so vulnerable and so exposed to those international pressures. We know that inflation peaked under that former Liberal government. And, yes, our government has been very upfront, as has the Reserve Bank, in its independent role, about the need to drive that inflation down and the fact that it would take time and it would be challenging, and that there would be both monetary and fiscal policy elements to that effect. At the end of the day, our government has approached this challenge with our values at the centre of our policy treatment. What we want to do is build an economy that works for our people. We want Australian workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We know that that is the best way to alleviate that cost-of-living pressure on Australian households and to aid Australian families and workers in recovering from this difficult period. Labor's tax cut plan, which we've been moving through the parliament with the very lukewarm support, I have to acknowledge, of the Liberals—they say publicly that they support our tax cuts, but they have frustrated at every opportunity the process of legislating them, and we know that they have spent a significant amount of time and energy undermining them within the broader community. Most notably, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party came out immediately to state that they would repeal tax cuts for Australian workers—roll them back. In my community, these tax cuts are worth $1,428 to each average worker. In a household with two full-time workers on an average wage that's over $2,800 a year. That means that 73,000 taxpayers across my community, and the families and households that they support, will all get a tax cut. Every single taxpayer will get a tax cut, just as every single taxpayer across Australia will get a tax cut—that's 13.6 million Australians getting a tax cut and 73,000 just in my electorate alone. When the Liberals stand up and make ridiculous, outrageous comments about the cost of living, Australians know that they don't truly understand or believe in addressing those matters and that they, ultimately, are accountable for the circumstances that created those conditions in the first place. Our government is the one making the necessary changes in order to address them. 16:20 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I do want to talk on this MPI, as a member of parliament from a rural and regional electorate, to the young people who are here today. I come from a very small community. There is no doubt that that community, and the others that I represent, are very affected by cost-of-living issues. There is no question in rural and regional Australia that that's exactly how it is, and why the increases in interest rates, which have put up their mortgages throughout this time of this government, have had so much impact. There's also an issue with the inflationary impact on the food that people are buying. There have also been the increasing costs of insurance that we in the regions really have no option but to invest in. Then there are increases in the cost of electricity and, as we know, increases in the cost of housing. When I hear the members opposite talking about child care, in my part of the world—as in so many other parts of Australia, particularly in rural and regional areas—we have childcare deserts, where there isn't any child care is available. That makes it exceptionally difficult for people who need to go to work and can't. We've seen, as I said, increases in interest rates, inflation, mortgage costs and rents, as we know. Rents have increased by at least 26 per cent over the time that Labor has been in government and we've seen housing starts and approvals at their lowest levels in decades. I looked at rentals on realestate.com: good luck trying to find a rental in my part of the world. The vacancy rate in my Bunbury region is 0.45 per cent: the nation's lowest vacancy rate for the seventh consecutive month. If you're coming into my electorate, you'll find it very difficult; but it has been made more difficult by Labor's increases, with the over 500,000 people it has allowed into this country when there are only 162,000 new dwellings being built at the same time. There is a real imbalance there, which is why, in part, those rental prices are what they are: it's scarcity. I walk down the main street in my communities, and I talk to the local people and the local businesses, and I listen to them. When you do that, you find that the cost of living is really impacting on my people. It's also impacting on small businesses, who are the heart and soul of my electorate. Recently, in this last week, I talked to the car dealers, because they are certainly very concerned about what Labor is proposing with their huge tax on not only the family car but also on our work vehicles. We depend on those vehicles; we need them in rural and regional Australia. We need them for the job they do for us; that's what we need on our properties and in our businesses. It's the same as our tradies. They need these vehicles; they're not just an option, they're something we need to get the job done. But Labor wants to make this so much more expensive. I went to one dealer who employs 70 people. He is seriously concerned about the types of vehicles that will be allowed to come in with the whole-fleet requirement that the government will impose. There's another one who employs 20 staff—that may not be a lot to those on that side, but, by gee, in the small community where I am, employing 20 people is a lot of people in work in a small community, and each one of those matters to us. That's why this extra tax on family vehicles, tradies and our working people is such a major issue. We'll see that some vehicles will no longer be imported, which is what the government is intending here: by default—it's very clever—to restrict the sorts of vehicles that will be imported. The manufacturers who are based internationally will decide what they will export here and what they can actually put on the list for Australia. Of course, what concerns me is that this will push us into buying more vehicles made in China. Well, that is something that Australia cannot afford to do. I also note that the government is trying to dictate to Australians not only what car you drive, whether it's the family car or it's a ute; they want to control the food you eat. There's the NHMRC's war on meat. There are the clothes you wear—and the minister for environment wanting to tax our clothes and tell us what clothes we can wear. We've got carbon accounting on scope 3 emissions. We've got the increase— (Time expired) 16:26 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm On a topic around priorities and governance, I'm actually really proud to be part of a government who has the right priorities and is delivering good government—good government that we were voted in by the voters of Australia to deliver. But, before I address some of the things that our government has been taking action on, I do just want to pause and say I'm really disgusted at the way migrants have been weaponised by those opposite. Particularly when I see, like through question time this week, people sitting opposite who regularly attend citizenship ceremonies with me in my electorate and who speak in glowing terms about migrants, and I then hear some of those members opposite undermine migration in this country— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just a moment—are you rising on a point of order? Mr Wolahan 235654 I am. It's standing order 90: reflections on members. That is an allegation or imputation of improper motive on the debate of all members on this side and on an area that we all take very seriously on a bipartisan basis. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I ask you to resume your seat. I've listened to the debate, and all kinds of suggestions have been made. I note there's been no naming mentioned here. I ask the member to always be cautious in her approach, and let's try and have a respectful debate all around. Dr GARLAND 295588 Indeed, my intention in raising this issue was really to heighten the level of debate in this chamber. But I'll move on. Since the election our No. 1 priority has been to address inflation and cost-of-living pressures. We know a lot of people in our communities are doing it tough. That's why our recently announced tax cuts will deliver a bigger tax cut for Middle Australia to help with the cost of living. This builds on our targeted relief while not adding to inflation. Let's talk about priorities. We've already delivered electricity bill relief. We've made medicines cheaper and we've made it easier and cheaper to see a doctor. We've invested in cheaper child care and in expanding parental leave. We are building more social and affordable homes and increasing rent assistance. We've also provided fee-free TAFE, and wages are rising at the fastest rate for a decade, including for some of our lowest-paid workers on the minimum wage and aged-care workers. We've done all of this at the same time as we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years and created a record number of jobs. We know we have a big job to do. Good governments do have a big job to do, because they take their commitment to Australians really seriously. We're making vital investments in the capacity of our economy, laying the foundations for future growth, and our efforts to repair the budget are taking pressure off inflation when it is most acute. Right throughout our term, we have maintained a primary focus on the cost of living, wages, jobs and building a stronger economy for all Australians. Real wages growth is back and ahead of schedule, and we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This week, we saw the latest wage figures are showing a 4.2 per cent increase throughout the year, the equal fastest annual growth since 2009. This is a real wage increase for people. The gender pay gap is the lowest it has been on record. It's down by 2.1 per cent since the government came to office. And of course, on 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will be getting a tax cut because of Labor tax plan. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want Australians to work longer for less. Those opposite have no plan to ease the cost of living. All those opposite offer Australians is negativity and division. Over the last 18 months the opposition has consistently stood against action to help ease the cost of living. They've opposed more Australian jobs, they've opposed higher wages and better working conditions, they've opposed electricity bill relief, they've opposed cheaper medicines, they've opposed fee-free TAFE and now they don't even really know what they want to do about our Labor cost-of-living tax cuts. They're all negativity and no plan. I urge those opposite to do the right thing, stop the delays and back our economic reform in the Senate to ease the cost of living for all Australian taxpayers. On this side of House, we offer aspiration, ideas and action. Those opposite offer negativity and division. I'm proud to be part of a government that prioritises people over politics and is getting on with the job of good government that we were voted in to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion is now concluded. BUSINESS 45 BUSINESS Rearrangement 45 16:31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the amendment moved earlier today by the honourable member for Deakin to the motion moved by the Leader of the House on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is the deferred divisions. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Deakin be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 64 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. 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. 75 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. 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. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:39 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 46 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 46

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023

Assent 46 Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 46

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 46 16:41 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The coalition supports the passage of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024. The bill seeks to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, the act to confirm the validity of existing future sanctions made under the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011. More specifically, the bill confirms that individuals and/or entities can be validly sanctioned based on past conduct or status, regardless of the time which has occurred between conduct and application of the sanction, and clarifies that, in circumstances where it is not explicitly clear whether a minister considered their discretion to list or not list, the listing is nonetheless valid where the person or entity meets the criteria for imposing sanctions. Australia's sanctions regime—for example, imposing travel bans or financial sanctions freezing assets held in Australia—is a key tool for Australia to enforce the values that our nation seeks to uphold. As the former coalition government made clear when we introduced the Magnitsky-style sanctions in 2021, we use sanctions to deny those who do the wrong thing the benefit of accessing our economy and the freedoms that our democracy allows. As has been highlighted since the sanctions imposed on the hundreds of supporters of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, some of those individual sanctions have deep pockets and the desire and resources to seek to exploit any technical avenue to continue to be able to access any ill-gotten gains that may exist in Australia. Recent court cases have shown the lengths to which some of these individuals will go to seek to undermine Australia's sanctions regime. While the Federal Court ruled in favour of the minister in these cases, at least one of these decisions is being appealed. We want to ensure that we are able to prevent, for instance, any Russian who has been involved with that deplorable, illegal invasion of Ukraine from getting access to their ill-gotten gains here in Australia. And we should be doing all we can to go after these individuals. The action the parliament is taking, and the action the coalition supports, is to reinforce this parliament's unambiguous view that Australia's sanctions regime is robust and that the decisions of all previous Australian government ministers to sanction an individual or entity were intentional and remain valid, regardless of any attempt by others to seek to challenge them. We want to make sure that we have a strong and enforceable regime. The coalition's strong track record points to this. We did it in government and we're happy to lend our support to ensure that it occurs while we're in opposition. Australia has a strong history of promoting and protecting human rights globally, supporting the international rules-based order and acting in the interests of international peace and security. Former coalition governments imposed sanctions on Mr Putin, Russian individuals and entities, and supporters of the Russian regime. These included using sanctions in response to the downing of MH17 and the murder of 298 passengers and crew, including 28 who called Australia home, and for his role in Russia's annexation of Crimea. We also imposed over 800 sanctions on Russian interests and supporters, including in Belarus, within weeks of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The coalition has continued and will continue to provide bipartisan support for the Albanese Labor government to increase support for Ukraine, including by additional sanctions Australia has imposed on Russian individuals, entities and supporters. In December 2021, under the coalition, Australia expanded its autonomous sanctions laws to enable the establishment of Magnitsky-style and other thematic sanctions. We would also say to the government: for anything additional that you want to do to help and support Ukraine, you will have bipartisanship all the way. I was in Federation Square on Saturday afternoon for the second anniversary of that illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is no question that we need to be doing all we can to support Ukraine. What Russia is doing to that country and to its people is deplorable. It's beyond words. It's despicable and disgraceful, and it deserves utter condemnation. While the coalition has welcomed the limited sanctions the government has imposed on countries since May 2022, in far too many cases Australia continues to lag behind our international partners and allies in using our sanctions regime to hold to account those responsible for human rights abuses. The government has a penchant for being a follower, not a leader, when it comes to imposing sanctions. Australia needs to act swiftly to send a clear and unequivocal message that the international community will not tolerate impunity for gross violations of human rights and the rule of law. We welcome the latest announcement from the government, on 24 February 2024, imposing further targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on 55 persons and targeted financial sanctions on 37 entities, including sanctions targeting those involved in Russia's deportation of Ukrainian children from regions under temporary Russian control—a despicable act. However, sanctions targeting those involved in Russia's deportation of Ukrainian children could have been done months ago. The EU imposed similar sanctions in June 2023, the UK in July 2023, the US in August 2023 and Canada in September 2023. We say to the government, with the greatest of respect: please, let's act quickly, especially against this insidious Russian regime. Missing in the announcement of 24 February 2024 were sanctions imposed on those responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny—sanctions that the coalition called for on 21 February 2024. These sanctions came two days later, when the government announcement targeted sanctions on seven prison officials that were involved in the mistreatment and death in custody. I take the opportunity to note that Mr Navalny's death represents not only a profound loss for those who champion democracy and human rights around the world but also serves as a stark reminder of the criticality of taking all reasonable actions against the ongoing suppression of dissent and political opposition in Russia. I'd also note that, in December last year, the coalition called on the government to impose more targeted sanctions against high-ranking Hamas officials. That will have a real impact in supporting Israel's campaign to disable Hamas and prevent it from committing such atrocities again. Almost a month later, on 23 January 2024, the government acted, announcing further counterterrorism financing sanctions on 12 persons and three entities linked to Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestine Islamic Jihad. The coalition welcome this, but it's important to look at the detail. This was announced at the same time as the US announced its fifth round of sanctions on Hamas since the 7 October terrorist attack. The latest US sanctions targeted networks of Hamas-affiliated financial exchanges in Gaza, their owners and associates and particularly financial facilitators that have played key roles in funds transfers, including cryptocurrency transfers, from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force to Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad in Gaza. However, none of the entities or individuals sanctioned by the US in their announcement of 22 January 2024 were included in the sanctions announced by this government. If we are to get peace, we need to dismantle Hamas. All 12 entities and three individuals that Australia sanctioned last month have previously been sanctioned by some of our allies. For example, Mahmoud al-Zahar is a senior member and co-founder of Hamas who has worked closely with specially designated global terrorists and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and has spoken publicly on behalf of Hamas, including in formal interviews, to threaten violence against Jewish civilians and emphasise Hamas's commitment to the destruction of Israel. He was sanctioned by the US on 14 November 2023 and the UK on 13 December 2023. Ali Morshed Shirazi, a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force—officials who train and assist PIJ Hamas and Hezbollah—were sanctioned by the US on 27 October 2023 and the UK on 13 December 2023. Rather than playing catch-up, Australia should be working in lock step with allies to dismantle Hamas's financial infrastructure, including from external sources, and to block new funding channels they seek to finance their heinous acts. While the coalition has welcomed the limited sanctions the government has imposed on countries since May 2022, in far too many cases, Australia continues to lag behind our international partners and allies in using our sanctions regime to hold to account those responsible for human rights abuses. Prior to the last election, in an address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Senator Wong called on the Morrison government to: … consider targeted sanctions on foreign companies, officials and other entities known to be directly profiting from Uyghur forced labour and other human rights abuses … At the halfway mark of their first term, no such action has been taken by the Albanese government. On the August anniversary of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report into the forced detention and treatment of Uyghurs, Human Rights Watch Australia highlighted the action of the EU, US, UK and Canada to apply sanctions. They said: … the Australian government should join other democracies in holding serious human rights abusers in China to account. By not doing this, what message is Australia sending? We can all draw conclusions about why Australia may not have acted, even though the coalition has offered bipartisan support for actions as a result of the OHCHR's findings. By not acting, Australia weakens international efforts and the effectiveness of the efforts of others. As the Human Rights First coalition put it in their global review of Magnitsky at five years: As powerful as it can be for one jurisdiction to impose Magnitsky sanctions against a human rights abuser or corrupt actor, the impact and legitimacy of those sanctions are multiplied as more jurisdictions join together to sanction the same persons. Acting with key allies in a joint and timely manner is the best way for us to go. In closing, the coalition supports this bill and reiterates its offer of bipartisanship for the government to impose targeted sanctions in line with those of our allies, whether in response to Russian abuses, human rights abuses in Xinjiang or numerous other instances of human rights violations. Debate adjourned. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 48

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

Second Reading 48 16:56 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume The coalition will be supporting the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024. The bill is a one-schedule amendment to ACL that empowers the relevant minister to appoint entities as designated complainants, granting them the power to progress complaints directly to the ACCC and receive a response within 90 days. In deciding whether to approve an applicant as a designated complainant, the minister must have regard to two things: firstly, the applicant's experience and ability in representing the interests of consumers or small businesses, or both, in Australia in relation to a range of market issues that affect them; and, secondly, the extent to which the applicant will act with integrity as a complainant. I note that the coalition will be watching closely who the minister approves. It must not be used as a chance to reward Labor Party friends or union paymasters, and on the other side it must be there for legitimate organisations that are representing their members who are small businesses and farmers to the extent that they have good reason to act in the interests of those members on a competition or consumer issue. The ACCC may notify a designated complainant that they will act through a further action notice if they're satisfied that a designated complaint relates to a significant or systemic market issue that affects consumers or small businesses in Australia, or both, and relates either to a potential breach of the act or to one or more of the ACCC's powers or functions under the act. If the ACCC is not satisfied that these matters apply in relation to a designated complaint, they must issue a no-further-action notice, and they may also issue a no-further-action notice in other specific circumstances. If the ACCC proposes to act upon a designated complaint, the ACCC must use best endeavours to commence that action as soon as practicable, within a maximum of six months. Any response must be based on the existing powers of the ACCC and functions under the act, including education, research and compliance as well as enforcement functions. What this bill does not do is reverse the damage this government has done with bad economic decisions. What it doesn't do is champion a back-to-basics economic agenda; that is the best way to give a fair go to consumers, small businesses and farmers across this great nation, and that means getting the basics right. We've seen a collapse in Australians' real disposable incomes of 8.6 per cent in just 18 months. We've seen a sharp increase in the price of pretty much everything. There has been an almost-10-per-cent increase in prices on average in the last 18 months, and we've seen many things go up far, far more than that. We've seen 12 interest rate increases, and we've seen a massive increase—a 27 per cent increase—in personal income taxes being paid. That means that Australians have seen a collapse in their standard of living. They're responding in many different ways: they're digging into their savings, they're taking on extra hours and they're cutting out any spending in their household budgets that's not absolutely essential. All of this is having a very big impact on Australians' standard of living. We need, right now, an agenda that is focused on getting the basics right. However you might attempt to redistribute the pie, if the pie is not growing—if the pie is, indeed, shrinking, which is what's happening to our economic pie right now on a GDP per person basis—then Australians are always going to be worse off. Getting the basics right means knowing where government has a role to play and where it doesn't. It means making sure that your competition policy is right, not just pursuing some version of crony capitalism, as we saw last year with the Qantas issue. A back-to-basics agenda does mean ending waste, not spending $40 million of taxpayer money on a spin unit to sell a broken promise. It means workplace laws that are sensible and flexible and that are in the interests of both bosses and employees so they can sit down together and make their workplace more competitive, more productive and, most importantly, more prosperous for both the employer and employee. That's a time honoured achievement of workplaces in this country, and that's from both sides of politics, I should say. Through the eighties and the nineties and into the noughties, we saw incredible improvement in our workplaces, and that kind of flexibility is something that workers and employers have enjoyed and benefited from, and we need to see a focus back on those basics. We live in a country and with economy where, if you give opportunities for people to get ahead, to realise their aspirations, they create opportunities for others. This is something that is absolutely essential in thinking about what's right for Australia at a time when we are facing a cost-of-living crisis. But for Australians who are given the opportunity to get ahead, who are given incentive to get ahead, the rewards for effort create jobs and opportunities not just for themselves but for others—jobs, investment and opportunity for all. Those opposite can continue to play class wars in industrial relations and other areas of policy, and they can continue to pursue the politics of envy, but, on this side of the House, we will continue to support aspiration, opportunity and prosperity for all. We have a strong record of supporting strong competition policy and support for small businesses and farmers across Australia. We delivered policies, including the default market offer in the energy market, and despite the fact that under our current energy manager we've seen sharp increases in prices—Australians certainly haven't seen the $275. The default market offer was a good, strong measure to support consumers in the electricity market, and it's certainly been of benefit. At the time that was brought in, we saw an eight per cent reduction in prices for consumers, a nine per cent reduction for small businesses and a 10 per cent reduction for industry. We established the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. It's right and proper now, having seen that in operation for some time, that we work alongside our National Party colleagues in making sure that that is right for the times—times that are obviously changing. We legislated to address energy market misconduct, and we established the payment times reporting framework. We also delivered significant support for Australia's 3.7 million small and medium sized businesses, including the small-business company tax rate reduction and extending the instant asset write-off. We've said in recent months that we would take that back to the higher level and the appropriate thresholds that were in place prior to COVID. Labor has scaled that back. But that instant asset write-off is incredibly important for small businesses and farmers. It gives them the opportunity to make investments in capital equipment, in items that are going to make their businesses more productive, more competitive and more successful. And that is good not just for them; it's good for their communities, their employees, their suppliers and their customers. That's how the economy works. We know and we've all seen—those of us that represent electorates where small business is the backbone of the local economy—the incredible impact of accelerated depreciation on the prosperity of those local economies. We established the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. I'm very hopeful that that ombudsman will be one of the organisations that the minister approves as a designated complainant under this legislation so the ombudsman can do the important work it needs to do to support small business and farmers across this country. We will take further strong competition policy measures to the next election, and we will continue to focus, as we have in recent months and years, on the interests of small businesses and farmers in being able to ensure that their suppliers and customers are competitive. But that's also crucially important for customers more generally. Competition policy matters. I'm a huge believer in it, and I have been for a very long time. Indeed, it was the focus of my postgraduate thesis. I didn't write a long tome on Paul Keating; I wrote a tome on competition policy. I have, for decades, believed that the best regulator of any industry is an empowered customer. There is no better regulator of any industry than an absolutely empowered customer who is able to say to their supplier, 'Look, I want a better deal.' I'll tell you what—it works. We will be supporting this legislation, and I will work with the relevant minister to make sure this legislation comes through in an appropriate form. In line with the comments I have already made, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the former Coalition government delivered strong competition policy for consumers, including: (a) the Default Market Offer; (b) establishing the Food & Grocery Code of Conduct; (c) legislating to address Energy Market Misconduct; and (d) establishing the Payment Times Reporting Framework; (2) that the former Coalition government delivered significant support for Australia's 3.7 million small and medium businesses, including: (a) reducing the small business company tax rate; (b) extending the Instant Asset Write Off; and (c) establishing the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; (3) that the best way to give a fair go to consumers and small business is to manage the economy well and bring down inflation; and (4) the government is failing on both counts, with falling productivity, stubbornly high domestic inflation, and collapsing real wages for working households". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hogan 218019 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 51

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 51 17:08 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Imagine having the power to fix the housing and rental crisis but deciding not to use it and instead using the power of government to make it worse. That is what Labor is doing now. Imagine having the power to help every renter who is saving up a deposit to buy a home only to find that, by the time it comes to buy or to the auction, house prices have gone up so much they have to save even more. Imagine having the power to help every first homebuyer who turns up to an auction only to find that they're outbid by an investor who's getting a government subsidy. Imagine having that power and deciding not to use it, but instead deciding to use the power of government to say, 'If you've already got four homes, we will help you with a big fat cheque to go and buy your fifth, your sixth, your seventh or your eighth'—because that is what this Labor Party is doing with the power of government. Labor is making the housing and rental crisis worse. Labor is backing unlimited rent rises, saying that there should be no limit on how much rents can go up. Labor are saying to every renter and first home buyer who is struggling to find an affordable place to live that they would rather back the wealthy property investor who turns up at an auction to go and buy multiple properties even as some people are struggling to get their first. That is what this government is doing. As a result, it is pushing people to breaking point. I talked about how Labor's plan, which this bill is based on, involves helping wealthy property investors. I want to take a moment to explain how this scheme, supported by Labor and costing the public billions, works. At the moment, if a wealthy property investor with multiple properties turns up at an auction where there are first home buyers who've scraped and saved for a deposit, that wealthy property investor has an advantage. They have a big fat cheque from the Labor government sitting in their pocket. How does that work? It work like this. The first home buyer will bid at the auction as much as they are able to afford, as much as they have been able to save up for a deposit plus whatever they hope that they are going to be able to repay. The wealthy property investor, however, turns up at that auction and, as the first home buyer puts their hand up to bid, the wealthy property investor can outbid them time after time, knowing that no matter how high the price goes they will be able to write off any losses they make as a tax break. In other words, they can pay as much they want for the property, much more than the first home buyer is able to afford, knowing that when they go and rent it out if they made a loss they can write that off on their tax and get a tax break. The first home buyer can't do that, but the wealthy property investor can. It's not only that; it gets worse. They know that, thanks to Labor, in a few years time, or whenever they want to, they can sell the property and they only have to pay half the tax on it. They'll get a capital gains tax discount. But someone who has made their money through working, after they've paid the cost of their massive HECS debt that has gone up thanks to Labor, after what's available having paid extraordinary grocery bills that the government won't rein in and having dealt with massive rising costs of living, doesn't get to write off the cost of the payment on their mortgage or the payment on their rent as a tax break. They have to pay the same amount of tax on their taxable income that everyone else in the country has to. Because the tax comes out before you have even met those expenditures, the tax comes out at the start, you don't get a choice. Your employer takes the tax out. You have to pay your tax. But if you have managed to make your money out of buying and selling and flipping properties, having got a nice tax break along the way, you then get another tax break thanks to Labor. This is why, in large part, our property market is so turbocharged. The first home buyer who's struggling to get in has to scrimp and save, but they'll be competing against a wealthy property investor who knows, firstly, they can push up the price as much they want knowing that they can write off any loss as a tax dodge and, secondly, when it comes time to sell the property they'll get another tax break. The system is stacked against first home buyers and renters, and Labor is backing it. It is costing the budget. It's $15 billion going on these kinds of tax breaks—negative gearing and capital gains tax. If you add up all the other tax breaks that these wealthy property investors get, you are looking at close to $40 billion. Renters don't get that. First home buyers don't get that. The money is going to those who've already got multiple properties to go and buy even more. That is Labor's answer to the housing crisis. Then they say, 'It's okay. We're going to bring a bill to parliament to fix it,' and it continues this system of rorts that is stacked against first home buyers and renters. Labor needs to wake up. The housing crisis and the rental crisis are breaking people. They are breaking people, and Labor is pushing rents and house prices up. Labor is backing unlimited rent rises and billions in handouts to wealthy property investors that are driving mortgages and house prices up and up and up. Labor say they want to address this, but here we are, a couple of years into their government, and Labor come along and say: 'This is the silver bullet that will fix it. This is our whole answer to the housing crisis.' It's a bill that maintains all of those wealthy tax breaks for property investors and that helps push up prices and leave 99.8 per cent of renters worse off. Labor comes in with a bill that is aimed at pushing up prices and continuing to give tax handouts to wealthy property investors. The system at the moment is stacked against first home buyers and renters. The Greens will fight for first home buyers and renters while Labor fights for wealthy property investors. Seventy-five per cent of the members of the government have got these investment properties. The Greens are here to fight and to end these rorts that the property class are enjoying because the first home buyers and renters are suffering. You see it every day and every week as first home buyers turn up to auctions, only to be outbid by a wealthy property investor who's got a big fat cheque in their pocket thanks to Labor. You see that every day, but what we also hear is parents who are saying they are worried that their kids will never be able to own a home in this wealthy country of ours that is Australia, even if they do the right thing. You have first home buyers and renters who say, 'I've done the right thing.' They went to TAFE. They went to university. They've studied hard. They've worked hard. They've got a good job. They've got an income. They might even have a partner who's got a good income as well. They're doing all the right things and still under Labor they can't find an affordable place to live, because Labor backs unlimited rent rises and skyrocketing house prices. What does Labor say to all of those people who've done the right thing and done everything that they were asked to do? Labor says, 'We're going to spend between $15 billion and $40 billion helping the wealthy property investors who've already got multiple properties to go and buy even more.' That is Labor's answer to the people who are doing all the right things and that is why people are becoming increasingly angry with this government that has got enormous power, including the power to fix the housing and rental crisis. Instead Labor uses its power to make the housing and rental crisis worse. I can't sit here in this parliament, see Labor come and say, 'This is our answer to the housing crisis: a bill that's going to push up housing prices, leave 99.8 per cent of renters worse off and continue to give billions of dollars in handouts to wealthy property investors,' and back it. That is not good enough. That does not get our support. Labor may continue fighting for wealthy property investors, but the Greens are going to fight for first home buyers and renters. We cannot support this policy that leaves people worse off while continuing to slip a big fat cheque into the pockets of people who've already got multiple properties. These massive handouts from Labor to wealthy property investors are denying millions of renters the chance to buy their own home. That cannot be supported. These policies from the government were cooked up by a small-target opposition when they were running around not offering an alternative to Scott Morrison's prime ministership and government but instead trying to be the smallest of small targets, coming up with bandaid solutions that are all about being seen to do something to address the housing crisis rather than actually doing something. So they dreamt up this policy while they were trying to be a small-target opposition. But the housing crisis has only got worse under Labor. Labor's housing and rental crisis is now breaking people; it is much worse now than it was even a couple of years ago. If the government can change their position on stage 3 tax cuts, under pressure from the Greens, because of changed economic circumstances and the growing crisis, then they can change their position on these tax handouts to the wealthy property investors as well. If Labor can change their position on stage 3 tax cuts, under pressure from the Greens, because of changed economic circumstances, then they can change their position on giving tax handouts to wealthy property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy their own home. We are saying very clearly to Labor: if you want our support, then start tackling capital gains tax and negative-gearing concessions, which are pushing homes out of the reach of millions of renters, cap and freeze rents, because that will give people the breathing space to deal with Labor's housing crisis, and build more public housing. You've got the power of government. Use it to make people's lives better; don't use it, Labor, to advantage wealthy property investors who've already got four, five, six, seven or eight properties. They don't need a government subsidy. It's first home buyers and renters who need help. The more that Labor continues down this road of backing the wealthy property investors and denying millions of renters the chance to buy their own home, the angrier people are going to get. We are offering you our support as the Greens if you're willing to tackle the causes of the housing crisis and not just come in here with policies that actually leave people worse off and that are about being seen to do something rather than actually doing something—because people can see through you, Labor. They can see that you're just being seen to do something rather than actually doing something. These small-target policies won't cut it anymore. Small-target government cannot fix Australia's big problems like the housing and rental crisis. I say this: if you don't use this opportunity in the House, then we won't be supporting this bill in the House. You've got the chance, before it goes to the Senate, to start tackling these big issues of tax handouts to the wealthy, building more public housing and capping and freezing rents. But, if you choose not to, Labor—if you make 2024 the year that you continue backing wealthy property investors—then the anger from renters and first home buyers is going to continue to grow. I hope that Labor comes to its senses and decides to tackle the housing crisis this year by working with the Greens. If it doesn't, don't be surprised if renters make their voice heard at the next election and take it out on Labor at the ballot box because Labor's backing wealthy property investors while the Greens are backing renters and first home buyers. 17:23 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Every so often in this place, there come moments when we have an ability to define what Australia is all about—or the future of Australia, really, for better or worse. We sit here quite uniquely privileged to help shape the future of our nation; I think that's why we're all here. I can't think of more pressing issues for Australians than the cost of living and housing. Everywhere I go in my electorate of Wills, people share their experiences of housing becoming more and more out of reach, and that's been the case for a number of years. This is an issue for everyone, including younger Australians, who feel completely locked out of the housing market—and I agree with them. For 10 years the coalition government sat on the treasury bench over there and allowed the issue of housing to, effectively, fester, ignoring the pleas for help and assistance from younger generations of Australians. Today, the Albanese Labor government are actually answering the call to action and we're taking action. Fundamentally, housing is the foundational aspect of building a better life. It's the basis on which people can realise their full potential and an issue close to my heart. I think many people here would share that as well. My own story is one that is probably emblematic of the old Australian dream of homeownership. I'm the son of migrant parents. I remember growing up in a housing commission flat. Admittedly it was a little rough, but I also remember the sense of gratitude that I had. It was really the successive state and federal Labor governments—particularly the Hawke Labor government at the time—and their policies that gave my family the safety, the security and the sense of belonging through which we were able to access public housing and good education. These policies made a huge difference. Those housing policies gave my family and me a place to call home. So, yes, I'm a houso and proud of that, and the son of migrants parents and proud of that. Through their hard work, they were able to save up enough to move out of the housing commission and buy their own home. Now, in the early eighties, when they did that, the average house price was around 3.3 times an Australian's annual income. Today the average house price is about 10 times or more the average income, so there's a huge disparity there. Having been a beneficiary of governments getting housing policy right, that kind of upbringing informs my perspective on housing policy today. The view is quite simple. The starting point for me as a first principle is that housing is a human right. Like many, I want housing to be not a distant dream but a reality for Australians. In many ways, in my electorate of Wills that is indicative of the aspiration that many Australians have. We know that many rent. We know that many have mortgages and are under pressure. But everyone in the community wants to realise their full potential as well. People in my community of Wills regularly contact me and outline the immense housing stresses they face. While in our office we do our best to help support people, whether they need assistance with the housing authority or housing commission to get better accommodation or whether they need emergency accommodation. We do that work, and I know many MPs do the same type of work. The reality, though, is this: focusing on reform and long-term solutions is really the only way you're going to make big changes and help Australia move forward on this issue. Long-term focus and structural reform will deliver that lasting benefit to millions of people who need it most, just as it did some 45 to 50 years ago, when I first started out. If you look back that far in history, you see that the 1940s to the 1970s was really the era of the so-called Australian dream of homeownership, though back in the eighties and nineties, house prices were still very much lower than they are today, as I said. Buyers would borrow less, save smaller deposits and spend less of their overall income on housing. Today owning a home outright has dropped by 10 per cent and rental stress is worsening. For young people, homeownership is harder than ever before. Rental stress is a significant issue, particularly for young Australians, single-parent families, low-wage workers and older Australians on fixed incomes. Many young people are facing rent increase after rent increase, making it unaffordable to make ends meet, let alone save for a house deposit. This also includes essential workers: nurses, aged-care workers, early educators, police, ambos and those in hospitality. They are effectively priced out of the rental market, particularly in inner-city areas. Some workers spend half to two-thirds of their income on rent. They tend to have to commute long distances from their homes to the hospitals, stations or other places of work. These are the same essential workers who with such bravery and dedication helped us get through the pandemic. Around one million renters across the country live in homes that are unsafe for their health as well. This is an important issue in this debate, but they're afraid to speak up and request repairs, in case they get evicted. As many in this place know, single women over 55 are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. These are often women who were more likely to have taken on family or carer responsibilities, working casual or part-time roles, and have less or no super to fall back on. It is unacceptable that, in a country endowed with wealth and opportunity, many of our fellow Australians have nowhere to call home. We cannot continue to let this happen. We can't simply accept this reality that 70 per cent of young people believe they will never own their own home, which is the polling that suggests that lack of belief. We cannot forfeit responsibility for future generations, who are demanding that we act. This is a place where we debate politics, and we can't let the previous government have a free pass on the failures over nine years which oversaw an increase in housing construction costs of some 46 per cent. Former prime minister Morrison said he didn't believe in a legacy. Well, he left a legacy of higher house prices, higher rents and greater housing stress, a legacy that's left many Australians unable to buy their own home. Equally, we have the Greens political party pushing for policies that don't and actually can't work. They've been preaching about a rent freeze, as we heard from the previous speaker. I've got some news for the previous speaker: it doesn't actually work. The data from international jurisdictions shows that for properties under rent controls there were increases in price and for properties not under rent controls there was ghettoisation and deterioration. This is just hard data and evidence that exists. So, basically, you've got the Greens party, who are free to play politics in this place and to grandstand, incomprehensibly when it comes to this bill voting with the coalition against the Help to Buy scheme. They are voting against the Help to Buy scheme for political gain and as political grandstanding. It's remarkable. In contrast, the Albanese Labor government is focused on the substance of these policies. To make a genuine difference to people's lives is what we are doing this for. What is the substance of the bill that the Greens political party and the coalition parties are voting against? We just heard from the previous speaker that they are not going to support it. That's out of their own mouth. This bill presents an actual unmistakeable opportunity to reverse the decade of decline in serious housing policy. It's an opportunity the House and the Senate should take and must take. The Help to Buy scheme fulfils Labor's election commitment to support up to 40,000 Australian families and households to purchase a home of their own. This will mean the government will support eligible homebuyers with an equity of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes. This policy will not only provide a foot in the door for Australians with smaller savings but also provide long-term relief for Australians who are part of the scheme. Our broad housing agenda, as the minister outlined, is directly addressing the issue of supply. It is all about supply, supply, supply. The government has already helped more than 80,000 Australians into homeownership and, thanks to this legislation, many more Australians will have the opportunity to afford their own home. Over the next five years, we will build 1.2 million new homes to increase supply. Importantly, this policy also has cost-of-living assistance built into it. As a result of the equity stake the government will have in this scheme, first home buyers will be able to have a smaller deposit, a minimum of two per cent, and will have lower ongoing repayments while they participate in the scheme. In addition, the Help to Buy legislation will help eligible new homeowners save hundreds of dollars a month on their mortgages. This is an example of long-term relief for a problem that is decades old. It's real. It will matter to these people. These are real people. It will make a real difference to their lives every single day. This is on top of the many initiatives our housing minister has already been spearheading. We have heard from previous speakers that apparently this is suddenly supposed to be a silver bullet. I will say that there is a lot more ammo in the chamber. There are a lot of policies that we have actually announced and started to implement over the last year and a half, such as bolstering renters' rights and providing financial support to those doing it tough. We've increased the Commonwealth rental assistance by the largest amount in 30 years—15 per cent—to provide cost-of-living assistance to renters experiencing financial stress. In addition, our government has been working extremely hard with states and territories on a renters' rights charter. This includes nationally consistent policies on genuine grounds for eviction, allowing security changes without landlord permission, making rental applications easier, protecting personal information and much, much more. Action on renters' rights is a priority for the government. We don't hide our ambition to ensure that in this country homeownership is within reach of any Aussie who aspires to it. When I was reflecting on my remarks prior to this debate, I thought of many of my constituents that I have spoken to about this issue. I thought particularly of one woman. Her name is Mary. She spoke to me at a community event. She talked of the stresses that are synonymous with temporary accommodation and knowing that she is at risk of homelessness. I thought of Ismael and Zali, who told me recently that, even with both of them working, nearly all their income goes to child care and rent. They budget and they try not to eat out too much, but they still feel that it's impossible to have much left in terms of their savings. They also don't see themselves becoming homeowners in their lifetime. They're among that 70 per cent that have lost faith in the ability to do that. So there's an overwhelming sense from them about the hopelessness of it. I think of Sandra, who's in her 50s, and her husband, who's 60 and working full time. Sandra has had to stop working recently because of rheumatoid arthritis and other health conditions. Both Sandra and her husband have never been able to save enough for a deposit to buy a home of their own. They've always lived in rentals and worried about how they will live as they age. Sandra said they would do anything to have a secure home to live in until they don't need it anymore. She said that they don't care if the government has equity in the home. That's what she said to me. She said: 'I'll take it. If this is going to change what I've experienced over decades, I will take that.' They were very grateful for and appreciative of that change. When we're talking about this, how can it be that here in Australia, blessed as we are with prosperity and wealth, we allow a scenario to develop in which a family with both parents in work, or two adults who both worked into their 50s, regard it as impossible to ever own a home? This has to change. This is fundamentally not acceptable. That's why we're passing this bill in this place. I would call on those who are seeking to oppose it or who have said that they would oppose it to think of those people for whom this would make a difference in their lives. Think of the people who will actually have an enormous change to their lives because of the impacts that this legislation will have on them, to allow them to get into that homeownership—the 40,000 Australians whose lives it will change for the better. Think about those people. When all of us come to this chamber, we have a purpose. We have a purpose to make a difference to people's lives—to make the lives of Australians better. I don't think it's too idealistic to say that I want an Australia where housing is a fundamental human right, and we can start with helping people as much as we can to get into homeownership. This is what this bill is about. Rather than grandstanding and politicising the issue, rather than jumping up and down, trying to get the meme and the photo opportunity and all the rest of it, this is about a piece of legislation that will change 40,000 lives for the better and get them into homeownership. An Australia I want is one where housing is affordable, where housing is accessible and where young people can buy a home. Inheritance can't be the only way that Australians finally get to experience homeownership. As I stated at the beginning of this speech, every so often we're presented with the policies that provide us with an opportunity to fundamentally address a problem in a way which will shape the future of the country. We've passed a lot of bills in this place in the last year and a half on housing, whether it's the HAFF, the Help to Buy Scheme or all the other things that I've gone through in my remarks. And we've seen, consistently, opposition from the coalition and from the Greens political party. The HAFF was one example, and they finally changed their mind on that. Every so often, issues of such profound magnitude arise, and it's up to us to address them. It's up to us to make that difference, and this is one of them. This bill is one of them—a moment that defines the future of the people in our nation and actually makes a difference to their lives. This government is taking serious action to do that, to make it easier for Australians to own their very own home. I call on those who are saying that they will oppose this to think again about the people that this will impact and the lives that will be made better because of this legislation. 17:38 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The government are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and crush your hope that they are capable of doing anything real or substantial to tackle the housing crisis. What do we make of a parliament and a government in 2024—with millions of people struggling to pay the rent or struggling to pay their mortgages, giving up on ever being able to buy a home—when the one piece of housing legislation that the government brings to this parliament, the Help to Buy Bill 2023, is going to screw over 99.8 per cent of renters? They're going to set up a sick lottery. If you're a renter watching at home right now and you're thinking, 'Oh, I'd love to be able to buy a home,' guess what? The government's only solution this year is one where you spin a wheel and, 99.8 per cent of the time, you lose. The gall of this government to get up and say that it cares about people suffering at the moment and about people struggling to pay their rent, when 75 per cent of the members of this government own investment properties! It's quite incredible. They are also supporting massive tax handouts for property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance ever to buy a home. One of the remarkable things we heard from the housing minister, which she said repeatedly, was: 'Our ambitious housing reform agenda is working across the board.' Tell that to the renters right now who are one rent increase away from eviction. Rents, by the way, are increasing at almost double the rate of wages. Tell that to the pensioner who emailed our office and said: 'I just copped two $50-a-week increases, six months apart, and now I'm on $100 a week. That's what I'm trying to survive on now, after rent.' Tell them that the housing agenda is working across the board. Again, the housing minister says, 'Our ambitious housing reform agenda is working across the board.' Tell that to the single mum I doorknocked over the weekend, who has copped another massive rent increase. She said to me, 'I'm skipping meals at the moment because I can't afford the rent and I really want to be able to afford my baby's nappy rash cream.' This is such a wealthy country, but it's so clear that the government wants to crush people's expectations that it's capable of doing anything other than tinkering around the edges. I'll tell you what those opposite are capable of doing. They are capable of dishing out $39 billion a year in tax handouts for property investors. They are capable of giving tax handouts to property developers to build to rent. I'll tell you about the latest build-to-rent project that the government supports down in Melbourne: one-third of the tenants were evicted by the private property developer, and the apartments were re-advertised with jacked up rents. Can anyone guess who this government appointed to the head of its National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, the body that's meant to advise the government on dealing with the housing crisis? It's the outgoing CEO of Mirvac, one of the largest property developers in this country. Let's talk about Mirvac for a moment. They also did a build-to-rent project. They advertised it in Sydney with rents that were 20 per cent above market rent. I'll tell you who the government's solution to the housing crisis is being applauded by. The Property Council—the head of the property developers in Australia—are really happy with the government's response. The banks are really happy with the government's response. The minister says, 'This ambitious housing reform agenda is working across the board.' I bet who it's really working for right now is the Commonwealth Bank, who just reported a record $10 billion profit. It is working for property developers, who get extra handouts from the government. It is working for the 75 per cent of Labor members over there who are property investors, who benefit from the massive tax handouts that property investors get, which are driving up house prices in this country and screwing over millions of people. Let's be very clear: we just had a Labor member in this place talking about how, post World War II, there was a really big improvement in housing affordability. There were three things happening then that this government could do right now. They have the power to do it, and if they tell you they don't they are lying to you. Firstly, cap and freeze rent increases. Right now, rents are increasing at close to double the rate of wages. The only way to stop that right now and give people relief is by putting a cap and a freeze on rent increases. Secondly, we could phase out the massive tax handouts for property investors. This is what those tax handouts mean. You go to an auction. You've been saving for years. You've been making sacrifices and giving up meals just to save up enough for a deposit. You go to the auction, and there's a property investor there, with thousands of dollars of tax handouts from this Labor government in their pocket. They bid up the price of the house and you get screwed. I speak to wealthy parents in my electorate who say, 'My kid will never be able to buy a home.' Finally, if they phased out those tax handouts for property investors, they could spend billions of dollars building public housing. Do you know how many public homes this country could build if we phased out those massive tax handouts? Half a million homes. That would come close to ending the shortfall of public housing in this country. Think about the millions of lives that we could change right now in this place if this government had the guts to stand up to the banks, the property developers and the massive property investors, who are the main beneficiaries of this broken housing system. Let's talk about this Help to Buy scheme that the government loves to talk about. You'll notice that they say, 'This is a scheme that's going to help people to buy a house.' They conveniently always forget to mention that it will only help 0.2 per cent of renters every year. For the other 99.8 per cent of renters, it will drive up the cost of housing. Don't ask the Greens, though. Here are two different senior economists—two radical lefties, by the way. One is Saul Eslake, former ANZ chief economist and notable radical leftie. Commenting on the New South Wales shared-equity scheme, he said, 'Anything that allows first home buyers to pay more for housing than they otherwise would will result in higher house prices and, as a result, lower homeownership rates.' Another radical lefty, AMP chief economist Shane Oliver, echoed this, arguing that bringing forward demand for housing risks worsening the crisis. The Prime Minister said, 'The New South Wales shared equity scheme is working really well.' Well, last year there were 3,000 places in that shared equity scheme. Can anyone take a guess at how many people took advantage of it? One hundred and seventy-two. That is a 95 per cent fail rate. It's almost comical. It would be comical if it were not for the fact that this government has the power to lift millions of people out of rental and housing stress and is instead lying to people. They get up and they say, 'We're about caring about people being able to afford a home,' but they absolutely know that this scheme will not lift the millions of people who are in desperate need of help right now out of housing and rental stress. Over the last 10 years, house prices in Australia have doubled. On average, every year after these massive tax handouts for property investors were introduced by John Howard—a John Howard policy, by the way, that now the Labor Party supports; when people say they can't tell the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party these days, God only knows why—house prices on average have gone up three times faster than wages every single year. Now we have a situation where people are telling us, 'We can't afford the rent,' and the government say, 'We're going to lock in unlimited rent increases.' We have a situation where people are saying, 'I can't afford a home,' and the government are introducing a bill to drive up house prices even faster. People are saying, 'I'm waiting 10 years to get into a public home,' and the government are saying, 'No more money for public housing.' They wonder why people are upset and frustrated. I think members of this government are missing a beat. I don't think they understand how angry, disappointed and frustrated people are right now. The only asset this government has is that people have low expectations about what politics can achieve. That is why I think the government repeatedly comes out and says: 'No, we can't do that. No, we can't change those tax handouts, even though they were only introduced by Howard just after 2000 with the capital gains tax discount.' They will come out and say, 'No, we can't build any more public housing,' even though housing construction starts right now are at a 10-year low. This is what's remarkable about the government. The government will say, 'There are not construction materials or workers to build any more public housing,' even though there are a lot of materials and workers sitting idle because they have overseen a housing system that, when they talk about supply, has reached a 10-year low. We could put that construction material and those workers to work building thousands and thousands of new public homes, which could be built, by the way, with money we save from no longer giving massive property investors huge tax handouts. But the government say, 'No, we're not going to be able to do that.' This is despite the fact that, as they know, post World War II was the only time in Australian history where we saw big increases in home ownership, when we capped and froze rents. They also know that they could coordinate that through national cabinet, and yet they refuse. The reasons they refuse are—because, really, when it comes down to it, who does this government act in the interests of?—property investors, the banks and property developers. How do you know that they do that? Don't look at what they say; look at what they do: unlimited rent increases, refusing to build any more public housing, protecting tax handouts for massive property investors and trying to ram a bill through this House, a bill which even conservative economists say will drive up the price of housing. It's genuinely remarkable. What's really frustrating is one of the lies they try to tell: 'Give us some time'— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The Member for Griffith will withdraw that remark. Dr Aly 13050 The member has continually made aspersions on the government that are unparliamentary, and he should withdraw. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 I withdraw. One of the things that the government likes to say that is patently not true is that they really care about tackling this housing crisis. What has become clear as well is that they also like to tell people, 'Give us time.' It's easy for members of the government to say, 'Give us time,' when 75 per cent of them own property investments. It's easy for members of the government to say, 'Give us time,' when, at minimum, they're earning $200,000 a year. How long does the single mum one rent increase away from eviction have to wait? How long does the person who has been waiting 10 years to get into a public home have to wait? How long does the couple, who have been spending years trying to save up for a home only to find that house prices have increased so fast the deposit isn't enough anymore, have to wait? Why is it that in this country, in this parliament, it is always the people doing it tough who have to wait the longest? And why is it that, in this country, property developers, banks and property investors don't even have to wait a day? They don't have to wait a day. I think people in this country are sick and tired of a political system so stacked in favour of property investors, banks and property developers. They can see it with their own eyes. They can see it in the homes that property developers leave vacant to help drive up the price of housing. They can see it in the fact that the government is dishing out $39 billion a year to property investors while refusing to spend a single extra cent on public housing. They can see it in the fact that their children are giving up on ever being able to buy a home. They can see it in the fact that tents are appearing in parks across this country. They can see it in the fact that record numbers of homeless people are being turned away from homelessness services because they don't have enough money to help people or enough homes to put them in—in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Frankly, the entire political class should be ashamed that we have overseen a system in this country where, at the same time as property investors get billions of dollars in tax handouts, this government claims it doesn't have enough money for public housing, it can't do anything about unlimited rent increases and it's not going to touch massive tax handouts for property investors. The bottom line is this. There are five million renters in this country, and there are millions more people—like parents of those renters—right now who know that this country is manifestly unfair and stacked against them, and they are getting sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens. Come the next election, I think this government is going to be in for a rude shock when it realises it can no longer keep putting the interests of property developers, property moguls and banks ahead of renters, first home buyers and mortgage holders. I think people are getting pretty sick and tired of it. If you thought what happened in Brisbane in 2022 was an arbitrary thing, if you thought that, when we won Griffith, Brisbane and Ryan and when we saw massive swings to the Greens, it was just a one-off, wait till you see what happens when you go to an election and you say your platform is unlimited rent increases for renters, no more money for public housing and locking in tax handouts for property investors. When the only bill this parliament has to deal with the housing crisis this year is one that will screw over 99.8 per cent of renters and drive up house prices, let's see what happens at the next election, because I reckon people are going to be pretty fed up. 17:52 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I can definitely say that the shrill hysteria of the Greens is not going to fix the housing crisis, but supply will, and that is our sole focus. We are focused on supply because supply has been declining in this country. We have a constrained pool of housing and an increasing number of people who are seeking homeownership, and we just do not have enough homes for those people. So the answer is actually to build, and to reduce and address the barriers to building, more homes across this country—in the regions, in the cities and in our metropolitan areas. Unlike the Greens political party, we are not here to carve up this country and divide it. We have a mission, and our mission is to address the crisis of homeownership right throughout this nation—a crisis that was born in the decade of neglect under the Liberal Party. They had nine years, nearly a decade, to fix this problem, and what did they do? They simply vacated the space. In fact, the number of dwellings that were built peaked in 2016, and they've been declining ever since. The Liberal Party could have pulled the handbrake. They could have sat down with the state governments and actually worked towards finding a solution, but instead they walked away. They washed their hands of the problem. They pointed to the states and they said, 'It's your problem; you deal with it.' And when we came to power we found that, in the aftermath of the pandemic, housing occupancy patterns have changed. People are choosing to live in single-occupancy homes and, as a result, we actually need more homes. There's only one solution to all of this. When you cut through all the noise and the hysteria and the rage—or the faux rage, or whatever it is—and the finger-pointing, the only answer is supply, and that is what the Albanese Labor government is focused on. Indeed, we are pumping in $25 billion over the next 10 years to improve housing in this country. It is the sole focus because we understand housing is foundational. It is foundational to security, and security is foundational to prosperity. You cannot prosper in life, you cannot lay down roots and you cannot grow and thrive unless you have a roof over your head. Rents, we understand, are increasingly eating up disposable income. Many Australians are looking to buy. In the 12 months to January 2024, rents on apartments increased in Melbourne by 15 per cent, in Armadale by 15 per cent, Prahran by 21 per cent and in South Yarra by 22 per cent. According to the Grattan Institute's 2022 The great Australian nightmare report, between 1981 and 2021 home ownership rates for 25- to 34-year-olds in the two lowest quintiles by household income, meaning these were lower-income earners, fell from 57 per cent to 28 per cent. Similarly for 45- to 54-year-olds in the same two quintiles, meaning lower-income earners, home ownership rates also declined from 71 per cent to 53 per cent. From the same report, home ownership is also falling amongst poorer, older Australians. Among the poorest 40 per cent of 45- to 54-year-olds, just 53 per cent own their homes today, down from 71 per cent four decades ago. In the past few decades, house prices have skyrocketed. While average full-time earnings have doubled over the past half-century, house prices have quadrupled. Consequently, it takes much longer today to save for a deposit. That's a fact. In the early 1990s it would take the average Australian about seven years to save a 20 per cent deposit for a typical dwelling. Now it takes almost 12 years. We want to make home ownership easier, we want to make it a reality and we have the tools to do so. The Help to Buy scheme is a plank in the Albanese government's raft of reforms aimed at addressing housing affordability. It directly addresses the time it takes to save for a deposit and the high cost of repayments as a proportion of your income. Help to Buy could make home ownership a reality with as little as a two per cent deposit. As a shared equity scheme, Help to Buy will bring home ownership back into reach for 40,000 Australian households—10,000 per year over the next four years. The government will support eligible homebuyers with an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes which are moderately priced. In Higgins that means any home below $850,000. Home owners will need a minimum of a two per cent deposit to participate in the scheme, greatly reducing the burden of scrimping and saving. And you will have lower ongoing mortgage repayments. The financial risks and benefits are shared between the home owner and the Commonwealth. To be clear, the government will not be a co-owner of the property. Rather, the government will have a second mortgage over the property. This means that home buyers will not have to pay rent or interest to the government. Rather, the government will take its share of the profits when the home is sold. In other words, if the government contributes 30 per cent of the purchase price, it will receive 30 per cent of the sale price when the house is sold. Together, these measures will provide long-term relief. So who can apply? You have to be an Australian citizen who is at least 18 years of age, yearly income must be $90,000 or less for individuals or $120,000 or less for couples, so we are targeting this towards people on the lower- and middle-income ends of the spectrum. This cap is lower than the Home Guarantee Scheme, as it is designed to support that cohort of people. You must live in the purchased home and you must not currently own any other land or property in Australia or overseas, but it certainly doesn't have to be your first home. While the required minimum is a two per cent deposit of the home price, the purchaser must be able to finance the remainder of the loan. You also have to prove that you can pay all the associated upfront costs, which are considerable and are barriers to home ownership. They include stamp duty, which is enacted by the states, along with legal fees and bank fees. You will also be responsible for ongoing costs associated with the property such as rates, strata and electricity bills. Each state's allocation will be available to eligible residents on a first come, first served basis, so you have to apply quickly. You've got to get your ducks in order and get your financing sorted out. Details such as whether participants are able to renovate their homes—they can—and the situation when a home is sold are already in place. At National Cabinet in August last year all states agreed to progress Help to Buy so that the scheme can run nationally. In other words, the states are ready and waiting. They are ready to press the go button on this, provided that we get support in the parliament. Right now, the Greens have formed yet another unholy alliance with the coalition, blocking this scheme from coming into practice while Australians are living in tent cities, while we have young people desperate for home ownership, who are spinning their wheels renting. This kind of behaviour is actually unconscionable. Housing ministers from across the country have recommitted to this agreement. This means that the only potential barriers to the passage of the scheme sit on the crossbench and among the Libs. We on this side of the House have rejected the divisive federal-state antics that were the signature of the wasted decade under the Liberals because the scale of the problem is too great. Help to Buy is one aspect of the Albanese government's comprehensive response to the housing affordability crisis. Ours is a multipronged approach that addresses the huge challenges facing renters in finding accommodation and the high cost of rents, shortages of social housing as well as barriers to homeownership. Our broad housing agenda is squarely focused on supply, and it includes a plethora of measures. The Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund aimed at building 30,000 social and affordable homes, has now been stood up. Note, however, that this was delayed by six months due to, again, another unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Greens. It seems that the two parties of the extremes have merged and are basically now a barrier to homeownership and home supply in this country. The National Housing Accord commits us, in partnership with the states and industry, including super funds and construction, to build a million homes over five years. We have a new national target to build 1.2 million well-located homes. We've launched the $3 billion New Homes Bonus and the $500 million Housing Support Program There's the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver around 4,000 new social homes across Australia. This includes a new build of social, affordable and market rentals in Bangs Street, Prahran, in my electorate, which I have visited with Premier Jacinta Allan and our housing minister, Julie Collins. There were fantastic homes—new, warm, comfortable, safe. An investment of an additional $1 billion in the National Housing Infrastructure Facility has been made to support more homes. Up to $575 million in funding has already been unlocked, and homes are being built with this money. We've increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, the largest increase in more than 30 years. I could go on and on because there are another six or seven measures we have included. One, notably, is that we expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has already helped 100,000 people across Australia into homeownership, and we relaxed some of the eligibility criteria around the scheme, allowing parents, relatives or legal guardians to assist with the purchase of homes. The housing crisis will take time to solve, and building more homes is the only answer to declining affordability and rising rents. Increasing supply means more construction workers, materials, industry expertise and cutting red tape. Rather than vilifying property developers, we recognise that property developers are absolutely needed to address this crisis, because this is of a scale that governments cannot spend their way through. Twenty-five billion dollars is a lot of money, but we do need the private sector in order to build those apartments as quickly as possible, and we do need the states to step up and cut the red tape so that we can get these homes built fast. Workforce is a pressing issue, and that's where our free TAFE courses for urgent skills, like construction, kick in. I need young people who may be looking for career options to check out the offerings at TAFE. We are fortunate to have Holmesglen TAFE on our doorstep, a fantastic place of learning linked to career pathways in well-paid, secure jobs. By directly addressing the problems of saving for a deposit and the cost of repayments, the Help to Buy scheme will be life-changing for thousands of Australians who have been locked out of the security and stability of homeownership. We are in a housing emergency, and I know one thing about managing emergencies: you don't just do one thing; you do everything. You come at the problem from multiple directions to rescue the patient. Right now we are in a housing crisis, and our multipronged strategy, which is broad based and comes at this problem from every angle, addressing skills, supply chain, red tape and capital, is the way to solve the problem, not by carving up Australia and dividing it and pitting one generation against the other. I commend this bill to the House. 18:04 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. You know, the word 'help' is interesting. When I got into federal politics, I was determined to make a difference. I wanted to stand up for the people of Dawson. I wanted to do my best for Australia, because I believe Australia is the best country in the world, and I just want to be able to make it that little bit better. That's what I'm here to do. But, for close to two years now, I've been watching the Albanese Labor government fail to do anything to help the hardworking Australians. In fact, what I've seen instead is that those opposite prefer to make it look like they're doing something. However, they're doing very little. Take this Help to Buy Bill, for example. This piece of legislation was a key election policy put forward by the Albanese Labor government back in 2022. The Albanese Labor government promised to deliver this Help to Buy scheme by 1 January 2023. But, like we've seen, this is just another broken promise in a long list of broken promises. That includes, remember, the promised $275 reduction in our power bills. What's happened with power? It's gone up over 20 per cent. But this wasn't a slip of the tongue. This promise was repeated 97 times. We've seen increased taxes. We've seen higher interest rates. Interest rates have gone up 12 times under the watch of those opposite. We've seen rent increases. What else have we seen? We've seen infrastructure cuts—cuts to dam funding, roads and just about anything. I don't know what those opposite have got against rural and regional Australia, but their policies certainly do nothing for us. Blind Freddy can see the promises made by the Albanese Labor government are worthless. The Prime Minister said, 'My word is my bond.' What a crock. It's now the end of February 2024, and this piece of unhelpful legislation has only just made its way to the House. It is clearly a long way from being delivered. What has the housing minister been doing? You could forgive the Australian people for asking what the Labor government and the housing minister have been doing. The fact is that this bill is only just arriving in the House over a year after it should have commenced. That's appalling. What have the Prime Minister and his government been doing? We can thank them for the Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. Tick! We can thank them for spending billions of dollars on a failed referendum during a cost-of-living crisis. Tick! We can thank them for the national housing crisis that's leaving so many Aussies displaced with nowhere to go, forcing them to sleep in tents, in their cars or even on the street. Tick! We can also thank them for failing to explain to the Australian public that this key election promise and piece of legislation requires state government approval to operate. This means that the Albanese Labor government has made yet another promise it can't necessarily keep. We can also thank those opposite for copying and pasting a scheme that already exists at state level and that is so unwanted by Australians that there are many places remaining in the state based schemes. For the piece de resistance, in true Labor government style, they have released a piece of proposed legislation so void of detail that everyone is left scratching their heads, with more questions than we've received answers. Here's what we do know. Right now, we have housing approvals and builds at record lows. Rents are skyrocketing. Vacancy rates are nosediving. House prices are at an all-time high, and the stock that is available is being snapped up before the house even hits the market. A year after the scheme should have started, we get this pitiful offering. It's embarrassing. It's nothing more than a box-ticking exercise so the Albanese Labor government can seen to be doing something, when really those opposite are doing nothing at all. The Help to Buy scheme is an incredibly limited and niche shared-equity product with only 40,000 places available. The details on how many of these places will be available in each state and territory are yet to be shared by the Labor government. The Help to Buy scheme would also mean that the Australian government would own up to 40 per cent of your family home, which is probably why these places are still available in each of the state based schemes. I know that in my electorate of Dawson people think of their home as their castle. It's where you spend your time. It's where you make your happiest moments. It's where you raise your children and watch them grow into adults. The purchase of your first home and the all-consuming feeling of pride that you get from standing in front of the 'Sold' sign and having your picture taken is a memory and a feeling that no-one ever forgets. I don't know a single person who wants the Australian government standing in that picture with them. I don't know anyone who wants to skip hand in hand with the Australian government down the path to the first front door that they have ever owned. I don't know of anyone. This policy beggars belief. Why would hardworking Aussies want the Australian government owning 40 per cent of something they have worked so hard for? I asked this question of a hardworking tradie last night, and the answer I got in return requires a language warning. I abide by the rules of the House, so I won't repeat it. The majority of Australians are just like this tradie. They don't want the Australian government having any part in owning their home. They don't want Prime Minister Albanese or Minister Julie Collins sitting around their kitchen table with them. They don't want those opposite sitting in their lounge room, watching TV with them after a long day, or helping them to get their kids ready for school in the morning. They don't want them hanging around during the reading of the will, with their bank details ready, waiting for their cut in the family home. The people of Australia don't want their children's inheritance to go to the Australian government. They want to know that their children and their children's children are going to be looked after. It can't be any simpler than that. They don't want the government there. After waiting for so long for the details of this bill, that's about all we know. For anyone interested in applying for the Help to Buy scheme, the very first question they would ask is, 'Am I eligible?' I could confidently say, 'I can't answer that question.' At this point, we shouldn't be left with wishy-washy details on what the eligibility criteria are. Those opposite need to give us the detail. Everyone remembers the purchase of their first home. Everyone remembers the feeling of starting their first round of home renovations. It is probably the best— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member will be heard in silence. Mr WILLCOX 286535 It is probably the best feeling in the world at the time, and, boy, is it exciting. Maybe they've have bought their dream home, but the garden wasn't up to standard. It doesn't even matter, because the excitement of starting that first landscaping project overrules everything. Amongst the excitement, though, this bill leaves the people of Australia with more questions than answers, such as: What do they do now if they only own 60 per cent of their home? Would they have to get approval to complete major works on their own property? Can they send the invoice of 40 per cent of the costs to the Prime Minister—who has now joined us? What about the landscaping? If you buy a house and you start to do some landscaping on it, are those costs going to be added? Do they have to be reimbursed? What about maintenance? What about the effort that you put in, if you plant trees, if you work on your whole property? Is that going to be part of this? What about natural disasters? Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Would members of the government please keep it down. Mr WILLCOX 286535 What happens in the north when cyclones come through? This scheme is targeted towards low- and middle-income earners. I know a few families living on low and middle incomes who wouldn't be able to afford the cost of repairs following a cyclone. With the cost of insurance for northern Australia at the moment, they would have to be extremely fortunate to even have insurance, let alone receive a payout for repairs. Let's say that, by some miracle, they can pass the cost on to the Prime Minister. The people of Australia could be left waiting over a year for the repair bills to be paid, just like they've waited over a year for this bill. It's disappointing that this bill is only being debated now, over a year after those opposite had promised it would have been implemented and started. There is so much detail that should be confidently given in answer to these questions so I can go back to the people of Dawson. Instead, we get the copied and pasted answer we've heard from this government the whole way along. 'It will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.' That's reassuring, eh? Let's look at the coalition record. The coalition brought in the Home Guarantee Scheme, which is now supporting one in three homebuyers. The Housing Guarantee Scheme consists of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. The coalition also brought in the First Home Super Saver Scheme and the homebuilder grant during the COVID pandemic and established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. All of these were designed and developed to empower every single person in Australia to be able to buy their first home with their own money, the money that they have worked hard for. A coalition government does not want a stake in your family home. A coalition government wants to empower the people of Australia to be able to purchase their own home with their own money. A coalition government wants every Australian to have the means to feel that sense of pride, that sense of accomplishment, that excitement when they step into their first home. A coalition government does not kick people out of their home if they earn over a wage cap. A coalition government doesn't sit there, waiting for 40 per cent of your profits after years of appreciation on the property after you sell it. A coalition government doesn't inflate prices by more than the subsidy values in areas where they are most needed, like we found in the UK when they introduced a scheme similar to the Help to Buy Bill. A coalition government empowers the people of Australia to enter the housing market knowing that they own their own house and the government cannot take it away from them. A coalition government empowers the people of Australia to invest in themselves. The Albanese Labor government is becoming the dodgiest property investor that Australia has ever seen. This Help to Buy scheme is late. It's another broken promise. It lacks detail. You must have known after the referendum that Australians want detail. They want the detail on their policies so they can make an informed decision. We've got the Prime Minister here. Please, the best thing you can do, Prime Minister, is get rid of this legislation. 18:18 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler What a sad contribution from the member opposite. Here they are, opposing something that was a clear commitment that we made at the election—a clear commitment announced at our campaign launch and a key part of what is a comprehensive housing agenda that we have, building more homes through our National Housing Accord Facility; working with states and territories to speed up approvals and boost supply, which is they key; investing in public housing, something those opposite will never do; new construction and renovation; strengthening renters' rights; and the Help to Buy plan, of course, an important component about helping families buy a home of their own, about investing in the dreams of Australian families, which have been so important as part of the Australian story. They are people who have worked hard, saved up and made sacrifices but need a little extra help getting a deposit together and getting the start that they need. This is consistent with our approach. We want people to earn more, and that's why we've seen real wages lift in 2023—much earlier than Treasury said that they would. That's why we want people to keep more of what they earn. Our tax cuts, aimed squarely as low- and middle-income workers, will do that as well. Help to Buy is a pretty simple scheme. It's one that, for the member opposite to be informed, operates effectively not just in places like Western Australia but, indeed, in other markets around the world. What it will mean is that our government steps up and takes a share of the equity. It opens the door to homeownership to tens of thousands of hardworking people. The member asked for detail. Here it is. Under this legislation, if you've saved two per cent of your deposit—he doesn't want to stay and listen—the government will contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price for a new home, thereby encouraging construction, or 30 per cent for an existing home. It's a pretty simple proposal. Then, down the track, the purchaser can buy back, off the government, full ownership of their home. It is a pretty simple system that works very effectively, but what it does, obviously, is reduce the amount that people need for a deposit and then reduce the amount of their payments. So, if a home is worth half a million dollars, and 40 per cent of that, $200,000, is equity from the government, then you're paying off a loan based upon $300,000 of borrowing, rather than the $500,000. I know that shouldn't be too hard for those opposite to work out, but they actually don't want government to pay a role in public housing. They don't want government to play a role in homeownership either. We've heard a lot of talk from the Liberals in recent weeks about aspiration. We know, from the tax debate, that their idea of aspiration is just people at the top end. Their idea is that people who are working, low- and middle-income earners, aren't aspirational; they should just know their place in life and just stay there. That's not our approach. Our approach is to open up those doors of opportunity, and that's what this is about. But here, of course, we have a new 'no-alition' between the Liberals and the Greens political party. It's extraordinary. Owning a home is about a sense of security, confidence, stability and belonging—a foundation on which you can build a better future for yourself and your family. And every member from the Labor Party of this House is proud to vote for this legislation. It's another positive step in our plan to increase homeownership. This is what people have said, though, about this. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, has said that it's 'not liberating, it's modern collectivism'. This is another example of the creeping collectivism going across policies. But this is what David Crisafulli, the Queensland LNP leader, said in November 2020: We will prioritise building an incentive framework to support home ownership, examining areas including first home-owner grant and shared responsibility schemes. Jeremy Rockliff, the Liberal Premier, spoke about his successful MyHome shared-equity program, which helps Tasmanians build or purchase a property. Dominic Perrottet, the former New South Wales Liberal Premier, said: Key workers, single parents and older singles will be able to have the security of homeownership … on the Government's equity share in a property. Right across the board. Matt Kean, the former New South Wales Liberal Treasurer, said this shared-equity scheme 'will help those facing significant barriers to homeownership buy their own place sooner'. The former South Australian Liberal Treasurer, Rob Lucas, said, 'We announced HomeStart shared-equity starter loans, and we expanded on that again.' Right across the board. Mia Davies, the former Leader of the Opposition over in WA, said this: 'I would also point out that, in 2010, it was a Liberal-National government leading the way nationally with shared equity.' Right across the board. What did the Liberals say about their policy of raiding super? Malcolm Turnbull, on 12 March 2015, said it was: … a thoroughly bad idea … That is not what the superannuation system is designed to achieve. The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, said on 13 April 2017: 'I think Malcolm Turnbull has got it right.' Those are words that he didn't often say! He said, 'It's not good policy and I agree with him. Then Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in 2017 said: Young people need their super for retirement, not to try to take pressure off an urban housing bubble … Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, the current Liberal spokesperson, in 2017 said: If all a government does is try to pump further liquidity into the residential housing market, inevitably all you do is push up housing prices. Mathias Cormann, in 2014, when he was the finance minister of the Liberal Party, said: Increasing the amount of money going into real estate by facilitating access to super savings pre-retirement will not improve housing affordability. The truth is that they are all over the shop. They don't even historically support any of the things that they are putting forward now. But it's not just the Liberals. If it were just the Liberals without their 'noalition' partner the Greens, it could go through the Senate. There's been a lot of talk about policy. Here's what the Greens took to the last election and what they have a mandate for. This is from their 2022 election platform: In a property market rigged for investors, buying a home has become out of reach for an entire generation. This is why the Greens will establish a Shared Equity Ownership Scheme … Newsflash for the Greens: they are not in a position to establish anything because they are not the government. All they're in a position to do is to vote for this government's proposal which is completely in accord with their policy. But their housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, went on Insiders a couple of weeks ago and said: 'We have enough homes for people to live in.' So the problem's solved! Don't worry about supply. It's just absolutely extraordinary. When it comes to the proposal, one of the things that the member for Griffith has said in changing his rhetoric is: You shouldn't have to win a lottery to have a secure home. That was in saying this doesn't apply to enough people. But his own website says: 'An example of the Greens' vision for housing in Brisbane is 2,000 homes available to any Brisbane resident and assigned by lottery.' I kid you not. That is beaten by the Leader of the Greens. They're opposing our investment in public housing. They opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund for so long. On public housing, when we announced the first Social Housing Accelerator program with former premier Daniel Andrews in Carlton, replacing 196 derelict, vacant public housing units with 231 new ones, the $2 billion that we announced in June, the Victorian Greens opposed the plan. They called it the end of public housing in the state. So building more public housing in the state of Victoria was a bad thing, according to them. The member for Melbourne told the House: North Melbourne's and Carlton's towers will be the first to go. People will be kicked out of their homes within the next few years. It is wrong to destroy these vibrant and diverse communities. The people there have a right to a home—a public home. That sounds okay except that there is no-one there because they're derelict. There are currently no residents in the Carlton towers because they're unlivable because they were built decades ago. What we're doing with our $2 billion is upgrading them into more homes for public housing, with newer residents—many of whom who have had to move out over a period of time because the towers are derelict, just like many of the old towers in Waterloo in Sydney are no longer fit for purpose. This is housing built 50 years ago that is simply not up to scratch. We in the Labor Party believe that people who live in public housing should live in quality public housing, and that is what our $2 billion is about. The Greens, instead, called for the derelict, vacant apartments to just be refurbished, an idea that the CEO of Homes Victoria dismissed as 'putting lipstick on a pig'. The member for Brisbane, who of course will speak at some stage here as well, is also opposing a build-to-rent project in his electorate that would create 349 apartments. The site is currently a vacant lot. It is 200 metres from a major train station and walking distance from the Brisbane CBD. But, in his letter opposing the development, the member claims: Brisbane residents are fed up with developers claiming they are addressing the housing crisis by 'increasing supply' … I'm not sure how he thinks houses, units and apartments are built, but I'll give him a big tip: they require builders and they require investment. Build-to-rent projects are pretty sensible. The member for Ryan, not to be outdone, is campaigning against a plan to subdivide a chicken farm into 91 new homes. The developer is the Uniting Church. In her letter to Brisbane City Council, claiming that the Uniting Church was not responding to community concerns, it said, 'It would diminish the natural character of the site.' It's a chook farm! Between the Liberals, with their failure to support aspiration, and the Greens, with their failure to support anything at all—even their own policy in the platform—we have this 'no-alition' that will ensure that the coalition between the Liberals and the Greens, when it comes to opposing anything on housing, is an unholy one. It's one designed to just keep people in their place and not do anything to improve their circumstances. We on this side of the House support increasing housing supply as the key. Part of that is support for our build-to-rent tax incentives for the private sector. Part of that is our direct investment in public housing. Part of that as well is our incentive, particularly with a stronger incentive for new homes to be built, under Help to Buy. This is good policy. It should be going through this parliament. It is extraordinary that this coalition is combining to oppose it. But they'll be held to account for their opposition. 18:33 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I rise to speak to the Help to Buy Bill 2023. This scheme is like throwing a bucket of water onto a house fire. This scheme acts like a lottery, with availability for just 0.2 per cent of those eligible. It should go without saying that Australians shouldn't have to win the lottery in order to have a secure home. What's more, this scheme adds to demand, not to supply. It's actually going to push up house prices even further for the other 99.8 per cent of us. This Labor government acknowledges that we're in the middle of a housing and rental crisis, and we are, but it responds with this. It's a smoke and mirrors policy to make it sound like something substantial is being done when, in practical reality, it's a drop in the ocean. The median house price in greater Brisbane is fast approaching $1 million, and it's already well over that in my own electorate. We're at even greater risk of unaffordable housing worsening due to the upcoming 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which have been shown to increase housing costs in host cities around the world. There are people lined up around the block for rental inspections with plenty of Australians now only one rental increase, one mortgage rate increase or one insurance rise away from homelessness. So where is the sense of urgency? It was just under two weeks ago that the housing minister walked around my question on negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions to instead speak about increasing supply as the golden ticket out of this housing crisis. Well, Minister, where is this increased supply? Recent ABS data shows that new housing commencements have hit a decade low and are predicted to keep dropping even further. In fact, Labor's own Housing Accord looks like it will fail to meet its own targets. The bottom line here is that Labor cannot keep expecting private property developers and banks to fix the housing crisis. The role of a private company is to make profit. Dramatically increasing supply to the extent that we actually need will reduce the profit margins of these companies. They're not going to do something that will reduce their profits. Property developers are not going to build enough houses to stabilise house prices, because they make more money the way things are. This Help to Buy scheme allows people to purchase existing homes. It's what's called a demand-side housing support. This type of assistance adds demand; not supply. Economists and the Productivity Commission alike agree that this type of assistance has the effect of pushing up house prices and, as a result, lowers homeownership overall. What's worse is that, even if the government wanted to increase the scheme beyond the measly 10,000 households it has at the moment, it would only worsen these inflationary impacts. It's called Help to Buy, but how will it actually help? There are over 4½ million renters in Australia who may be eligible for Labor's Help to Buy scheme, yet the scheme would only be available to 10,000 households a year. That means it would end up being available, as I said, to 0.2 per cent of those people while leaving behind the other 99.8 per cent. It goes without saying that this does not address the enormity of the housing crisis we are facing in this country. This bill gives no details on eligibility outside of income thresholds. Who of the 0.2 per cent are eligible? Who will be prioritised? Will certain regions be prioritised over others? Are there selection criteria? None of these questions are actually answered or addressed in this bill. In terms of current supply, what we're seeing in the market over and over again is property investors buying existing homes that could have been purchased by a renter as their first home, driving up the cost of housing and locking millions out of basic housing security. This cannot keep going unchecked. We saw during the GFC, in very recent memory, what happens when the housing market collapses as prices soar and the market destabilises. Change must happen. We cannot just wait for this bubble to pop and hope for the best. This is going to require a multifaceted approach beyond just increasing supply. The Greens are proposing to phase out the grossly unfair tax concessions, like negative gearing and capital gains taxes, for the government to directly invest that money into building affordable housing. Recent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling shows that, in total, property tax deductions and the capital gains tax discount for investment properties will cost the federal budget $38.9 billion in forgone revenue in this financial year. The latest Tax expendituresand insightsstatement outlines that the majority of the benefit of these tax handouts goes to the highest incomes. In fact, the top 30 per cent of income earners get 65 per cent of the benefits. It wasn't that long ago that we built tens of thousands of new public homes in this country, but now it's next to nothing. We're propping up property investors at the expense of people being able to call a home their own. This injustice is glaringly obvious, but, because Labor and the coalition are so beholden to their donors—to the banks and to property developers—we're led to believe that the status quo must be maintained and that we have no other option. The reality is that negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount mean that it is often easier for a property investor to buy their second, third, fourth or fifth home than it is for someone to buy their first. This is just incredibly, deeply unfair. How can these major party ghouls look in the face of young Australians, knowing that they are costing them their future of owning their own home? Without the ability for young people to own the roof over their head, how are the major parties expecting them to have any faith in our political or economic system? The Greens went to the 2022 federal election with a policy of phasing out negative gearing and mortgage interest deductibility for landlords with more than one investment property over the next five years, along with scrapping the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, to be replaced with indexation of the asset cost. We could save billions by doing this and use these funds to mass build good-quality public homes in the same way that governments used to do in the 20th century. This is a commonsense remedy to get back to where we need to be. Just imagine: instead of billions of dollars going to property investors each year, we actually use the money to build houses. But we shouldn't have to imagine; we should have a government that actually does that. This Help to Buy proposal is the last of Labor's announced housing policies to enter this chamber. Is this really Labor's final effort to deal with the housing crisis before the next federal election? The Greens want people to be able to afford a home and be able to pay their rent. The reality is that more people are being locked out of homeownership than this scheme could ever remotely hope to address. More people are experiencing rental and mortgage stress and more people are being forced into homelessness. That's why the Greens are fighting for an end to unfair tax concessions for property investors and for a massive build of public housing. This is how we tackle the crisis, with the courage that the Australian people actually deserve. Labor's public refusal to negotiate on their housing lottery bill will be short lived. They cannot go to a federal election telling people that they did everything they could for housing when almost everyone feels worse off than they did three years ago. The Greens were able to secure $3 billion for public and community housing during our negotiations with the government on their previous housing bill, and I am hopeful that Labor will come to the table on this bill as well. Our communities are not asking for the world. They are asking for shelter—for the most basic of human rights—and for the government to have their back. Right now, there are millions of renters struggling to keep their heads above water. House prices are soaring. Mortgage rates are soaring. During times of crisis is when we expect our governments to step up, not tinker around with bandaid solutions that really do nothing and expect everyone to thank them for it. Australians deserve and need more than a housing lottery bill where 99.8 per cent of renters get nothing. 18:42 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Access to safe and secure housing is one of the most basic human rights according to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Alas, it's a right from which too many Australians are currently priced out. Over the decade to 2023, median house prices in Sydney rose from $615,000 to around $1.2 million. Housing stress is on the rise all around our country, and some 10 per cent of Australian households spent up to half their wages on housing in 2019, and that share keeps increasing. What those statistics hide is that it is mainly low- and middle-income households bearing the brunt of the housing crisis and being locked out of the market. New research by YouGov suggests that nine in 10 young Australians will never own their own home—the great Australian dream deferred, maybe for life. This national trend has also hit the Northern Territory hard. In 2023, the median house price increased by 7.3 per cent in Darwin. As of December 2022, the NT had the equal second highest average rental price for a three-bedroom house. Darwin was the third most expensive capital to rent in Australia. Rental prices are now approaching the records set in Darwin in the 2010s. The Darwin Community Legal Service's head of tenants' advice, Matthew Gardiner, has been contacted by renters facing increases of more than $100 a week. He told the ABC that people 'basically are looking at moving interstate because there's nothing left here and they can't continue to stay here if there's nowhere to stay'. He says, 'It's really desperate times.' One of those people is local gardener Danielle Buxton, who rents in the Darwin suburb of Fannie Bay. She says: We live week-to-week, day-to-day, really … …   …   … I don't want to have to move out to ... somewhere cheaper and then disconnect myself from the community and the support network that I do have here … …   …   … But it's going to get to the point eventually where I probably will have to do something like that—or— worse— move home to Melbourne. Renting, let alone homeownership, has become extraordinarily difficult for far too many Territorians. While governments can't control market behaviour, they have an important role to play in improving housing affordability and availability. The Help to Buy scheme is just one of the ways that our government, the Albanese government, will help tens of thousands of low- and middle-income earners be able to afford to buy a home. Under a shared equity scheme like this, the homebuyer shares the capital cost of purchasing a home with an equity partner, sharing the financial risks and benefits of that investment. This scheme 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. It will be open to applications for four years, with 10,000 places available per year. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 gives Housing Australia the power to enter into these shared equity arrangements. The scheme will give those on low and middle incomes an opportunity to buy a home with at least a two per cent deposit. This will allow them to access homeownership, which is linked to short-, medium- and long-term economic security, as all members understand. The scheme will help participants overcome both the hurdle of saving for a deposit and that of servicing a mortgage. We all know that these are some of the key barriers to homeownership. Help to Buy is designed to improve housing outcomes for Australians by reducing the upfront deposit hurdle and the ongoing mortgage repayments associated with purchasing a home. The scheme is intended to support Australians who otherwise would not be able to purchase a home. The government understands that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and, indeed, the dignity of all Australians and that many Australians are finding it hard to find an affordable place to buy. Not only have we got the difficulty of high rents and the barriers to buying but also it is often difficult to find an affordable place to buy. That's why the government has committed to an ambitious housing reform agenda, which includes establishing this Help to Buy scheme, to help more Australians into their own homes. As I said, this is just one pillar of our efforts. It is an important one though. With the Commonwealth providing an equity contribution, scheme participants will have lower ongoing repayments from a smaller home loan. The financial risk and benefit—that is, the capital gains and losses—will be shared between the participant and the Commonwealth, proportionate to their interests. So the taxpayer also gets some capital gains, as they should, for their investment. States will be required to pass legislation for the scheme to operate in their jurisdictions. But territories, like the NT, do not need to pass legislation. Places will be allocated between participating states and territories on a per capita basis. Each state's allocation will be available to eligible residents on a 'first come, first served' basis. I know many in my electorate are keen to go. Help to Buy aims to support Australians to achieve homeownership by enabling them to purchase moderately priced homes, with a price cap varying in each state. In the Northern Territory, the price of an eligible house will be capped at $600,000. You can build a good house for that. You can also buy a great existing property for that. The Help to Buy scheme is one element of the government's commitment to improving housing affordability. Our plan includes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the $3 billion Social Housing Accelerator payment and the largest increase to Commonwealth rental assistance in 30 years. In the Northern Territory, we also have a commitment to more housing for the homelands in remote areas of the Territory, which is important. The Albanese government has also helped more than 86,000 people across Australia into home ownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, including 13,000 through the new Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. So I reject the idea that there is any trade-off between Help to Buy, a very innovative policy to help alleviate the housing crisis for thousands of Australians, and assistance to renters. Housing experts have signalled that short-term measures like rent caps and freezes do not work and that they would have perverse outcomes, including a reduction in the number of properties available for rent. Help to Buy is aimed at supporting Australians, including renters, to purchase a home. We also continue to work with state and territorial local governments to deliver better housing options and outcomes, including for renters. At the national cabinet in August last year, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments committed to a better deal for renters to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across Australia. It was needed, and we did that. This included developing a framework for genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimum rental standards. These changes will have a real and tangible impact on the almost one-third of Australian households who rent. The government has delivered the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years, as I mentioned, and that will assist low-income renters. National cabinet agreed in August of last year to an ambitious new target to deliver 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July this year. The Commonwealth is also providing $3 billion for the new homes bonus, a performance based payment to incentivise taken territories to undertake the reforms needed to help achieve this target. We are tackling the housing crisis on multiple fronts. The government understands that affordable housing is critical to economic wellbeing and is committed to supporting more Australians to access housing, which is why we took the Help to Buy Scheme to the election in 2022. I know that many in my electorate, like those around the country, are very much looking forward to this becoming the law of the land. I'm very much looking forward to seeing that occur. Honourable members will understand through these measures that we are taking real action to help with the housing crisis in Australia and we will do more in the future. 18:52 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. This bill was announced with much fanfare. I note that the Prime Minister was actually here in the chamber to talk to this bill, so it does signify the importance of this to the government. But this is the latest iteration of many policy announcements to address the housing crisis, both the availability of housing and the affordability of housing. Unfortunately, it will be another lame duck scheme that will attract very little interest. Why do I say that? I'm not trying to be pessimistic; I'm just trying to be realistic. There are multiple shared equity schemes already that the states run, quite appropriately, because under the Constitution the states have the head of powers and the responsibility for public housing and for housing regulation. New South Wales has 6,000 places on its scheme, with 30 per cent equity being offered for existing homes and 40 per cent for new homes. Victoria has a scheme as well, only it has 13,000 places. South Australia's HomeStart shared equity scheme is smaller but it is out there. Western Australia has a shared ownership scheme via their home loan lender called Keystart, and Tasmania has the MyHome shared equity scheme. What do they all have in common? They have in common very poor take-up by people who are meant to benefit from them, and the reason is people have done the sums. It's a bad deal, even with the initial concept of not having to pay interest on large amounts of capital. Who would feel comfortable with that? A family's home is their castle, but they wouldn't own it all! They're going to end up with as little as 60, 70 or 75 per cent equity, depending on what scheme and which state they're in. The deal is that you pay 100 per cent of the transaction cost, the stamp duty and all the legal fees, but the government owns a sizeable chunk of it. Under the rules of the scheme, you also only get your portion of the capital gain and the government gets proportionally more because they don't share any of the stamp duty or legals. And it traps buyers with an income ceiling to remain eligible. If they earn more than $90,000 per year as a single person, or $120,000 as a couple, for two years in a row, all of a sudden they get 'please explain' letters and have to pay back some of it. And if you really get a wage rise, or your business takes off and you're doing well, you might have to pay up in full. So a lot of people who thought they were going to be in a stable situation with a long time to pay off their equity, paying increments slowly, could be short-changed. It's also a bit of a worry because a lot of people are going into a scheme when they don't really have enough capital behind them. If you're paying your own insurance for your loan, which is another thing that's insisted upon, that could cost you up to $30,000 over the duration of the loan. For those of you don't understand it, a shared-equity scheme means that the government puts up some of the capital and has a covenant over a portion of your property. The reason that the states run it, as I mentioned, is because it's their constitutional duty to be involved in this. Community housing has become a bit of a hybrid situation, where philanthropic groups that build houses to rent have taken over from classic housing commission as the predominant community 'not owned, but rented space'. We have existing large schemes to give that section of the building industry low-interest loans. This government is continuing that great initiative, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which offered billions of dollars and developed and delivered thousands of cheaper homes for rent. And once you're in the community housing space, Commonwealth Rent Assistance kicks in from the federal government. The other problem with this scheme is that it's not going to affect affordability favourably. In fact, it may increase the price of homes. As we know, there's a short supply issue, and this initiative is not addressing the shortage in supply. It will not curtail demand, it will probably increase demand—although the reluctance of buyers will limit that. As I mentioned, in our federal Constitution there is no mention of housing. That's why we also need to seek approval from the states for this system to go ahead. The state treasurers must be licking their lips and rubbing their hands together, thinking: 'Here we go! We can now cost shift some of our responsibilities over to the Commonwealth,' as they have done successfully in public education and public hospitals over the last 15 or 20 years. They used to be responsible and run it all, but now the Commonwealth is treasurer for many of the state responsibilities. That's a major problem for our Federation, because we have different responsibilities; we have welfare payments, the NDIS, Defence and all these other things, and the federal budget can't be expected to pay for six states and two territories as well. But, hey presto! Where we've ended up is that we're responsible for half of this. Having the federal government trying to fix housing shortages is a bit of a moot point. There were initiatives when former prime minister Morrison was the Treasurer and responsible for housing. He released some federal land in Sydney, Melbourne and, I think, Brisbane—I'd need to check the records. That is a great initiative because that's half the problem. The states need to release more land. Local councils need to rezone more land for housing. The federal government effect is accepted, and people take it, but it's not going to fix the fundamental problem, which is mainly in the domain of humble local councils and state governments. That's where I think we should be focusing to get these costs down. As I mentioned, in a country town like the many I have, the rate-limiting step to getting housing developed is getting development applications approved by the council. It might take a year or more, let alone getting a construction certificate and getting new areas rezoned. It's laboriously slow. Builders in my region are tearing their hair out. There is money for affordable housing through community housing approval, and there are private landowners that would develop that in a flash for those community and affordable housing providers, but, again—hey, presto—it's not held up because of anything the federal government's doing or anything the state government's doing; it's the local council. That is what is really frustrating people around Australia. There is overregulation of simple development. Also, local councils are pretty much refusing to do any of the major headworks even though they end up getting an income stream of rates for generations to follow. They put it all onto developers. Depending on which state you're in—in New South Wales, for instance—with a new area set aside for developing housing, often the land developer has to buy the same amount of land to offset clearing for housing, so poor land buyers or first home owners are paying for two blocks of property. The one that's offset is a cost on their property. The developer has to do the NBN development and telecommunications in the block, obviously, but, if there is major sewerage work or new water supplies, councils are now adding those responsibilities, which are in the DNA of local government to do. We have all these other things barrelling down at the construction industry such as same-job same-pay and closing-loopholes bills, which are going to put many self-employed, subcontracting tradesmen in the situation of being looped into being an employee, which they are not happy about. They certainly don't want to be paying $17,000 more for their next ute or their light commercial vehicles, which is coming barrelling out of this Labor government. The states and councils really need to get their act together. The other issue is that state governments and councils are allowing in our metropolitan areas this unstoppable urban sprawl, which is not good use of land. It's not good economics. I know a house-and-land package is everyone's dream, but, with the costs and the lack of infrastructure, we really need to do more urban consolidation. We need to re-assess the heights of domestic buildings. There are plenty of cities the size of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane that have houses quite regularly three storeys high. You might have several families in them. The quarter-acre block is a gone thing unless you're really moving out into the regions. In the vein of consolidating valuable urban land, I suggest that the useless bits of land, maybe the size of these desks here in parliament, between each house to make them separated buildings, would be better used by making semi-detached buildings, taking that dead space between each house and putting it into footpaths or big urban squares over the whole development. Semidetached houses were a really effective use of land when they were built at the turn of the century. Many smart builders are looking at this, but we should be insisting on it. The other thing we can be doing is hiding in plain sight. Regional Australia is crying out for more people to come and grow the regions. You can have an affordable house-and-land package. We need companies that pay above award, with high costs to get good workers moving to regional Australia, but we need state and local governments to allow for more water storage, land rezoning and land release and also to make sure that there are things set aside for services when they develop these lands. Those are things like community shops, petrol stations or a connection for bus routes or trains. One of the things that we were great at doing in the last two governments was getting up schemes like the First Home Super Saver Scheme, where you could put a maximum of $50,000 of your superannuation—not more than half your superannuation—into your first home deposit. There were 300,000 people on the first home loan insurance guarantee. Single mums, single parents and women who were going for their first home benefited from all those coalition policies. Some of them continue under a new name, with a bit more capital thrown in. But that's what we should be doing rather than this well-intentioned but half-baked and muddle-headed thinking about shared equity. The states have shown it doesn't work. We need to fix the fundamentals, increase the supply of housing, make it easier to develop at the state and local government levels and insist on this from states at the equivalent of COAG meetings. Then we will see better things happening in land and housing prices. The other thing is that we must stop this rampant, unchecked immigration that is not sustainable while we're in the middle of a housing crisis. We need to really shrink it to highly skilled workers and refugees and leave it at that. 19:07 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Before coming to this place, I had the pleasure of spending 10 years in local government. In that time, there wasn't a week that passed in which housing wasn't talked about or on the agenda. We talked about housing targets, the cost of housing, housing diversity, affordable housing, planning reform, renters' rights, strata reform, inclusionary zoning and voluntary planning agreements—it went on and on. I've been at the coalface of the policy response to housing for a long time. In that time I've learnt that, for elected officials to address this properly, we need every level of government in a bipartisan way singing from the same song sheet. We need no politics—just progress. For decades, we've had politics on housing. It's been so, so long. Politics on housing has put us into the mess we're in today. In my time on council and as mayor, New South Wales was governed by a state Liberal government. Throughout that time they would say that affordable housing was a priority. But the thing is they'd never do anything about it. Upon becoming premier in June 2017, former premier Gladys Berejiklian declared that housing affordability was the biggest issue for her. Liberal planning minister after Liberal planning minister would say nice things about affordable housing and the need for more of it but then actively stop people or governments from trying to do something about it. They promised to reform the planning system and didn't. They rezoned urban activation precincts across Sydney and New South Wales, saying that affordable housing would be provided, and it wasn't. Then they actively opposed local government plans to force developers to build affordable housing. We see the same thing happening today here in this parliament. It's a different level of government, but it's the same old Liberals and the same old politics. The Liberals here on one hand are complaining about the housing crisis that they exacerbated, yet they are actively opposing policies to address it. They voted down the Housing Australia Future Fund. They criticised the Housing Accord. They criticised state Labor governments' attempts to address housing supply. They criticised our fee-free TAFE program, which is addressing huge shortages in construction workers. And then, probably worst of all—and we just heard it from the member who just spoke, the Member for Lyne—they backflipped their views on bringing in skilled workers to help address skill shortages and now instead choose to blame migrants for the housing crisis that they created. The housing crisis has been around for a long time. It didn't just happen because of last year's migration levels. It didn't happen when the Albanese government was elected. It's been around for a long time, and it exists because of decades of inaction by lazy politicians. It exists because the Liberal federal government hadn't adequately funded housing supply. It exists because the last Liberal federal government didn't care about housing or work with the states to deliver it. It exists because Liberal state governments have blocked schemes to deliver more affordable housing. It exists because politicians keep on playing politics. The housing crisis existed before the last election, and Australians elected us to help address it. We were elected on the promise to deliver: Help to Buy, the Housing Australia Future Fund, investments in social and affordable housing. Since my election I have been inundated with calls and emails from constituents about the cost of rents, the lack of housing supply and the growing cost of housing. These are people who work hard, who contribute to our communities and who simply seek a place to call home. Whether it be young professionals striving to enter the property market, families yearning for a place to raise their kids or seniors seeking dignified retirement living, the lack of accessible and affordable housing options is a growing social crisis. It's a reality that cannot be ignored. It's a crisis that demands action. Yet whenever this majority Labor government, a government that was elected with a mandate to address the housing crisis, proposes a policy to address the housing crisis, we're met with bad-faith actors in this place who are more interested in playing politics with this crisis than delivering solutions for our country. I have outlined the Liberal's record on this. The Liberals now have a third coalition partner to play politics with. The Greens political party, here in this place, are working hand in glove with the Liberals and Nats to block, delay and vote down policies to address the housing crisis. They may say different things, but the results are identical. I say to the Greens and the Liberals: you can't say you want to help renters when you oppose policies to address housing supply. You can't say that you want more people to own a home when you block shared equity schemes like this. This two-faced politics is a betrayal of the people who supported you, and it's putting politics ahead of progress. The Help to Buy scheme isn't just about bricks and mortar. It's about giving people hope and giving them an opportunity to own their own home. It's about helping renters who are unable to save a deposit. It's about getting someone into the property market for their first home. Just like the Liberals, the Greens also say they want housing action, yet their actions in this place say the absolute opposite. The Greens alongside the Liberals are blocking progress all while claiming to champion the very causes they hinder, and they use strikingly similar measures to do it: they spread misinformation, they sow doubt and they politicise, which all result in less action to fix this crisis. Their claims that measures like Help to Buy will inflate housing prices are misleading. The reality is that these initiatives are tightly targeted—a bit too tight, if you ask me, but anyway—and have been endorsed by experts who say that impacts on pricing would be modest, if there would be impacts at all. Sound familiar? The Greens and the Liberals are peas in a pod. Just like the Liberals, the Greens have made quite the habit of using misinformation as a tool to sow confusion, obstruct progress and further their own politics. All that leads to is Australia's housing crisis to become worse. In February 2024, the Member for Griffith falsely stated that the Greens negotiated an additional $3 billion for public housing, with the government conveniently omitting that this allocation was not a result of negotiations. And just in this House moments ago, the leader of the Greens claimed that Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts only changed because of the Greens, when this decision was made squarely by the Labor cabinet and then by the Labor caucus. It's just the Greens taking credit for things. Just like the member for Dickson misrepresented the reality of the impact of vehicle emission standards, the member for Griffith misrepresented the reality of vacant properties from census data. No, Max, we don't really have a million vacant homes. Just like the Liberals, when they ignored departmental analysis and advice, the Greens failed to acknowledge the complexities surrounding unoccupied properties, ignoring research indicating various reasons for vacancy including holiday homes and temporary unavailability. The Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals will do anything in their power to stop this government from addressing the housing crisis, but we are determined to do something about it. It's why I was elected and it's why we're in government. Help to Buy will support the purchase of up to 10,000 properties per year over four years. Australians, including citizens in Bennelong, are fed up with politicians playing political games with essential policy that will help them. Whether it's the climate wars or the housing crisis, people don't want politicians to come in this place and use their time here to obstruct. They want this place to work constructively and in good faith to find solutions to their issues, and they're fed up with the Greens' and Liberals' selfish and shortsighted tactics. They are tired of their obstructionism, which only serves to exacerbate the housing crisis and leave countless families struggling to find a place to call home. I'm proud to be part of the only party in this place that is prepared to do something about housing and ensure that as many people as possible can achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home. I'm proud to be part of a government that has already delivered the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the $3 billion Social Housing Accelerator scheme and the most significant increase to the Commonwealth rental assistance in 30 years. At its core, Help to Buy is yet another policy designed to help with the housing crisis. It will help renters into home ownership, it will help renters who cannot save enough for a deposit by only requiring two per cent of the purchase price and it will help people who can't afford to pay off a big mortgage, because the government will provide an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent. This policy is here to help renters own their own homes, and yet the Greens and the Liberals want to oppose it. They want to oppose it because it's all politics for them. Despite their grandstanding, we're determined to get on with this job. I commend this bill to the House. 19:17 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I quite like the member for Bennelong. But I have to say that while I said I quite like the member for Bennelong I didn't say that I liked his contribution to this debate. I think he's rather living in hope. I might remind the member for Bennelong and some of those newer members in this House, that constitutionally the responsibility for housing belongs to the state governments. I'll give him a little bit of a life example of what has happened in Queensland. For the past 35 years, Queensland has been governed by a state Labor government. I remember in my early days in the banking industry, on a Thursday when people got paid their pensions or their Centrelink allowances they would come in and pay their social housing payments. You had two types of payments. The first type of payment was for people who were on a rent-to-buy scheme. We have seen over the years those people successfully own their own home, and great credit to them and the effort that they have taken. They've worked hard to get to a point where they own their own property. The other scheme was for those who were renting. The rent was limited to approximately 30 per cent of those people's incomes. I represent an area that the member for Bowman would well know because it includes places that are also in his electorate like Eagleby, Kingston, Woodridge and Capalaba. It even includes areas in and around Beenleigh and Browns Plains, which are in the Treasurer's electorate. Those areas were where the Queensland Housing Commission built numerous homes during the sixties and seventies for people to either go into on a rent-to-buy scheme or to rent. Can I say that until the last couple of years I'd seen very, very little done in the intervening 20 or 30 years by the Queensland Housing Commission to replace the stock that was bought or that people eventually owned—and credit to those people for their hard work and effort, as I said before. But the Queensland government under Labor leadership and the Queensland Housing Commission didn't see fit to reuse those funds to build new properties to replace the ones that came out of the system. We have seen an ongoing discussion over the last number of years about the quality of the remaining Queensland Housing Commission properties there are for rent because the Queensland Housing Commission has failed miserably to upkeep those properties. The Prime Minister, in his contribution earlier, referenced housing commission towers I believe in Carlton, in Melbourne. They tell a similar story of woe—that the Victorian state government has failed to maintain those properties in a manner in which they are fit for people to live in. Now we have the situation where our state governments are turning around and saying, 'Oh well, it's not our problem.' They pass the buck to the federal government, and we finish up with schemes like this to try and solve a problem that is entirely of the making of the state governments because of their failure to continue to provide social and affordable housing since the mid-eighties. It's about time the state governments stepped up and took some responsibility for their failure in that space. In addition to their failure in that space, they have failed to ensure that our planning schemes have kept pace with the needs of a growing community, and they have failed to see that our infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the needs of our growing communities. As the member for Bowman would know, as the member for Capricornia, who is at the table, would know, we have a multitude of infrastructure problems right across south-east Central and North Queensland as our communities have grown and our population has grown. But the state governments have been asleep at the wheel. They seek to continually shift responsibility and an expectation to the federal government to solve the problems that they have failed to deal with that are actually their responsibility. So let's actually shoo home that responsibility to where it belongs. Now, that brings me to this bill. What can I say. Before I came in here tonight I just checked with a builder of mine, and this program covers whether you buy an existing house or you want to buy a new house and land package. Some of those suburbs that I mentioned earlier—Woodridge, Kingston and Marsden in the Treasurer's electorate and Eagleby in my electorate. I was talking to a real estate agent out Marsden way the other day. A fairly rundown modest three-bedroom fibro house is $700,000 plus. I don't know what it is Capalaba or Alexandra Hills, Member for Bowman, but I suspect it's not that far away. In Eagleby, it's sort of $600,000 or thereabouts. I just had a look at Park Ridge. Park Ridge South is where the new development area is in my electorate. I was speaking to the builder, as I said earlier, and they said it's roughly $400,000 for a block land. For a modest house that's 150 square metres, three bedroom, nothing special—now, that's not generally a house that's built these days. Generally people want four bedrooms, a study and all the bells and whistles. At $3,000 per square metre to build a modest 150 square metre home with a nice but not over-the-top fit-out is $450,000. If you add that to your $400,000 block of land, it's $850,000 plus stamp duty, legal fees and all those other things. I ask the question: even with a fund like this, how many of these people who are struggling to save for a deposit will be able to afford it? At $850,000 that's a deposit somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 in round figures, looking at stamp duty of another $15,000 even with the concessions they get from the state government. So now you're at somewhere around $30,000 to $35,000 as a minimum requirement before anything else. As a number of other people have said, these programs at a state level remain unfulfilled. So why is the federal government stepping in to provide an additional program which already exists at a state level which the public doesn't take up? Why would you repeat a mistake that's already being made? Why would you repeat something that the homebuying public doesn't want? That just makes no sense to me whatsoever. I would far rather see state governments held to account to undertake their constitutional responsibility and for the federal government to introduce some KPIs and say to them: 'You go and build your social and affordable housing and then you send us the bill. We're not going to give you the money until such time as you actually build these houses.' I can tell you that, if you give the money to the state governments, you can't trust that they won't put it into consolidated revenue and it won't go somewhere else. We've seen plenty of that over the years. So hold the feet of the state governments to the fire and actually get them to do what they're supposed to do constitutionally. That would be a far better solution in my book. But we aren't seeing that. We're seeing a big song and dance about rolling out a new program that for all intents and purposes I don't think is going to achieve the outcomes that are being sought. If you look at $5.5 billion over 10,000 people, that's $550,000 per person. That's an expensive exercise, not that I think it's going to go that far or have that many people take it up. We do need to encourage people and give people the opportunity to own their own home or, if they're not in a situation to own their own home, have a secure roof over their head, paying a level of rent they can afford. Nobody in this House disagrees with that proposition—nobody. But I don't believe that this bill as it's currently constructed without the relevant KPIs to force the state governments to do their job of providing social and affordable housing will achieve the results we're seeking to achieve. I'm proud of the measures that we took when we were in government to try and encourage homeownership through providing grants and/or guarantees. Interestingly, the only thing that this government has so far successfully done in this space is continue those programs that were set up by the coalition government. This program was supposed to be up and running, I believe, a year or so ago. So I don't think the government are even really convinced that it can do the job that they have proposed that it can do. Mr Hill 86256 It can't without legislation. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 It's taken you two years to bring on the legislation, so that shows how committed you are to it. Once again, we see the government trying to solve a problem that the state schemes like this that already exist aren't solving because they are not being fulfilled. We need to continue working towards reducing those costs. Until we see some definite, concrete measures, that is not going to occur, and I'll continue to oppose this bill. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Grocery Prices 72 19:30 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo In 2018 I made a speech in this place regarding the importance of the agriculture sector. It wasn't my first speech on the topic, but it was the first time I spoke about the great disparity of power between the farmers, growers and producers of products and the retailers who sell them. Here we are, six years later, having the same conversation. Of course, the reason why we're having this conversation is that nothing has changed, legislatively, in that time. We still have a duopoly in the food and retail sector. We have duopolies right across all sectors in Australia. With respect to supermarkets, we know that our farmers are the price takers and not the price makers. In my speech I implored members to read Supermarket Monsters, by Malcolm Knox. In the current market this book is even more important than way back in 2018. If you have not read it and you are listening to this speech somewhere in this place, I would say: find the book and read it. I think it's even available at the library. Around my electorate I've spoken to many primary producers, and the story is always the same: they cannot continue to operate with the high input costs—energy, wages, transport—while receiving bargain basement gate prices. We are sleepwalking into a disaster. Mum-and-dad farmers are exiting the market, particularly in dairy. Mum-and-dad farmers will simply be lost for good. It's heartbreaking to hear comments from them, such as, 'I can't afford to deal with the duopoly and I can't afford not to, either,' and, 'It now costs me more to produce than what I receive, but there's no pricepoint increase.' They are trapped. They have no bargaining power and, without it, no alternative. As I said, they're price takers, not makers. It's not just the primary producers that are affected by the duopolies. We all are. We're all paying dearly for it. The lack of competition in the retail sector removes the need for innovation, price competitiveness, service and every other aspect associated with true competition. Many of us are just delighted to actually find a checkout server, rather than having to do it ourselves—receiving no 'staff discount' for doing so. I welcome the government's direction to the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into the Australian supermarket sector, including the price practices of the supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale, including farmgate, and retail prices. However, I'm concerned: we've been down this path before, in 2008, and nothing happened. In part nothing happened because the ACCC found that there was 'little evidence to substantiate allegations of buyer power being exercised in an anticompetitive and unconscionable manner'. But the report did go on to say: … however, there were some complaints of buyer power being exercised where the complainant appeared to be genuinely reluctant to provide information to the ACCC out of concern about retribution if details were provided to the ACCC and investigated. This is the crux of the problem. Suppliers are almost solely reliant on selling to one of the two retailers, and they're reluctant to question, challenge or criticise, for fear of retribution or having their line deleted from the shelves. I hope the current inquiry gives sufficient protection and peace of mind to primary producers. It's time that we joined other countries, like the United States, that have had antitrust laws for a long time. We need to introduce them here to protect consumers and businesses. Antitrust laws are not associated with communist countries, as some in this House have suggested. They are laws that regulate the conduct of business to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies and duopolies. The United States is the mecca of capitalism, but it manages improper business conduct through laws such as the Clayton and Sherman acts, which outlaw restraint of trade and attempted monopolisation. If the US can do it, we can do it too. For too long Australia has been the playground of monopolistic and duopolistic enterprises. This has stifled competition, harmed productivity, forced our primary producers to the edge of extinction and contributed to the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory. Past actions have not worked. Repeating them is not going to work either. We therefore need to do something differently. We must consider antitrust laws and we must consider them now, because, if we want to still to be drinking milk that's made in Australia and eating food that's made in Australia, we have to do more to support our farmers, and this is the way to do it. Migration 73 19:35 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce If you, Deputy Speaker, are one of those people who have followed my late-night adjournment speeches over the years, you would know that more than once I have excoriated the Department of Home Affairs and the previous government for the shocking mess in visa and citizenship processing. More than one million applications were left in that black hole of a department when the Liberals were booted from office. Before they all get hot and bothered and try another little scare campaign on migration, to be clear, a significant proportion of these were people who had already been in Australia for years, hanging around on bridging visas or waiting for their partner visa or another visa to come through to build their lives here. They included husbands, wives or children of Australians, here or stuck overseas, coming to live in the family home. There were hundreds of thousands of people hanging around waiting for months on visitor visas when those opposite left office. There were 300,000 people or more hanging around on bridging visas. Why? Because the Liberals cut 1,000 staff from visa processing over their wasted decade of dysfunction and decay when they were in office. That's what the budget papers show: 1,000 staff. There were also deliberate policies of discrimination against people from some parts of the world, including partners and children. The number of conversations that those of us in multicultural electorates had to have during the time in government of those opposite! These included conversations with women who were turning 46 and losing their chance to ever have children in this life, because they'd maxed out from IVF. The previous government didn't care. People spent three or four years waiting for a partner visa—just inhuman. People missed funerals, weddings or other family events. Some missed the opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones because the previous government cut 1,000 staff from visa processing. This is not an optional extra in a multicultural community. The member for Reid knows this well. We've spoken about it. This is an essential service. It is as essential as Centrelink or any other Commonwealth government service when you need to stay in touch with family, friends and loved ones or you're just an Australian who falls in love with someone from overseas. I want to now praise the Department of Home Affairs for the terrific work that they've done in clearing these backlogs. Who knew? The government's employed 500 to 600 new staff in visa processing, and guess what? They processed visas and cleared the backlog. Take partner visas. Between 1 July and 31 December last year, there were enormous improvements in partner visa processing: a 54 per cent increase in temporary partner visa finalisations compared to the equivalent period in 2022, and the biggest increase in at least 17 years in permanent partner visa finalisations—a 158 per cent increase compared to the equivalent period. These are people already in the country, so the opposition can't run a migration scare campaign. They're the husbands and wives of Australians and have been here for years, just waiting for the permanent visa to come through so they can get on with their lives with certainty. Additional resources have also been allocated to the complex onshore team, which is so important to my electorate, particularly the Afghan nationals. Since 1 July 2022, this dedicated team has reduced the oldest part of the caseload—that is, applications lodged before 2016. Imagine that. Seriously reflect on it, I say to those opposite—2016. We've reduced that by 89 per cent, from 3,280 down to 342 applications. So, when we came to government, there were 3,300 people who, under that mob, had been waiting for their partner visas since 2016—disgraceful. The TPV or SHEV holders have a pathway to permanency, and the vast majority of those have now been granted. Again, these are people who had been in the country for a decade or more—permanent temporary migrants, an underclass in Australian society who were excluded, were never able to see their families and were never able build a life here. It didn't just harm them; it did our country and our society no good to have this permanent shadow underclass. They've been fixed. The majority of them have been granted. We've made progress on the humanitarian program. For the first time since 2018-19, the humanitarian program was delivered in full. The government has increased the number of places—doing the right thing, given global demand. It's not easy, it costs money, it's not popular in every part of the country, but it's the right thing to do, particularly to bring to safety those people who risked their lives working for Defence and Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan. They risked their lives and their family and loved ones. I want to compliment the Department of Home Affairs on the progress that they've made and on the difference they're making to people's lives. Health Care 74 19:40 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Reviews, committees and more reviews do not make good health policy. The lack of action from the Albanese Labor government when it comes to health across the nation is really concerning. There's so much smoke and mirrors by the Labor health minister on health care, it is absolutely extraordinary. I'll tell you a bit about it. The public are being sold a positive story on health, but further inspection shows that there is so much lacking. To name a few concerns, there are concerns from Australians and stakeholders around bulk-billing and community pharmacies, and the rollout of the Medicare urgent care clinics and the kids Head to Health hubs. We have a government that has slashed Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions in half, and it continues to call for reviews, meaning change in the sector is just not happening at all. There are issues regarding the National Diabetes Services Scheme and access to pumps that deliver life-saving insulin. There is a shingles vaccine shortage, and we have low rates of COVID vaccine uptake in aged-care facilities. I have stakeholder after stakeholder saying that they can't even get in the door of the health minister to talk with him. These stakeholders include mental health organisations, medtech companies and medical researchers. Let's start with the Labor government's response to the report of the House's Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport inquiry into long COVID. As deputy chair of the committee and shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, I am particularly dismayed by some of the government's comments in response to the report. The health committee, in recommendation 6 of the report, noted: Mental health support for those with long COVID must be provided in an affordable, timely and equitable manner, and regular review of mental health issues should be part of GP management noting that the extent of related mental health impacts is still unknown The government's response, and, more pointedly, the minister's response, stated: … a number of mental health supports are currently available to those impacted by COVID-19. These include Medicare-subsidised psychological services through the MBS Better Access Initiative … a range of online and digital supports … It is extraordinary that the government is recommending people access a program that they have cut in half. Thirteen months on from when the cuts came into effect—in January 2023—it is being reported that fewer people have been accessing psychology sessions, whilst mental ill health continues to rise in Australia. Let's not forget the broken commitment on Labor's Medicare urgent care clinics. We saw scores of clinics open late across the country. The government talk a big game now, talking up their Medicare urgent care clinics, but they opened late. And some of them, like in my electorate of Lindsay, only stay open until 8 pm, not the promised extended hours to help with emergency wait times. The quickness of the government's 60-day prescription policy will see impacts across the country, according to the Pharmacy Guild—quickness in completely blindsiding community pharmacists across the country. I've held a roundtable with pharmacists, ongoing in my community, who are bewildered by this decision. It means that pharmacies will be paid once for twice the amount of work, and we know that costs will increase and that those costs will be passed on to consumers. We have doctors across the country who are putting off giving seniors the shingles vaccine because there is a shortfall. We need a government that takes medical procurement seriously. We've heard from the Stoma Industry Association that another review is being conducted into the Stoma Appliance Scheme. I am informed by the association that there have been multiple reviews over the last two decades, and they weren't made public. I hope the next report by this government makes the findings public to assist. This is just one example of the litany of reviews and commitments with which this Labor government is dragging everything down the track. It is not only in this industry; it involves multiple sectors and review after review. The recent NDSS decision about constant glucose monitoring devices means less choice for people with type 1 diabetes. We need solutions and better medical technology across the board. I know my fellow health portfolio holders in the House agree with me on this. They are working really hard to hold the government to account. So we're calling on the government to step up in the health space, because right now the nation depends on it. Reid Electorate: Telecommunications 75 19:45 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Good mobile reception and internet connectivity are something many people take for granted. It's not something you think about. But, when you don't have good reception, it can have a profoundly frustrating impact on day-to-day life, and that's certainly been the case for people living in Five Dock and Canada Bay. A local constituent got in contact with me to express his deep frustration with the poor mobile reception. He told me how it affected not just his daily life but his work too. He's a freelancer who often works from home. New clients couldn't contact him for potential work, and existing clients got frustrated that their calls weren't being answered. It was so frustrating that this person has considered leaving the area altogether to get better reception. Stories like these led me to run a community survey to find out just how widespread the problem was, and the response was huge. I was overwhelmed. I received almost 400 postal and online survey responses detailing the poor mobile coverage and how it impacted people. In answer to the question, 'How often do you experience mobile black spots?' one constituent said, 'Often, when I'm inside the house, the caller on the mobile cannot hear me clearly, so I need to go outside to continue the conversation or ask them to call me back on the landline.' Another said: 'It is hard to get signal at our home regularly. We recently had difficulties calling emergency services via triple zero.' Poor mobile coverage is having an impact on their quality of life, their businesses and their ability to work from home. That's why I have written to and met with the major telecommunication providers: Telstra, Optus and TPG. I've asked each provider to come up with a plan to improve mobile coverage for Five Dock and Canada Bay, and I will report back to the community about the next steps. Bad mobile reception isn't just an issue that is localised to Five Dock and Canada Bay; it's an issue in Wentworth Point too. These are suburbs in metropolitan Sydney, less than 20 kilometres from the CBD, with thousands and thousands of residents. We've managed to significantly improve the mobile coverage in Wentworth Point thanks to working with the telecommunication providers, and I want to do the same for Five Dock. But it points to a broader problem with mobile coverage, and that's the lack of planning. That's why I'm so grateful for the communications minister's efforts to bring in broader communications reforms through the telecommunications in new developments policy. The policy was updated and took effect on 17 February this year. It sets a clear path for how we're going to prevent these frustrating black spots from happening in the future. It's about ensuring that, as a community grows, everyone moving into new developments has access to modern telecommunications, including both mobile and broadband services. Just as you expect to have water and electricity when you move into a new area, developers will now have to view mobile connectivity with the same level of importance as these essential services. This will apply to new residential properties with more than 50 lots. Developers will be encouraged to engage with mobile network providers early in the process so new homes will be well built and well connected too. The principles that drive this key policy are to engage early, plan thoroughly and build not just for now but for the connectivity needed for tomorrow. We've seen how badly affected communities are when the planning is not done right and mobile coverage is not considered. So, while I'm determined to patch up the gaps in mobile coverage across my electorate, I'm very pleased that the Albanese Labor government is doing the hard policy work to ensure that this sort of remediation work doesn't need to happen as often in the future. If we plan it right, at the very beginning, mobile coverage and internet broadband usage will be something that everyone in this country can take for granted. Cybercrime 75 19:50 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to a group of eager and very well educated seniors at the Probus Club of Main Ridge in my beautiful electorate of Flinders. They had invited me to come along and speak about parenting in the age of social media, but our conversation quickly progressed to all things 'tech for good' and sometimes things 'tech for bad'. I was left with the now familiar feeling that we have not quite done enough to equip our seniors with the skills that they need not only for the digitised world into which they have been thrown so completely in a post-COVID life but especially in respect of the risk of online scamming. Scamming is doing untold damage to many of the community based values that underpin what is so beautiful about living in Australia: our trusted institutions, our faith in other people, honesty, generosity, self-reliance and, above all else, self-confidence. Today scams impact everyone. No-one is spared. Not the tech savvy, the highly educated, the financially savvy or the circumspect are spared. Among my constituents who have fallen victim to scams are retired doctors, soldiers, accountants and small-business owners. The scammers are very sophisticated. They can teach a 90-year-old normally stumped by myGov or iview to download remote-access technology in minutes, laying bare their financial tools and passwords to the scammers' manipulation. From the data, we know that the elderly are at much greater risk of being scammed. Those over 75 are 50 per cent more likely to be scammed than those just 10 years younger. No-one should feel ashamed falling into the trap. Indeed last night, I listened to a podcast by Ryan Pullen, director of cybersecurity at the SANS Institute. You would think at least he would be safe from scamming. But, in his TED Talk that was released overnight, he describes how a few weeks ago he received a phone call at around 8 pm. The person on the other end knew his name, his address and his mother's maiden name. The number he was called from was the fraud number for his own bank, and, when he googled the names of his interlocutors, he found them on LinkedIn as employees of his bank. He had the good sense though, while on hold, to simultaneously call the bank's fraud line from another phone and ask them to add a special note to his account. When he asked the fraudulent interlocutor what that note said, he sensed a moment of hesitation and a slight flummox and he ended the call, blocked all his accounts and changed all his bank cards. This man's professional life is cybersecurity, yet he went down the rabbit hole for an hour and a half until he managed to make two simultaneous calls and set a trap for the fraudster. This was only facilitated because his actual bank picked up the phone and he reached an actual human in real time at 9 o'clock at night. When you ring a fraud line at 9 o'clock at night in Australia, you don't always get a human and certainly not in real time. More often, it's a digitised interface giving little if any reassurance to the caller that the remedial steps that they seek have actually been put in place. This is made infinitely worse by the ongoing closure of bank branches across regional areas and even so-called metropolitan areas like mine, which denies concerned customers the option of turning up and shutting down their bank accounts or at least seeking advice face to face. Billions of dollars are lost to scammers every year. In 2022, Australians lost a combined $3.1 billion to scams, an increase of an enormous 80 per cent from 2021. If home burglaries went up by 80 per cent in one year, we would have a significant increase in on-ground police forces, community awareness campaigns and measures to make people feel safe. But, at the moment, Australia is lacking the tools to stop scams happening. In the words of one of the big four banks that I met with recently on this topic, Australia is an easy target. Last week, I met with the Australian Banking Association, who told me about the scam safe accord they have developed with their member banks and implemented last November. While I truly thank them for their efforts and note recent moves by the government to address this scam scourge more comprehensively, there is so much more we can do to immediately to help people, particularly the elderly, in a proactive, supportive, customer service oriented way. Banks could inform elderly customers, for example, of the risks they face, not just by advertising online or putting it on social media but by writing to their homes and suggesting they install appropriate security measures. They can even recommend the original two-factor authentication, requiring for all significant transactions the authority of the elderly customer and a trusted family member. Our response is too slow, too complex and not customer focused enough to make our citizens feel safe. We have much more to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the member for her contribution. Albanese Government 76 19:55 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I rise to address this House on a matter of paramount importance: the wellbeing of working Australians. As the federal member for Holt, I'm aware of the challenges families face in Melbourne's outer south-east and across the nation. The escalating cost-of-living crisis, compounded by exploitative employment practices, possesses a significant threat to the livelihoods of working Australians. In response to these challenges, the Labor Party has developed a comprehensive plan to deliver meaningful support to working families. Our approach includes both immediate relief measures and structural reforms aimed at addressing the root causes of the cost-of-living crisis. At the heart of our strategy lies our commitment to creating jobs and getting wages moving again, which is the foundation of substantial economic growth. Over 650,000 new jobs have been created since Labor came into government, and, through our workplace reforms, we've delivered the highest annual wage growth since 2009. This is not just about numbers, it's about empowering individuals and families with opportunities for advancement and economic security. But we know that job creation alone is not enough. We also need to ensure that workers are treated fairly and have access to secure employment. That's why the closing loopholes legislation, championed by the Albanese Labor government, represents a landmark achievement. We have closed loopholes that enabled the undercutting of wages through dodgy labour hire practices to ensure the same pay for the same job. We have criminalised wage theft to ensure that a bad employer can never steal from the wages of their employees. We have strengthened protections for casual and gig economy workers to ensure that all workers are treated fairly and have access to secure employment. But our commitment to supporting working Australians goes even further. Our plan to support workers addresses a range of issues, recognising the varied nature of the challenges facing Australian families. We understand that addressing the cost-of-living crisis requires multiple approaches. Our cost-of-living tax cuts are a vital component of our plan. These tax cuts ensure that every single Australian worker receives a fair share of relief, with particular attention to those on lower incomes. In Holt, families are set to benefit significantly, with the average tax cut amounting to $1,321—substantial support for households grappling with the rising living expenses. Whether you're in Clyde, Cranbourne, Hampton Park, Narre Warren South or Tooradin, with Labor's plan, all taxpayers will now get a tax cut. Under Labor's plan, 90 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate of Holt will get a bigger tax cut. Beyond tax relief, our 10-point plan includes electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, expanded Medicare bulk billing, cheaper medicines, increased income support payments, free TAFE, more affordable homes and expanded paid parental leave. These measures are designed to provide support where it's needed the most, ensuring that working Australians have the resources they need to thrive. Moreover, we are investing in essential services like health care and education, which are vital for the wellbeing of communities in growing areas like my electorate of Holt. From building more affordable housing to expanding paid parental leave, our plan is focused on improving the lives of working families. The Labor Party's commitment to working Australians is unwavering. We understand the challenges facing families in Holt and beyond, and we are dedicated to delivering meaningful support to improve their lives. From tax relief to job creation, and from wage growth to worker protection, our vision for a fairer and more prosperous Australia is clear. Together, we can build a future where every Australian has the opportunity to thrive and to achieve their aspiration so no-one in this country is left behind. The House transcript was published up to 20:00 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Andrews ) took the chair at 15:59.

Tuesday, 27 February 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Andrews ) took the chair at 15:59.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Small Business: Taxation 78 15:59 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Small businesses in Australia are under pressure from inflation, rising interest rates, the increasing cost of goods and services and the challenges of hiring and retaining staff. As my electorate is home to the third-largest business centre in Australia, including over 28,000 small businesses, potential new challenges are felt very quickly and keenly by those I represent. Recently my office has been overrun with concerns expressed about the significant impact of ATO process changes made in November last year, with many small businesses reporting that they simply do not have the resources or administrative expertise to do battle with the bureaucratic behemoth. A local accountant recently explained the challenge to me, saying the new procedure has created a significant new administrative hurdle for small business. In the past, when a business's paperwork got out of hand, owners could leave everything with their accountant to lodge returns through the tax portal. It was pretty straightforward. But the changes introduced in November now mean a business must get a myGovID, link their company or trust to it, which requires hours on the phone, and then log into their business portal, scroll to find their accountant, and send their accountant an invitation, which at the end of the day only allows the accountant to act on their behalf for 12 months, which then means the business has to do it all again in just a year's time. In just a fortnight, this accountant had had three small businesses come to him with insurmountable problems due to this change. Given there are thousands of similarly sized accountancy practices, I can only imagine the likely scale of this problem. The irony for the accountant I spoke to is that, due to the difficulty of navigating this new system, he has resorted to submitting paper tax returns by mail. This is leading to enormous stress, as fines keep accruing for unpaid tax and the process to have the fines forgiven has its own challenges. I've heard from constituents who have effectively been forced into unreasonable payment plans because the alternative is enforced liquidation. Businesses used to have a case worker to help them negotiate a repayment plan, but these too are gone. Instead, people are basically trying to negotiate with an unresponsive computer system. Quite simply, small businesses haven't been appropriately educated, and the time and resources to help them are nowhere to be found. If robodebt has taught us anything, it should be that government procedures can be destructive and have a destructive impact on individuals when people's lived experiences are not heeded. Yet I am concerned we are witnessing something similar in relation to small businesses and the ATO. Given this, I urge the government, as a matter of urgency, to please act now to modify harmful processes, while it's the alarm that's sounding rather than livelihoods and lives collapsing. Canberra Electorate: ZamZam Foundation, Canberra Electorate: UNSW Canberra 78 16:02 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra On Sunday I had the great pleasure of attending a fundraiser with the Zamzam Foundation, an important community organisation based here in my electorate of Canberra. The organisation was founded by Dr Nilofar Ebrahimi, a medical doctor and former member of parliament in Afghanistan, where she was an important advocate for Afghan women. She founded ZamZam in 2019 to support and empower orphans, youth and families in distress and to help young women enrol in universities. When the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021, Dr Ebrahimi left her home country and moved to Canberra, where she has continued her critical work. ZamZam's work supports people in Afghanistan with their basic needs to live, including providing them with food and supply packs that can feed a family for a month, with winter clothes for orphans and widows, and with cash, which is highly important in Afghanistan. ZamZam also aims to get girls into schools and women into university. That's despite the increasing barriers to female education that have been put up by the Taliban. ZamZam also works hard in Australia to support newly arrived Afghan refugees and help them settle into their new lives here, including helping with driving lessons and swimming lessons and community programs here in Canberra. Sunday's fundraiser gave attendees the opportunity to buy beautiful clothing and jewellery made by women and girls in Afghanistan whose education is supported by ZamZam. Their work is critical and should be commended, and I recommend that people have a look at their website and support them if you can. Last week, I also had the opportunity to visit UNSW Canberra to hear about their major plans for the future. I am fortunate enough to have five universities in my electorate. UNSW Canberra has a long history associated with the Australian Defence Force College. They recently announced their intention to provide specialised degrees for graduates who want to pursue careers in security and defence industry, two very important industries here in Canberra. They want to become a research institution and are well on their way to doing so. UNSW Canberra Launch is a collaborative workspace that will bring together industry, government and university to grow innovation and capability in the defence and security sectors. I was lucky to visit the Skykraft workshop and found that they are building satellites just around the corner from my office in the middle of Civic. Their plan is to build these satellites to make air-traffic surveillance and communications easier, specifically over remote regions and the ocean. To support their big changes, UNSW Canberra are planning to build a world-class campus on the old CIT Reid campus. The campus will be developed in close proximity to the defence buildings and will focus on creating graduates that have the skills and knowledge that are key to developing defence capability. Morrison Government: Mental Health 79 16:05 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning former Prime Minister Morrison named the mental health agreements that his government achieved with the states as one of his proudest achievements. I want to reflect a little on those agreements and on the achievements of the Morrison government in mental health. I was his assistant minister on mental health and suicide prevention for 18 months from December 2020 until the election, and I do feel that the Prime Minister's legacy in this area is quite significant. In the 2021-22 budget, the Morrison government committed a record investment of $2.3 billion into mental health and suicide prevention. One of the really important initiatives was the establishment of Head to Health—more than half a billion dollars provided in that budget. That set Head to Health on the path of being what would ultimately become the even larger mental health organisation that headspace is today. Head to Health is about providing free community based support for people who are struggling with mental health issues who perhaps aren't getting the support they need through the hospital system but who need more support than can be provided simply through GPs and local psychologists. In time there'll be more than 100 Head to Health centres around the country. It's very pleasing to see that the Albanese government is continuing to roll out those Head to Health centres. It's something that we're very proud of. A very serious but extremely important topic is what's known as aftercare. This is when people are released from hospital after a suicide attempt. In Australia a few years ago only about half of people who were discharged from hospital in that most serious of situations actually received follow-up care in the community. These people are in a very serious situation. Through the agreement with the states and territories, all states and territories and the Commonwealth committed, both in word and in financial deed, to make that universal so that 100 per cent of Australians will get at least three months support in the community upon discharge in that most serious of situations. I'm very proud that we were able to do that. Eating disorders are another issue that touches so many families in Australia, and the commitment of the Morrison government to establish a world-leading research centre into eating disorders was also a very important achievement of this period. Prime Minister Morrison was extremely genuine and sincere in his desire to have a very positive impact on the mental health system in Australia. He can be proud of his legacy. Shipbuilding Industry, Defence Procurement 79 16:08 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Without question, shipbuilding is the apex form of sophisticated manufacturing in Australia, and I am proud to represent one of only two national shipbuilding hubs. We might make other artefacts in Australia that are as large as ships, but there are none as complex. In terms of our sovereign manufacturing capacity, our ability to make the things that are most important to us and to be a nation of which it can be said that we are capable of making anything, the significance of our shipbuilding businesses and workforce cannot be overstated. That's why the Albanese government's commitment to a continuous shipbuilding program at Henderson in my electorate is so welcome. That program, which was announced by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry last week, is unprecedented in its scale and duration. It is of course principally focused on meeting our maritime security and humanitarian response needs, by growing our fleet from 11 to 26 vessels and by delivering new vessels sooner than under the plan we inherited. It will guarantee the continuity and, indeed, the growth of shipbuilding expertise and jobs in Western Australia for decades to come. It delivers billions of dollars of new investment that will sustain a manufacturing ecosystem, spanning hundreds of small- and medium-sized businesses. At present, the Henderson precinct is engaged in building four Arafura class offshore patrol vessels and two Cape class patrol vessels, alongside the work involved in upgrading our Anzac class frigates. We have already brought forward the work for delivering the Army's new landing craft medium and landing craft heavy, which will be undertaken by Birdon and Austal. As a result of this government's Defence Strategic Review, we're now committed to building eight new frigates as well as six cutting-edge optionally crewed surface vessels. The scale and carefully programmed nature of this work will be the foundation of long-term employment for more than 1,200 Western Australians. As I suggested earlier, the essential ingredient of our sovereign shipbuilding capacity is our skilled and highly committed maritime workforce. That's why we've already taken key steps to improve education and training opportunities, not least through the provision of 180,000 fee-free TAFE places across Australia. That has already benefitted the education of 19,700 Western Australians. All this does stand in contrast to the decade that preceded us under the previous government. The fact is that we inherited a fleet in decline, with our Navy being asked to make do with the oldest operational service fleet in Australia since the end of World War II. We're not going to allow that to remain the case. As an island continent, we must have a properly equipped Navy and we must maintain a first-rate standard of sovereign shipbuilding capacity. The Albanese Labor government sees that very clearly, and we're taking action to make sure that the shipbuilding hub at the Australian Marine Complex at Henderson, in my electorate of Fremantle, is secure and growing in its role as a national centre of manufacturing excellence. Cowper Electorate: Mental Health 80 16:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper This week, as many would know, is End Youth Suicide Week, so I thought I would take this opportunity to speak about mental health care in my electorate of Cowper. Over the past five years, or almost five years, in this role, I've held many forums and many round tables, on aged care, youth, industry and getting through COVID. There was a common theme here, and that common theme was mental health and the state of mental health in all of our electorates. One thing that our government—the coalition government—did at that time was to increase the Medicare-rebated appointments for mental health from 10 to 20. Doctors around my electorate were very grateful for that increase, because they were telling me that over 30 per cent of their consultations were mental health consultations. That is a huge number when you consider, for example, that in my electorate, 27 per cent of the population is over the age of 65—you would think the majority of care would be for aged-care health issues. To have 30 per cent of doctor and GP consultations about mental health is enormous. We can imagine the disappointment when those 20 visits were reduced by the current government, down to 10. There's a young lady in my electorate by the name of Fleur Davies, who started a petition late last year crying out to have the number of sessions reinstated to 20. That petition amassed thousands of signatures across my electorate. In response to the petition, the Minister for Health and Aged Care proceeded to list the issues and figures around the programs. What he didn't do is list the number of participants from regional areas, or Cowper specifically, nor did he show any compassion for or understanding of those who can't afford access to these programs without the Medicare rebates. He concluded his letter with: 'I note your concerns on the case of mental health sessions. While the government is responsible for setting the level of Medicare rebates for services, professionals are free to set their own fees and some of these may exceed the level of Medicare rebates.' What he has done, effectively, is blame the psychologist or counsellor. Minister, what you need to do is reinstate those Medicare rebates back up to 20 sessions, and do the right thing. Gilmore Electorate: Roads 80 16:14 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I am thrilled to speak today about the Jervis Bay flyover project, which has now moved onto the major construction phase. Last week, I was honoured to join with the federal Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Kristy McBain; the member for South Coast, Liza Butler; the New South Wales Premier, and the New South Wales minister for regional roads to mark this occasion. It is, after all, a significant achievement that has been a long time in the making and one that I am proud to have joined with the community years before to help make a reality. I pay tribute to local community organisation Vincentia Matters, in particular, Liz Tooley, who has spearheaded the successful community campaign. The Princes Highway-Jervis Bay intersection is the busiest and most crash-prone intersection to the Victorian border. It has been the location of 15 crashes over the past five years, resulting in six serious crashes. It is the main gateway to Huskisson and Jervis Bay. In peak times, locals and tourists know all about the long queues that can be seen backed up on Jervis Bay Road. But what did the local Liberals propose all those years ago for this intersection? A roundabout, and the community had their say about that—that it just would not be good enough. A community petition was started for a flyover, which quickly gained signatures. I gladly walked that petition around the streets of Vincentia. It gained over 14,000 signatures. It was then-New South Wales deputy opposition leader Yasmin Catley who presented the petition in the New South Wales parliament. Let me be clear, it was the community I wholeheartedly supported that was responsible for the current plan for the Jervis Bay flyover. I called for federal funding to be brought forward and was pleased to secure $100 million in federal funding delivered by the Albanese Labor government, together with $64 million by the Minns Labor government. The total project cost is $164 million. The new intersection upgrade will deliver a grade-separated flyover style intersection and an overpass across the Princes Highway with a roundabout on each side of Jervis Bay Road to deliver safer and smoother connections it. It will include a multimodal facility which will include parking, park and ride, and pathways. This upgrade will expand the Princes Highway to two lanes in each direction on the approaches to the intersection, longer entry and exit lanes, and free-flowing access to the highway when travelling north and south. At least 110 jobs will be created during construction, with contractor SRG Global Civil delivering the project to be completed in up to four years. I cannot wait to open the Jervis Bay flyover, along with my community. Middle East 81 16:17 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes A lot of people in this place and elsewhere know that I have been a long-time supporter of the Palestinian people. Some years ago, I spent eight days on the West Bank. One of my former mayors is 'Al' Karanouh from Coonamble. His family left their homes in the Nakba in 1948, and his siblings were scattered across the globe from a refugee camp in Lebanon, so, through Al, I've had a bit of an insight into what's going on. Unfortunately, Hamas's attack in October of last year has made it incredibly difficult to see a solution for that part of the world. One of the reasons that I have been a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine is I desperately didn't want this to become a political division in this country. Sadly, I've completely failed in that attempt. What I call the protest classes—the extremists—who might think they're helping the Palestinian people are also doing enormous harm, because it's an excuse not to worry about the deaths of nearly 30,000 people if the people who are speaking up for them and the ones who get the attention don't have the credibility with the broader community. All I ask is that we don't take sides, that we look at a resolution for that area and that we understand that a child who has been killed by stray bullets, a child who is suffering from malnutrition and illness, is an innocent person regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinian. We must not forget our humanity and become a cheer squad for one side or the other in this country. We are not doing the people of the Middle East any favours. We need to have a measured approach. We need a ceasefire so that this can be sorted through. This is one of the most frustrating times in my 16 years in this place. I know it's a long way away but, when you've been there and you've seen through your own eyes the conditions on the ground in that part of the world, you have a responsibility as a human being and as a member of parliament to try to do what you can to make a difference. I know I'm outnumbered on this issue, but I'm just asking people to think of the humanity rather than just taking sides. Taxation 81 16:20 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I'm rising today to speak about the tax cuts in the electorate of Sydney, but I want to thank the member for Parkes for making those comments. I think there's a lot of agreement on this side with the words that he said. I'm very pleased to talk about our tax cuts and what they mean for the people of Australia and, in particular, my electorate. I know that my constituents are feeling the bite of cost-of-living pressures, particularly when it comes to housing. My electorate has some of the highest rents in the country, and that's why I'm very proud to be part of a government that has invested in housing. We've invested billions of dollars in the Housing Affordability Fund and we're trying to get 'help to buy' through the parliament at the moment, and it would be great if the Greens and Liberals didn't team up to block it. But right now, one thing we can do is back the bigger tax cuts that our side of parliament is proposing. In my electorate, this would put more money in the pockets of more people at a time when they're doing it tough. Every working Australian would receive a tax cut from 1 July. That's 13.6 million people. In my electorate, what that means is that 112,000 people would receive an average tax cut of $1,915; 86,000 taxpayers would receive a bigger tax cut than they would have under the proposal of the previous government, and 76 per cent of all taxpayers in my electorate would receive a bigger tax cut than they would have received from Scott Morrison's proposal. We want people to earn more. We want them to keep more of what they earn, after a decade of wage stagnation. And that's the other bit of good news that I'm delighted to share with this place: seeing real wages growing for the first time through the largest pay increases in 14 years in the most recent wage price index, is so great. Real wages growth is back. We on this side always back higher minimum wages for Australian workers. We want to see those flow through to awards. We were prepared to back that 15 per cent pay increase for the aged-care sector. And, of course, 90 per cent of those aged-care workers are women. I also really want to say how pleased I am to see the ABS figures on the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap has dropped to 12 per cent, the lowest level on record. I'm very proud of the contribution that our changes to industrial relations laws have made, including things like the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reports into the pay gap into the private sector. Having large Australian companies report their gender pay gap will have an impact over time. We're getting on with it. We're helping people with the cost of living through tax cuts, through housing and through wages. Financial Security 82 16:23 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Financial scams are becoming all too common. I wish to draw the attention of parliament to the plight of more than 100 elderly Western Australian retirees who lost their life savings in the financial collapse of the Sterling First rent-for-life scheme. The recent Senate inquiry into the Sterling Income Trust was critical of the regulatory failures of both ASIC and the Western Australian Department of Consumer Protection. From 2015, ASIC began receiving complaints that the directors of Sterling First had misrepresented the scheme and that the directors were serial Ponzi offenders associated with previously collapsed schemes resulting in millions of dollars in losses. The human impact has been devastating, with many vulnerable senior citizens facing severe financial hardship and homelessness. In a bid to secure some form of redress, the victims have formed the Sterling First Action Group and are currently pursuing a class action through the courts. A grassroots community campaign is being fought to provide justice for the victims of the failed scheme. It is in the public interest to reveal that the current president of the Liberal Party's HillarysBranch, Kirsten Marie, served as a director of the responsible entity, Theta Asset Management, alongside her husband, Robert Patrick Marie, who was fined $100,000 by ASIC and banned for four years from controlling an entity carrying on a financial services business. Theta Asset Management was also fined $2 million by ASIC and forced into liquidation for its role in the $16.7 million collapse. It is clearly untenable for individuals who have been sanctioned by ASIC to occupy senior office bearer positions within the Liberal Party. To date the media has been reluctant to report on this fact. It is a major financial scandal and an embarrassment for the Liberal Party. Questions need to be asked about the circumstances in which Kirsten Mariecame to be installed as president of the Hillarys Branch of the Liberal Party, because it is evident that her continued involvement in the senior role is untenable. What role does Simon Ehrenfeld, president of the Moore division and a candidate for Liberal Party preselection, play in exerting control over the Hillarys branch in conjunction with Robert and Kirsten Marie? On behalf of my constituents, the victims of the Sterling First financial scam, I call upon Kirsten Marie and Robert Patrick Marie to resign their positions within the Liberal Party immediately. A grassroots community campaign is being mobilised to fight for justice for the victims of the failed scheme. Gellibrand Electorate: Telecommunications 82 16:26 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand No suburb in Australia does more online shopping than Point Cook in my electorate in Melbourne's west. It's true but it's ironic, because residents in Point Cook have long had to put up with inadequate mobile phone coverage. Late last year I surveyed residents about their experiences with poor mobile coverage and connectivity. They told me stories about how poor connectivity impacted them every day: stories of disrupted online education; of remote work proving difficult, if not impossible; of being unable to reach family and friends because their connection was too poor; and, most concerningly of all, of how lack of reception saw some Point Cook residents concerned that they would be unable to contact emergency services when they needed to. The message was clear: telecommunications providers needed to lift their game in the area. I used the results of this survey to make the case directly to the CEOs of Telstra and Optus. I told them about my constituents' experiences and my expectation that they lift their game. My staff have met with representatives of the companies to go through these issues in detail. In response I've been told that Telstra is now building two new mobile phone towers in Point Cook. Site acquisition for these towers has escalated since my community consultation. These new phone towers will provide improved 4G and 5G connectivity for Point Cook residents. Optus have advised that they plan to establish four new connectivity sites and to upgrade two existing sites over the next one to five years. These developments will mean that Telstra customers in Point Cook should start to see their connection improve, potentially as soon as in the next six months. The time line is less clear for Optus customers, but I'll continue working productively with them to speed up their telecommunications infrastructure. This is progress, but I'm continuing to push these providers to move more quickly and to deliver these much-needed infrastructure improvements as soon as possible. The Albanese Labor government is working to keep Australians connected across Melbourne's peri-urban fringe. We're rolling out the Peri-Urban Mobile Program—or PUMP—to improve connectivity in bushfire priority areas and across greater Melbourne in conjunction with the Victorian government. I've implored mobile phone carriers to take advantage of this program if it will help them to improve their mobile coverage for residents in fast-growing peri-urban areas of Melbourne, like Point Cook in my electorate. This complements the Mobile Black Spot Program, which aims to improve mobile coverage across regional and remote Australia. The Albanese government believes that your mobile connection should not be determined by your postcode. Before the last election we made it clear that under our government no Australian would be held back and no Australian would be left behind. I'll keep pushing to ensure that all Point Cook residents have better mobile connectivity so that they can get on with living their lives, running their businesses, getting their study done and communicating with their friends and families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 83 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 83

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

Second Reading 83 16:30 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt One of the first matters that I was alerted to when I became the Minister for Veterans' Affairs was that of what is referred to as the Douglas decision, a decision of the Federal Court, and the unintended consequences of that decision that may flow through to the veteran community. While the veteran community broadly welcomed the Douglas decision of 2020 and many veterans have benefited from that decision, we were alerted to concerns that a number of veterans were facing higher end-of-year tax liabilities as a result. For context, the Douglas decision found that anyone who was receiving military invalidity benefits, paid under the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme or the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, on or after September 2007 should be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than superannuation income streams. For many, this did provide a tax benefit. There's no doubt, though, that the Douglas decision was highly complex, and it has taken time to work through some of the consequences of this decision to make sure that there are no unintended consequences left unresolved. Labor committed to ensuring veterans were not left worse off as a consequence of the Douglas decision and the necessary legal changes flowing from it. Previously, these payments, under the MSBS and the DFRDB, were treated as asset test exemption income streams and defined as benefit income streams under both the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:31 to 16 : 44 Mr KEOGH 249147 As I was just explaining, the legislation that is before us today is part of Labor's commitment to ensuring that veterans are not left worse off as a consequence of the Federal Court's Douglas decision from 2020. The payments that flow to some veterans through the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme were previously, before the Douglas decision, treated under the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act as asset-test-exempt income streams and defined as benefit income streams. As a result of the Douglas decision, the lump-sum payments may not now qualify as benefit income streams or be exempt from asset tests. This leads to a high degree of uncertainty and risk of unintended consequences for veterans. We want to fix this problem, and that's what this legislation is all about. We want to ensure that veterans have certainty to maintain equity in the system and fairness in the way that income support recipients are means-tested and the way in which their pay rates are determined. Today, we're looking to resolve these issues once and for all to ensure that veterans are no worse off following the Federal Court's decision. These new provisions in this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, insert a new income stream classification and assessment regime into the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. These changes in the bill are designed to ensure the same assessment of income for invalidity payments and to ensure that invalidity payments continue to be treated as exempt from the assets test, clarifying the issues identified earlier. The new provisions are designed to ensure the same assessment of income for invalidity payments and to ensure that invalidity payments continue to be treated in the same way from an assets test point of view. This means that a person's invalidity payments that they may be receiving either through social security or under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, which are provided in recognition of the need for increased support due to service related conditions, are not negatively affected by other income or assets. This is intended to ensure that veterans and/or their partners receive a level of support that is consistent with the intent of that legislation and policy, before the unexpected findings that were delivered by the Federal Court in the Douglas decision. The last thing we want is to negatively impact those who have signed up to defend our nation. This bill seeks to ensure that no veteran is worse off as a result of the Douglas decision in the Federal Court, and I commend the bill to the House. 16:47 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Full Federal Court's 2020 decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas, commonly referred to now as the Douglas case, has created an unintended consequence for the means test applied to certain military invalidity benefit payments under existing legislation. These affected payments are invalidity benefits under the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme. Both schemes are now closed. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 is required to ensure that veterans are no worse off following the Douglas decision. Given the commitment that our military personnel make to serving our nation, we have a moral obligation to ensure that, when they retire from the Australian Defence Force, we look after them and, certainly in situations such as this, that they are no worse off because of the unintended consequences of this case. It's important to fix this problem, to give veterans certainty, to maintain equity in the system and to ensure fairness in the way income support recipients are means-tested and their payment rates determined. It's vital to remember that these benefits are received by veterans who have served our country, and we owe it to them to ensure that legislation supports them in a fair and equitable manner. The government needs to amend legislation to ensure a clear and fair legal basis for assessing these payments within the income support system. This system provides targeted support to those who need it based on their income levels and circumstances. A key principle is to provide similar levels of support to people with similar means of supporting themselves. To maintain the system's equity and fairness to other income support recipients, these invalidity payments need to be assessed in line with how similar sources of income are assessed for other recipients. This bill aims to ensure that veterans and their partners continue to receive income support at a rate that aligns with the original intent of the legislation and policy before the Douglas decision and is consistent with entitlements for other income support recipients, including other veterans, under existing arrangements. The bill creates a new category of income stream in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act and a means-testing treatment designed to mirror the assessments obtained from the previous treatment before the Douglas decision. It inserts a new income stream classification and assessment regime under the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. These new provisions aim to ensure the same assessment of income of invalidity payments and continued exemption of the invalidity payments from the assets test. This ensures that veterans and/or their partners receive a level of support consistent with the original intent of the legislation and policy, before the unexpected findings of the Douglas decision. This bill also preserves the validity of all relevant historical income and asset assessments relating to affected payments. Importantly, the changes to the bill do not alter the income tax benefits from the Douglas decision for veterans and/or their partners. This approach ensures these military invalidity benefits continue to be treated similarly in the means test for other comparable types of income. This bill also ensures that veterans receiving military invalidity benefits will receive similar income support outcomes as other veterans with retirement benefits from the same military schemes and other Australians with similar income levels. By passing this bill, we aim to maintain fairness and equity within the income support system and demonstrate our ongoing commitment to supporting our veterans, who have served our nation. We owe it to them to get this right, and that's what this bill does. 16:52 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I'm pleased to be summing up on behalf of the Minister for Social Services. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to establish a clear legal basis for means testing 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. As the Minister for Social Services outlined in her second reading speech, as a result of the Douglas decision, we can no longer treat invalidity benefit payments from the Defence Force Retirements and Death Benefits Scheme and the Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme as asset-test-exempt defined benefit income streams in the social security means test. When we apply the framework used to assess income types in the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act, it is apparent that there's actually no explicit alternative means-testing treatment for these payments that we can use instead. The only alternative identified in existing legislation is clearly not intended for statutory superannuation benefits of this type, and analysis shows this alternative has significant legal risk and uncertainty, is unclear and would create inequities in the system, including amongst veterans themselves. That's why we need to establish a clear legal basis for means testing these payments in the social security system. One option would have been for the government to make amendments to classify these invalidity benefit payments as lump sums for the purposes of income support legislation. This would be similar to the way the payments were classified in tax law following the Douglas decision. 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. In fact, if the lump-sum treatment were applied to these payments in the social security means test, these veterans would actually be worse off because it would have the effect of reducing recipients' rates of support, leaving them with less money in their pockets. That's why, with this bill, the Minister for Social Services is introducing a new classification of military invalidity pension income stream in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act, to cover the military invalidity payments that are impacted and affected by the Douglas decision. The assessment of the 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 provides 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. In almost every case, the bill results in no change to the rate of income support veterans or their partners are currently receiving. Importantly, it would also mean veterans and their partners will continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other income support recipients under existing arrangements, including other DFRDB and MSBS veterans who receive retirement defined benefit income streams. In addition, the bill validates past assessments of the affected invalidity payments under the previous treatment, which may be invalid in light of the Douglas decision. It also gives the secretary of the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Commission the power to create instruments under relevant acts to set out conditions under which other income stream payments can be classified as military invalidity pension income streams if this is required down the track. On behalf of the Minister for Social Services, I want to thank the member for Deakin and the opposition for indicating the bipartisan approach and support that has been taken by the coalition, and also the member for Deakin for engaging so positively and constructively with the minister's office and the minister herself on this really important legislation. With this bill, we are establishing a clear legal basis where currently there isn't one for means testing the income from those payments affected by the Douglas decision when recipients of these payments also seek support through our income support system. It's so important to give our veterans certainty. For those who have served our nation, this change maintains equality in a way different income support recipients are means tested and gives that certainty to it. Again, I acknowledge the bipartisan support from across the parliament on this very important change. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 85

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 85 16:58 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024. Many small businesses in Warringah are struggling right now. Some are even closing entirely. At the end of 2023, we had local institutions in Mosman shut up shop, including Brunskills Pharmacy, Savior Faire, Shane's Quality Butchery, Don Adan cafe, a vast variety of local businesses. They have been local favourites for over 30 years. Whilst there are a lot of pressures facing small- and medium-sized businesses right now—inflation, utility bills, less consumer spending—one other thing I always hear about when visiting small businesses is the difficulty and complexity of navigating our industrial relations laws, their fear of getting it wrong and the fact that it is constantly changing. The government has now pushed through several legislative packages of major changes to our industrial relations laws, some of which we are still working through. It makes it difficult for small businesses to operate, especially when only about 43 per cent of them are even breaking even. This bill is a classic example of the government doing a Senate deal and rushing through the legislation. I would argue it's poor policy, it hasn't been thought through and it hasn't been properly consulted on. The government is now having to clean up what happened through the rushed process. It only gives uncertainty and angst for businesses. It is not how we should be making policy in Australia. I respect the right to disconnect for employees, but by legislating it in the rushed way that we did—and we are now having to fix it—we are going to see unintended consequences. Many have heard about this in the media. What is the right to disconnect? It gives employees a right to disconnect from their employers' unreasonable contact outside of work hours. The difficulty of course is in the definition of 'unreasonable contact' and how that is interpreted. The change is partly a response to smart phones and working from home blurring the lines between work and personal life. We know that over the last few years with COVID many things have changed in our workplaces. While it is incredibly important to get the balance right, by legislating it in this way we are at risk of creating a real minefield for businesses. The right-to-disconnect amendment to the government's legislation came from Senate deliberations. It was not part of the suite of legislation that was put to the House. It was not part of a consultation process with COSBOA or BCA or business lobby groups. It hadn't had full consideration in the House before the government legislated it in the Senate. Now we're seeing it coming back to the House from the other place. In fact, we're having to pass this additional legislation because of the unintended consequence—or rather the effect of rushing to pass it—of including a criminal sanction in relation to this provision. No-one disagrees that employees need time to switch off, but we need to balance that with the need to get the job done, with productivity and with how businesses operate in a modern era with smart phones. We need to balance flexibility with being connected. The COVID-19 pandemic saw a huge change in the way many Australians work day to day. These changes have meant newfound flexibility for many, and that does make it harder to disconnect. Nevertheless, we don't want to lose the flexibility that many employers and employees alike value, because it has helped on both sides. For example, many women or families who need to deal with family commitments need to be able to leave the workplace, and they need to request more flexible arrangements. The converse is also true for employers. They will have difficulty in knowing what is going to be considered 'unreasonable contact' and during what times while continuing a willingness to provide more flexibility in relation to working arrangements. If this change in the law is used in a vexatious manner—which, let's get real, does happen—it will absolutely spook employers into winding back the flexible working arrangements that so many have come to enjoy. This amendment was rushed. We know that unintended consequences arise out of well-intentioned policymaking but rushed processes. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated that this sort of amendment is 'a blunt instrument which will do more harm than good'. They highlighted a tension, where technology has afforded employees more freedom to work unusual hours or to not be physically onsite but also assured employers that they are contactable if needed. That shows there is a level of nuance here that is worthy of greater scrutiny in order to get the policy balance right. How did we get here? Why must the government do this additional legislative clean-up? The second tranche of the government's closing loopholes legislation established the right to disconnect. This was established in the debate in the Senate on this legislation, where an amendment was sought to be made by the government to make clear that parties who breach a right-to-disconnect order issued by the Fair Work Commission are not committing a criminal offence. However, as so often happens here, political shenanigans and posturing were afoot, and the government were not granted leave for this amendment to be moved. Instead, we are taking up time in the House with an additional bill to do what that amendment was trying to do in the first place. This bill simply fixes that issue. It makes sure that noncompliance is a civil rather than a criminal offence, something which should have been done by amendment in the first place. But it does bring to light the broader problem in relation to this legislation and the processes of government in how these changes have occurred. This bill relates to the bill passed by the Senate a few weeks ago, and there's great concern in relation to some of the changes for casual workers. The government didn't give us enough of an opportunity to speak on the amended legislation at the time. In fact, it used its numbers to gag debate and rush it through, which is rather hypocritical in light of my having been in this place myself during the last term of government when the shoe was on the other foot and the now government complained about being gagged in those days. Good policymaking requires scrutiny and debate time. The definition of 'casual employee' and the conversion process have been amended in a way that is more palatable and, hopefully, practical for employees and employers. That would have been something I would have enjoyed the opportunity to debate when that bill came back from the Senate. Now there is one conversion process, initiated by an employee. That simplification is good. Businesses—and this was an amendment that was pushed for in the House but, as so often happens, was only agreed to by the government in the other place—only have to act on converting an employee from casual to part or full time if they receive a notification from the employee. Employees can initiate this after six months working for a bigger business or after 12 months working for a small or medium enterprise. This highlights yet another industrial relations issue we have, which is that there are currently 12 definitions of 'small business' in Commonwealth legislation. We will have more to say on this, and I'm urging the government to address that problem. Changes to the casual conversion process echo the amendments that the crossbench in the House had offered, and it's good to see that our efforts had some impact, since they were then agreed to in the other place. Overall, the changes that affect casual workers are not what is needed right now, I would argue, especially for small businesses, in light of current economic circumstances. They will still create complexity, uncertainty and more pressure for many that are already struggling to break even. Small businesses will continue to feel this pressure well into 2024. One of the biggest concerns I had with the original legislation was in relation to employee-like status and that threshold. This has also been amended in the other place, but of course we did not get the opportunity to comment on those amendments, because the government elected to gag debate. To be an employee-like worker, a person must satisfy two or more of the listed criteria, rather than one as in the original bill. There have now been some sensible changes introduced, refining what may be included for the Fair Work Commission to look at who is an employee-like worker and the scope of matters that will be included in minimum standard orders. This is a move in the right direction and provides more precision than existed in the original legislation. However, it is still a massive and complex change to the IR framework that will be complex and difficult for many to understand and implement, and with complexity comes uncertainty. Many of my constituents and businesses in Warringah will be affected by this new piece of legislation in relation to the right to disconnect, and quite possibly not in a positive way. I would argue to the government that we must look to ease the burden of red tape on our business owners, big and small. If we keep passing complex legislation that is rushed and not properly consulted on, we are making it harder for businesses and entrepreneurs to succeed in Australia. We need to get back to basics, with draft exposures of legislation for consultation and genuine engagement with a variety of stakeholders—listening to feedback and incorporating it to make our laws better. If we don't, we will continue to waste the time of this House on legislative clean-ups. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 87 17:09 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth While I think many constituents in Wentworth are open to the right to disconnect, there is some concern that it's come out of nowhere and hasn't been subject to the usual processes and scrutiny associated with significant changes in IR law, as the member for Warringah illustrated so carefully in her speech. As we consider this legislation, I wonder if the minister might be willing to share who was involved will consultation on the right to disconnect. 17:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Wentworth and also acknowledge that I was here for the speech given by the member for Warringah as well. I acknowledge that there are many issues we agree on within my Arts portfolio, but we are regularly in disagreement with Workplace Relations. There are often different views, but the engagement has always been constructive and, certainly, in the interest of their electorates. The right to disconnect had first been proposed through two parliamentary inquiries. For the work and care Senate inquiry, in terms of their consultation, not everybody would have made submissions on the right to disconnect but there were 125 submissions. It then came up again in the inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, where there were 130 submissions; obviously there only would have been a small number that dealt directly with closing loopholes, although I understand it came up directly during some of the evidence taken in the hearings that they held. Those were the formal parliamentary processes that caused some crossbench members, notably the Greens Party, to make clear last year that their support for the bill would ultimately be contingent on a right to disconnect being legislated. They made that clear publicly. At that point, we as a party adopted it as policy but as a government had not yet declared it at that point. Because it was coming up as a crossbench amendment, I made a point of making some comments about it publicly. Then there was a meeting on 2 February with employer groups, and that meeting has been made public. Not all of the employer groups but some of them had disengaged for some months from direct contact, which I respect—it's their right to do so. They did so very publicly. On 2 February, that was the moment they started to re-engage again. We worked through a lot of issues in the meeting; the right to disconnect was one of them. It would be disingenuous for me to claim that there was a whole meeting about it, but it was certainly an issue that was raised at that meeting with the business groups. There were conversations back and forth with a number of the groups that were present at that meeting. At that meeting we had ACCI, the BCA, AIG, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Master Builders Association, COSBOA, the Australian Retailers Association and the RCSA there—a series of groups. Subsequent to that, some of them, not all of them, had direct conversations back and forth with my office about different issues of concern they had with a series of aspects of the bill. One of those was the right to disconnect. Ultimately, the consultation continued between the government, the Greens Party and Senator David Pocock. I'm not sure of the extent to which Senator Jacqui Lambie was involved at that point, but ultimately we ended up at a point where, across Senator David Pocock, the Greens Party and the government, there was a form of words on which all could agree. There was consultation happening with business in terms of what they viewed as the worst possible ways to legislate if you were going to. I don't want to pretend the business groups were asking for this to be legislated at all, but, in terms of the views that the business groups put about if this were to be done and how they believed it would be more workable than other options, that consultation was certainly very much reflected in the amendment that ultimately went through. 17:14 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I thank the minister for his response. I note that the COIL, the Committee on Industrial Legislation, which typically provides advice to government on IR changes, was not consulted in this instance. Could the minister clarify for the record whether COIL was consulted and, if not, why not. 17:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Because my portfolio—I was even guilty of it then, when I listed out the business groups—collapses into a world of acronyms very quickly, I will explain the concept of what the COIL is. Under the Fair Work Act, there is a national workplace relations committee. It involves equal numbers of employer groups and union representatives. It has existed for a long time, regardless of who the minister of the day has been from each side of politics. It has a subcommittee known as the Committee on Industrial Legislation, referred to as COIL. What happens at that meeting is that, when government legislation is introduced, before it becomes public, it goes to that committee on a completely confidential basis. To my knowledge, that trust, no matter what people think of the legislation, hasn't been broken. What then happens is that you'll get people—under the other side of politics, it's more likely to be the unions; under this government, most recently, you'll get it from some of the business groups—who will say, 'Okay, first of all, I don't want you to do this at all. If you were to, these are the legislative problems with how you're dealing with it.' That's what COIL is and how it works. That's possible for government legislation. When we are dealing with an amendment that is coming from the crossbench in either house, whether it be the Senate or the House of Representatives, the government cannot present, with any certainty, what is going to be considered in the parliament, because it is the right of the crossbench member to choose their own amendment. That's the reason why the Committee on Industrial Legislation doesn't get consulted on crossbench amendments, nor can it be consulted on crossbench amendments. It is simply because it is the right of the crossbench to move the amendments in whatever form they choose. 17:16 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I thank the minister for his response. I take the point that COIL is typically consulted on government legislation and that the initial legislation implementing the right to disconnect is not government legislation. However, the right was supported by government, presumably after quite a lot of negotiation and internal consideration, and is now law. My question is: would the minister be willing to commit to consulting COIL on significant changes to IR legislation in the future, even for non-government amendments, which are likely to receive government support and become law? 17:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I'm really grateful to the member for Wentworth for both raising it and the terms on which it's raised. I don't think it is possible to have a workable way of presenting an amendment to a formal meeting of COIL that we ultimately don't have carriage of. Amendments in the Senate, similar to when amendments have gone back and forth in the House sometimes—which happened a bit on the secure jobs, better pay bill and has happened probably in a more specific way with climate legislation in the House—continue to be varied up until quite close to the time, in which case what was presented to the COIL by the government effectively might not reflect what ends up being introduced. I am certainly very open to working out what formal processes we can have to make sure that we get the benefit of a similar process. There's no doubt—and anyone who has held my job from either side of politics over the years will tell you—that the time lines of COIL are really frustrating and the outcomes are always helpful. That's something that will always be said. If there is a way of getting that sort of benefit for crossbench amendments, I'm interested in seeing how that might be able to be done. I don't think a direct replication of how it works for government can be done without taking away the effective rights of crossbench members and their agency over their own amendments. But I'm happy to, at the next meeting of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, raise the issue of the sorts of processes, even if they're conceptual, and where we can get the benefit of some of those processes, where an amendment is likely to be moved. It would, of course, have to be done in a way where it was really clear that it was still the right of the crossbench, that they might do something different—in which case the government would have to make a call—and that it couldn't be seen as a breach of trust. If we presented something radically different to the parliament to what we presented to COIL, it would be seen as a breach of trust unless the differences were what had been raised at COIL. So, if we can find a way of doing that, of getting some benefit from that sort of process, then I'm certainly open to it, and I'm happy to give the member for Wentworth an undertaking that I will take that up and explore how it might be possible to deal with the principles or policies that we think are likely to come through from crossbench amendments. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 89 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Middle East 89 17:21 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'd like to take this grievance debate literally and grieve for all those innocent lives lost in the horrific war between Hamas and the Israeli government, now in its fifth month. Yes, conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is decades old, but this latest violence is devastating. October the 7th, 2023, saw the largest loss of Jewish life on a single day since World War II at the hands of terrorist group Hamas, who still holds civilian hostages. The harrowing situation in the occupied Palestinian territories is affecting many Australians, who are grieving and scared for family and loved ones. Australia has vocally and repeatedly expressed concern about the unacceptable loss of civilian lives in Gaza. Worryingly, though, it may get worse. This week, according to media reports, the Israeli government may tick off on plans for a ground offensive, a major ground offensive, in Rafah, where over one million Palestinians are sheltering in tents and clinging to life. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to call on Israel not to go down this path. I've been a longstanding and vocal supporter of Palestinian rights and the need for a just resolution to this conflict and a political agreement for two states—a secure Israel and a Palestinian state—the longstanding policy of Australia and many nations. Yes, a secure Israel. The world cannot just abandon the Jewish people to be slaughtered by the Iranian regime or their proxy extremists. Those calling for extreme responses should remember this. The world also cannot stand by while Gazans starve to death or just passively observe accelerating dispossession and escalating violence in the West Bank. Mass starvation is not a proportionate response to Hamas's horror show. All human life is sacred, and all innocent civilians should be protected. Domestically, one of the most offensive things said is that the Australian government or parliament or MPs support genocide. That is ridiculous. Everyone wants to see a ceasefire. Australia has voted for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and of course wants to see a permanent ceasefire agreed to urgently by both parties. Australia has also stated that we expect Israel to abide by the ruling of the International Court of Justice in South Africa's case alleging genocide. Most urgently though, right now, is the need to get food to the people starving in Gaza. I say to the government of Israel: for God's sake, let food in now—not tomorrow or next week or next month but now, today. Right now, 400,000 Gazans are starving. Now, one million are at risk of starvation. Families in Gaza have been forced to forage for scraps of food left by rats and eat leaves out of desperation to survive. A Save the Children aid worker said: My husband told me people have resorted to eating bird and animal food and tree leaves out of desperation. He has been forced to scavenge for scraps of food; he recently found scraps in his sister's house that had already been ruined by rats but washed them and ate them anyway because there is literally nothing else left to eat. He said he will not perish from bombs, but from scarcity of food. The UN has said that, in the first six weeks of this year, from 1 January, over 50 per cent of aid missions to areas north of Wadi Gaza, where the starvation is highest, were denied by Israeli forces. Australia has committed $46½ million in aid since this violence started, but the truth is that right now only Israel has the power to decide if the people of Gaza will die of starvation or not—not Hamas, not Australia, not Egypt and not even the US; it is Israel that can decide this. If the right-wing Israeli government wants to salvage the shreds that are left of its international reputation with much of the world, it should let enough food in now. How can a country that has so many wonderful people and so much to offer the world, which claims to be a civilised democratic state, fail to act with urgency while civilians are at immediate risk of starving to death 10 kilometres from their shops and supermarkets? Of course, one of the many big lies being spread in Australia is that the government has cut all funding to UNRWA. That is untrue. In fact, the Labor government restored funding to UNRWA that the Liberals cut, and then we doubled it. All $20.6 million has been paid this financial year. Six million dollars in extra funding has been temporarily paused, not cut, and of course people want that resolved and restored. Looking ahead, the world must maintain focus on the creation of two secure states. The current Israeli Prime Minister's repeated declarations that he will not support the creation of a Palestinian state demand an urgent international response. The grave implication is that his extreme right-wing government is hell-bent on formalising a policy of apartheid. If not forced relocation, then what else can he possibly mean? Former Israeli prime ministers have observed that if there is no Palestinian state, there can only be a single, non-Jewish majority state—and that's off the table—or a non-democratic apartheid state. Formal recognition of a Palestinian state should form part of the world's response, along with urgent action to curb and reverse illegal Israeli settlements and extremist settler violence in the West Bank. Frankly, there is little point to people in the world, me included, rabbiting on about a two-state solution if Israel keeps settling the West Bank without consequence, making a Palestinian state impossible. Given Mr Netanyahu's comments, words now need to be matched with action by the international community to impose consequences on the illegal settlements enterprise. Australia must make sure that our nation and its citizens are not active or passive participants in the settlement enterprise. The USA, the UK and likely the EU are moving to entry-visa bans for extremist settlers. Australia's not at the top of their travel destination list, but other consequences should be considered in concert with other nations. Financial sanctions against the terrorist group Hamas are welcome. Consistency is important, and terrorist-like activities by extremist settlers also demand determined responses. Internationally consistent financial sanctions on individuals and entities directly linked to settler violence and Palestinian dispossession, including construction, finance and agricultural companies should be developed. The urgent clarification should be made that the 2019 Australia-Israel convention on double taxation only applies to land within the 1967 borders, as the agreement lacks an explicit territoriality clause that equivalent EU and US agreements have. Why isn't it illegal for Australians to donate to support illegal settlement activity in the West Bank, and why on earth should people be able to get a tax deduction for doing so? The Jewish National Fund's Israeli wing was revealed to be purchasing Palestinian properties for illegal settlements in the occupied territories. There are concerning reports that the Australian JNF is raising money for Ateret Cohanim, who have been working to get rid of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem. Human rights organisations recognise it as a terrorist group. The Christians for Israel foundation are openly funnelling money into illegal settlements. The seminary for advancement of Jerusalem and the Ariel University Australia trust are supporting a university in the occupied territories. None of these connections are hidden. These organisations openly solicit donations and support settler and settlement related activities. I will continue to pursue these issues and will write formally to the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, raising questions and seeking information about these charities. Thank you to the many Australians and the Israeli progressive Jewish and human rights groups who have contacted me since I first raised these issues. To speak up about these things is not anti-Semitic, and it's not anti-Israel. Anti-Semitism is a curse, and to label legitimate criticism of the current extremist right-wing Israeli government as anti-Semitism distracts focus from combating genuine prejudice and discrimination in our community. The views I've expressed are openly discussed in Israel, and to be called anti-Semitic when you raise them here is nonsense. Gross politicisation of this tragedy by the Leader of the Opposition and the Greens political party is despicable. In the last few months, Australians have seen very clearly what the Liberals and Greens are up to. The Liberals are trying to harvest votes from the Jewish community and the Greens from the Australian Muslim community, with extreme rhetoric, hyperbole and blatant untruths. Mythbusters: Australia is not cutting all funding from UNRWA, Australia is not selling weapons to Israel; Australia does not support genocide; Australia does want to see a ceasefire; and Australia is not giving terrorists visas to come here. Only the Labor Party has any interest whatsoever in maintaining social cohesion in Australia and contributing constructively internationally on this issue. All MPs and community leaders should be guided by the same principle of a just and enduring peace, and a negotiated two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders—and committed to maintaining that commitment to a peaceful Australian community. Natural Disasters, Gas Industry 91 17:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in this grievance debate and, firstly, I want to discuss the impact of natural disasters on our children. This morning I was fortunate enough to host an event for Royal Far West and UNICEF Australia to discuss this very issue. We were lucky to have a range of experts, even those personally impacted by the Black Summer bushfires, including Scott and his son Ed, who came down for it. I'd like to thank them very much for what they told us of the experience for them personally—particularly how Royal Far West was able to help Ed deal with the impact of the bushfires, his attendance at school and the mental health impact and toll it has taken on the family as a whole. I'm lucky enough to have Royal Far West in my electorate. It's coming up to its centenary celebration. It has been operating for nearly 100 years, assisting country kids. It's a local organisation with a national reach, delivering support for our regional communities and improving the health and wellbeing of our nation's rural and remote children by connecting kids to the care they need. And, yes, it has always been based in Manly. What has been amazing, with the advent of new technology, has been the use of telehealth and the provision of wraparound services for country kids. Unfortunately, they can't access these in some of the more remote areas. We know that Australia is already facing more extreme weather due to climate change, and communities around Australia have already suffered the devastating impacts of bushfires and floods. Too rarely when we discuss those events do we consider how these events are so traumatic—the traumatic impact they have on our children and how they experience it. This is particularly in relation to their emotional and mental health. One of the most stark figures from our recent natural disasters that really stood out to me was that, according to a just-released UNICEF report by Deloitte, 1.4 million children and young people in Australia have experienced a disaster in an average year. And children and young people are more likely to experience disasters if they're in regional or remote areas, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and/or from First Nations communities. The cost of the impact of the emotional and mental health trauma is staggering. Children and young people are, as a result of those disasters, 4.2 per cent less likely to finish their schooling to year 12. This means that the cost to productivity later in life, and to their own personal lost earnings, is some $3 million. Those children impacted are also between 1.3 and 4.5 per cent more likely to experience psychological distress, leading to $162 million in healthcare cost increases. To build resilient communities, we need to consider the youngest community members and their needs, recognise the impacts that climate change are having on their childhoods and build resilience to climate change. Too often, from spring to autumn, we see various communities on the news that are at risk of or impacted by bushfire threats, and we'll get the news that the school is closed. How often do newsreaders—or does anyone—pause to reflect on what that means for that community? The school being closed means that children are left at home, sometimes unattended, sometimes at risk. It means that productivity stops because parents stay home as well. The impact to their educational journey and their failure then to meet milestones is considerable. The UNICEF and Deloitte report had several key insights worth sharing that we need to take up with urgency. They include a nationally consistent approach to supporting children and young people in their preparation and response to disasters, and a risk informed approach to disaster recovery and resilience building for children and young people, because the impacts don't happen, as one might expect, straight after a disaster. The report found that, for children, the stress and mental and psychological impacts from disasters come to light on average about 18 months after a disaster. So when we have a government focused on delivering disaster relief within a two-year window after a disaster and expecting everything to be fixed, it shows how that model is inadequate for what happens on the ground. Disaster recovery and resilience building funding should also be sensitive to the unique needs of children and young people. We must prioritise addressing those gaps and key services for children, investing in the initiatives that work, and addressing the need for sustainable future funding to care for children impacted by climate change. To that end, I have submitted to the government that they need to continue to fund organisations like Royal Far West for the very essential work that they are doing to support children around the country. Their work requires some $15.8 million in federal funding over the forward estimates. To date they've helped some 3,000 children from 60 schools, preschools and kindergartens in New South Wales and Queensland since the introduction of the community recovery service that commenced in 2020 in response to the Black Summer bushfires. It's clear that the assistance that those programs are delivering is incredibly important—and we heard that incredible testimony this morning. Another issue that I'd like to raise in the grievance debate is the News Limited announcement that Beetaloo is now a proven gas powerhouse. What we should be announcing is that it is a proven emissions and climate bomb. Even before yesterday's announcement, the project has been reported to be causing greenhouse gas emissions that will be the equivalent of 20 per cent of Australia's total emissions inventory. That's right. Twenty per cent of our nation's emissions will be coming from one project. It's monstrous. Yesterday Tamboran announced to the ASX that its preliminary drilling results indicated that there was more gas, that there were faster flow rates and that reserves were higher than expected—even more emissions in the midst of a climate crisis. This announcement came with bullish rhetoric about expansion and how the project is close to the financial closure of the initial wells, with plans for many more. The claims that the project will meet the projected gas shortfalls for the east coast market were unsurprisingly not met with any challenge in the media or any testing as to their veracity. In fact, when Tamboran said that they were the one and only solution to address shortfall that is projected on the east coast—there's just so much that is misleading and problematic about those claims. Firstly, the latest ACCC gas inquiry states that there will be no expected shortfalls until 2028 and that this may change depending on gas demand and the rapid transition to renewable energy. Even in the event of a shortfall, this project is not the 'one and only solution', as unfortunately we have a list of multiple new gas fields being approved by the government, which, like Beetaloo, are all identifying that they will somehow supply the shortfall. Tamboran has also not identified a pipeline or a way in which they will deliver such gas to the east coast, because the inference is there that what will in fact happen is yet more gas for export, for sale internationally, and of course record profits and very little revenue back to the Australian people through the government's proposed PRRT legislation. Further, there are grave concerns about this project's expansion—that it should be subject to approvals, including one that is currently pending, before there is commercialisation. It is reliant on the approvals and the building of a pipeline. Also, in relation to yesterday's announcement, the proposal is still pending approval from the Northern Territory government, and yet a Northern Territory minister is continuing to publicly support for the expansion of this project before it has even been approved, giving rise to concerns of bias and undermining any kind of approval process. But, even in this place, yesterday's announcement brings up a more serious issue, which is that this project has still not been referred to the minister for the environment under the EPBC Act, and, despite the gravity of this proposal and its potential environmental impacts, it hasn't yet come under federal scrutiny. Last year the EPBC Act was amended to include a water trigger—an amendment that was recommended by the scientific Pepper inquiry into the Beetaloo basin. This is incredibly important, because it looked at the impacts of the projects and the risks to the water table. Overwhelmingly the key concern in the community, for farmers, locals, vets and First Nations leaders, was 'the potential impact of any onshore shale gas industry on water resources'. When there is that risk of contamination, a key concern in relation to the Northern Territory and their water from this basin, why has this project not yet come before the minister for the environment for consideration under the EPBC Act? When we talk about the impact of climate on children and there is this reckless behaviour, there is a strong disconnect. Stronger Communities Program 92 17:40 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Last week I made one of my regular trips to the beautiful north-east of Tasmania to meet with local community groups. My first stop was the Bridport Men's Shed, were I met with Terry, Jack, Mick, George, Don and Gail to have a cuppa, a catch up and a delicious slice of coffee cake made by Terry's wife. Whilst the morning tea was lovely, the real purpose of the visit was to take a look at their latest drill press and bandsaw, purchased for $5,000 and funded through the Stronger Communities Program. Situated in a rural coastal town, the Bridport Men's Shed first opened in 2015, and was driven by several community members, including George who I met last week, who also saw a need for a place where locals could keep their bodies and their minds active at little or no cost. What rang true in meeting with some of the members last week was how important the place is for social connection, particularly for those who may struggle after losing a loved one. They pointed out the significance of the $5,000 for the community shed. Whilst it may not seem like a lot of money to many, the organisation recognises it would've been extremely difficult for them to fundraise the money needed to buy essential new equipment. This was exactly the goal of the Stronger Communities Program when it was first developed by the coalition government. It aimed to deliver social benefits in communities across Australia, providing grants between $2,500 and $20,000 to community organisations and local governments for small-scale projects. The program has helped fund over 15,000 such projects across Australia, across every single electorate, including in my electorate of Bass, where more than 70 projects have been supported. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the independent selection committee made up of members of Tasmania's upper house whose electorates cover the whole of Bass. To MLCs Rosemary Armitage, Jo Palmer, Tania Rattray and Nick Duigan: thank you for being fierce advocates for your regions. As I highlight a number of these worthy projects in my speech this evening, I want the Labor government to sit up and take notice. These are the types of community organisations you risk leaving behind if you fail to commit to further Stronger Communities Program funding—projects like the community garden in Scottsdale, headed up by the Better Health 4 Dorset team and part of Health Consumers Tasmania, who were a worthy recipient of $10,000 in funding from the last round of the Stronger Communities Program. I left the Bridport Men's Shed to head to the official opening of the garden last week. The garden is one of the first health and wellbeing initiatives established by the Better Health 4 Dorset team—formed by a group of around 20 locals who were working on several key issues, including local transport, mental health, improving access to health care and establishing a health and wellbeing hub. The idea of the community garden was ignited by the community themselves. The better health team facilitated over 20 kitchen-conversation sessions involving more than 100 locals, who identified that a community garden was an important and missing piece of infrastructure in the area. After securing funding through the Stronger Communities Program, more than 40 community members worked tirelessly on the project for many months, culminating in the official opening last week. It will be available to schools, the elderly and the community at large. Bec Smith from Health Consumers Tasmania said the aim of the garden is: … to promote healthy eating, improve access to fresh, affordable produce and improve mental health by providing avenues for locals to connect and work together. It's amazing what $10,000 can do. Ten thousand dollars can also purchase much-needed storage for an organisation like Dorset Community House. Located in the heart of Scottsdale, Dorset Community House provides several critical services and activities, not just in Scottsdale but right through to Gladstone, Bridport, Golconda and Alberton, covering more than 3,000 square kilometres. From community transport to school holiday programs, financial counselling, baby playtime and playgroup, the organisation needs to maximise and utilise the space it has. With as much funding as possible diverted to essential programs, it's often the smaller but necessary infrastructure projects that fall by the wayside. Funding from programs like the Stronger Communities Program can help fill that gap. These are just three examples of north-east Tasmanian organisations that have benefited from the last round of the Stronger Communities Program, but there are so many others to share. When you think about the number of volunteers and volunteer hours that go into keeping these organisations going, in a time when keeping volunteers on board is an increasing issue, ripping away essential funding will also make things more difficult. In 2019, the value of volunteering in Tasmania was estimated to be around $4 billion, with volunteers contributing an average of 229 hours a year, amounting to around 4.4 hours each week. In fact, volunteering is Tasmania's biggest sector, larger than both the private and public sectors. As elected representatives, we know that governments rely on volunteers to fill the many gaps that the government can't or won't. For members of the Launceston & North East Railway organisation, funding from the Stronger Communities Program has meant they were finally able to build a shed and workshop to house their rail bugs. Over the past seven years, volunteers from the organisation have worked to preserve the railway history of the region, and, with tourism plans in the works, volunteer member Greg Stewart took on the task of designing and building rail bugs at the organisation's Turners Marsh location. The three bugs, painted red, blue and green, will eventually be used for tourists to travel along more than three kilometres of the currently disused rail line between Turners Marsh and Waddles Road in Karoola. Each bug has disc brakes and four seats—two at the front for peddlers and two at the back for passengers—and each has the ability to reach a top speed of 20 kilometres per hour. Mr Stewart said the shed would not have been possible without the support of the grant. 'We have a 100 per cent volunteer workforce, doing it all in our own time, at our own expense, and the only money we earn at the moment is from barbecues, raffles and a grant like this one,' he said. In Launceston, a $14,000 Stronger Communities Program grant provided the opportunity for the local tramway museum to purchase solar panels for their Inveresk building. Wholly run by a team of dedicated volunteers, the Launceston Tramway Museum is a community based organisation working to restore and revive old trams that once roamed the city. Andrew MacKenzie, president of the Launceston Tramway Museum Society, said the grant has made a significant impact on the sustainability of the organisation by reducing operational costs. 'Installing solar panels allows for the fiscally feasible operation of the tram by drawing on power generated by the solar panels,' he said. Through the Stronger Communities Program, City Park Radio, which runs on the dedication of a passionate team of volunteers, was able to purchase essential podcasting equipment, providing an opportunity for anybody in our northern Tasmanian region to tell a story or learn a new technical skill. The grant program is also responsible for assisting with the set-up of Launceston's first tool library, providing a benefit to members of our local community who may not have the space or money to buy their own tools. On remote Flinders Island, the Furneaux Islands Community Shed has been able to purchase a new Lucas Mill to benefit its 60-plus members, thanks to the Stronger Communities Program. For Girl Guides Tasmania, it has provided a kitchen upgrade at their local camp site in my electorate. In Beauty Point, it provided funds to renovate an underused church hall to create and grow a community club. The grant has provided funds to purchase gardening equipment, assisting Community Gardens Australia to grow a community garden, benefiting students from Ravenswood Heights Primary School and the local community. Karinya young women's shelter has been providing safe, confidential crisis accommodation for more than 40 years, and they were able to upgrade their IT services to ensure the organisation can continue its community outreach services. The Elders Council of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation have finally been able to upgrade their driveway to ensure the safety of members and visitors. This project has been on their wish list for several years, and I know they were thrilled to receive funding through the Stronger Communities Program. The Stronger Communities Program has provided funds to improve a sensory space, assisting in setting up a therapeutic multisensory room for clients with disability. It's helped keep our community safe by assisting Tamar Sea Rescue to purchase a rescue vessel. The program provided the West Launceston Bowls and Community Club funds to continue their successful school bowls program by providing funding for equipment. The Lapidary Club, the Northern Tasmanian Netball Association and the Launceston Musical Society were all able to purchase equipment to ensure the sustainability and growth of their organisations. The organisations I've listed tonight are just a few of the countless community organisations in Northern Tasmania that have benefited from Stronger Communities, and there are many more who would benefit from the funding this program provides. At a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high and it's becoming harder and harder to meet growing costs, keep volunteers and fundraise, the federal government cannot turn its backs on our communities in need. I urgently call on the government to commit to continuing the program in the upcoming budget. Albanese Government 94 17:50 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Providing support to the constituents of Newcastle is really the bread and butter of my role as the federal member for Newcastle. Governments play an important part in shaping our society and making sure that Australians have access to the services and safeguards that we need. The Australian Public Service plays a really vital part in that work. They assist government in developing and delivering on policy agendas and priorities, and the APS, the Australian Public Service, is, of course, a really trusted institution in Australia. The daily workload is phenomenal at times, and the work of public servants continues to both astonish and frustrate communities at different times, sometimes in equal measure. My office is now working with a lot of people who are trying to work through issues of dealing with different kinds of programs and services and needing assistance to navigate their way through what are sometimes really complex avenues. Whether it's figuring out how to get access to a home-care package, working your way through Services Australia to access any number of the programs through there, presenting at the Department of Veterans' Affairs or finding a bulk-billing doctor, these are all things that we and our staff do in our electorates all the time. Each day, we hope that the support and advice we provide goes some way to helping ease some of the stress and sometimes distress that people feel when they are faced with unexpected and difficult circumstances. Lately, my office has seen an uptick in constituents contacting us about the wait times and processing times of Services Australia and the NDIA. I know my staff are working with many of you to help ease the stress that this causes, and I want you to know that we hear you, we see you and we are making changes to ensure that this improves. Wait times at Services Australia have been getting progressively worse for a number of years now, and the root cause of the issue is a conflation of a shocking reduction in staff numbers, as well as a reliance on IT systems that, under the former government—I think we would have to be frank—just simply did not work. Since Labor was last in government, more than a decade ago, the staffing levels at Services Australia have declined, and this enabled shocking schemes like robodebt to really get away from the former government. Currently, Services Australia gets over one million calls a week. There are 10 million visits into Centrelink offices each year and there are 1.1 billion transactions taking place online. This is a very, very big service delivery. We know that the increasing call wait times and processing delays at Services Australia have caused distress and absolute inconvenience. I see that in my constituents and in those receiving various government payments and income support. We also know there is no substitute in human services for real humans. We have provided an extra $228 million to increase the agency's frontline staffing and operations. We've rapidly recruited 3,000 frontline staff, bringing 500 new staff into Medicare and 2,500 staff into Centrelink to provide support with these issues around processing and telephony. We started recruiting those extra people in November and December of last year, and they are now in place. These new staff are currently being trained to allow them to effectively help people when they are calling in. Many have completed their initial training and have started on the phones, and we are starting to see some positive results on the number of calls answered and the average wait times. As more people complete initial training and move onto the phones, we'll see those numbers improve and improve. We've also bolstered the number of interpreters to help the agency engage with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. On top of that, we have put an extra 850 people on just to deal with the natural disasters payment, an issue that affects so many of us in different parts of Australia. The priority is to really blitz that payment backlog. In the current climate, where the cost of living is a factor for many Australians, the agency is working hard to expedite customer outcomes, as it should, and that is the focus for the government. I know that Novocastrians are also feeling frustrated and stressed by the long processing times within the NDIA. When disability service providers are facing delays when they're trying to register as NDIS providers or waiting for claims to get paid, we know that it's the participants who really feel that, and it means that they're not accessing the services they need when they need them and instead are stuck in limbo, waiting for support. That is not a situation we want to see ever continue. The NDIS has delivered what is absolutely a better deal for hundreds of thousands of Australians. I see this in my community every day. We were one of the trial sites. Ten thousand people went onto the NDIS as soon as the rollout began. It made phenomenal changes in people's daily lives and quality of life. But we want to do more to achieve that vision of NDIS, so the government, alongside the National Cabinet, has committed to reforming the NDIS to make sure that the disability supports are fairer for all Australians. We know an effective NDIS will improve outcomes for people with disability, help them achieve their life goals and ensure the sustainability of the scheme for future generations. The independent NDIS review received almost 4,000 submissions and engaged with thousands of people. An overarching goal of the review was to put people with disability back at the centre of the NDIS and to help restore trust, confidence and pride in the NDIS. I want to thank those who took part in this process and who shared their story in order to help shape a better system. The review was released on 7 December, last year, and included 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions. The review panel engaged deeply with Australians with disability, carers and the disability sector, as well as the states and territories and other relevant experts, and it will inform how state, federal and territory governments should work together to reform the NDIS. This is a significant moment in Australian history, particularly for people with disability and their families and the disability sector. With Labor in government, we can bring down NDIS costs and improve the experience and outcomes of participants at the same time. It's not an either-or choice for us. I know this is something that the minister is incredibly passionate about, and we'll fight tooth and nail to ensure that we have a system that meets the needs of those it is intended for. Finally, I just want to update the House on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to ensuring the veteran community is provided with the best possible services and support. With increasing costs of living and rising costs for business, the veteran community have told us that they're finding it harder and harder to find GPs who will treat them without accumulating out-of-pocket expenses. From 1 November, the Labor government tripled the veterans' access payment in an effort to encourage more GPs to service veterans. The veterans' access payment is an incentive that GPs receive, in addition to the Medicare rebate, when treating veterans who hold a DVA gold card or a white card. The tripling of this payment will ensure that GPs continue to service our veterans, with no out-of-pocket costs. Payments apply to general face-to-face and telehealth GP consultations, including home visits for people who are homebound and consultations in residential aged-care facilities. We've also streamlined and reduced the paperwork for GPs; the first package of the 19 most-frequently used forms has now been consolidated down to just seven, while a process is underway to significantly reduce the remaining 54 forms by the middle of this year. We're working through the big backlog that we inherited, and there is some very good news on that front. As of 31 January this year, the total number of claims yet to be allocated to a delegate at DVA had fallen to 3,697. That's still way too many, but down from that shocking number we inherited. I want to encourage Novocastrians to keep reaching out to my office. Governments are providing good services; we want to make sure they're the very best they can be, and we're always here for continuous improvement. Albanese Government 96 18:00 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Imagine looking into the eyes of the Australian people who elected you as their nation's leader and repeatedly being untruthful—deliberately telling untruths? That is exactly what Anthony Albanese and this Labor government continue to do to Australians. They have built a government based on lies and broken promises, with a weak leadership team at the helm. Remember the $275 lower electricity price promise? What about cheaper mortgages? That also was a promise before the election. Do we remember the phrase, 'Life will be cheaper under me,' on the front page of the newspaper? The now Prime Minister continued to spout that during the last election campaign. And it turns out that we were all right all along, because it won't be easy under Albanese—and it hasn't been easy. Adding to the list of broken promises is of course his monumental tax-cut backflip, which unfolded earlier this month. And now Australians are set to foot the bill for Labor's broken stage 3 tax cuts promise. After spending $450 million dollars—that's almost half a billion dollars—on a failed referendum and adding $209 billion in extra spending across the economy, the government will now spend $40 million on an advertising campaign to sell their tax cuts. At the same time, they're giving just $14 million to struggling food banks. That tells you what they're doing and what their priorities are under the Albanese Labor government. That's a whopping $55,000 of taxpayer money per day on an advertising campaign to sell their tax cuts. It's an eye-watering amount of money to spend on a public information campaign for a single measure—in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis—and I think that Australians will make up their own minds on that. They'll decide—in fact, they'll decide this weekend in the electorate of Dunkley—whether they want to send the Prime Minister a message on what his priorities are at the moment and what they've been since Labor came to power. They know they can't buy integrity for $15 a week. The government know that, so they're looking to spend $40 million trying to convince people of their lie instead. But no amount of money is going to justify that calculated lie, and Australians are feeling poorer under this Labor government. Why are they feeling poorer? Because they are poorer! Australians are poorer after 18 months under this government. Personal income tax has risen by a record 27 per cent and living standards have collapsed by 8.6 per cent. That's a big difference. Labor's broken promises are piling up and taking more money out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. We know that: we speak to family and friends who are struggling. Parts of my community are struggling. The stats are clear: Australians are set to pay an extra $28 billion more in taxes over the next 10 years because of this decision to change the rollout of the stage 3 tax cuts, mainly through bracket creep. Does a promise mean anything to this government? Anthony Albanese said, 'My word is my bond,' but it's blatantly clear that his word means nothing— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I'll just interrupt and remind the member for Moncrieff to refer to members by their correct titles. Ms BELL 282981 Thank you for that very gentle reminder, Deputy Speaker! The Prime Minister said, 'My word is my bond,' but it's blatantly clear in the wake of these broken promises that his word means nothing. The string of broken promises from this Prime Minister is eclipsed only by the outright assault on the values that Australians hold so dear. My electorate is in the heart of the Gold Coast. We certainly consider it to be the home, the natural home, of the entrepreneurial spirit, with more than 70,000 registered businesses across the Gold Coast and 32,000 in my electorate alone. But our aspiration and hard work is under attack through the wealth redistribution strategy coming from the most socialist government since Whitlam. So beware Australians, beware Gold Coasters, for what is next. Negative gearing and capital gains tax on the family home could be up for grabs, who knows? Remember 'my word is my bond'? That is what we heard but we have seen those words being changed, haven't we? We have seen 'my word is my bond' up in lights. We have seen 'life will be easier', 'life will be cheaper' up in lights. But that is not the reality today. Treasury secretary, Dr Kennedy, refused to rule out work being done within Treasury on further tax changes that would amount to more broken promises. Dr Kennedy suggested he was unable to pick the specifics of what they're working on in the tax system, stating 'particularly if they should be near a cabinet process or they are part of a deliberative process'. So there you have it: in Labor's first 18 months, the mountain of broken promises piling up is pushing the struggling families across our nation further into crisis with the cost of living. I have even heard about people going to the supermarket and buying their groceries on their credit card. That is a terrible position to be if you are running a family. It is clear that when Labor run out of money, they come after yours and they certainly come after ours. They have continued to lie and mislead the Australian public and, given their track record, will continue to do so. The Albanese government continue to spiral out of control when it comes to their broken promises and their weak leadership. The weak leadership runs deep within this government. In what can only be described as an embarrassing display, the immigration minister continues to duck and weave from scrutiny over the mishandling of his responsibilities. But in true Labor fashion, those opposite continue to point fingers and play the blame game by attacking and undermining the previous government for Labor's lies and broken promises. Labor are claiming they're the ones cleaning up the coalition's mess, but these criminal detainees, 37 of whom are sex offenders, were released under Labor's watch. Some 149 hardened criminals have been released into our communities across the country under Labor's watch. Clearly, they weren't interested in watching too closely, because while Minister Giles's department was briefing his office on legal options in advance of the NZYQ case he was busy advocating at Voice rallies in Canberra, where these briefings took place. This is a shocking failure on community safety and national security from this government. The fact the Prime Minister was apparently not even aware of the first illegal boat arrival when he was asked at a press conference shows this government has completely lost control and interest in Australia's border security. The Prime Minister's weak leadership on national security is clearly incentivising the people smugglers to reopen their operations. The results of the coalition's tough border policy, Operation Sovereign Borders, speak for themselves. I note the former home affairs minister is here in the Federation Chamber and I congratulate her on the work that she did in that portfolio to keep our borders safe. I reflect on the fact that broke the back of the people people-smuggling trade that brought chaos to our borders under Labor's watch, under the Gillard and Rudd governments. It is clear this government is spiralling out of control. They cannot even keep our community safe. We do not know where those hardened criminals are. We don't know where the sex offenders are or where those murderers are that this government has let out into our communities across our nation. Australians should be very concerned about this. Australia should also be concerned about the boat arrivals that are now coming to our shores. Think back before Tony Abbott became the Prime Minister and stopped the boats. Operation Sovereign Borders, under the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison as immigration minister, was where we had good results. But now people smugglers on the other side of the world are getting the message that they can come here to our country. They're getting that message because there have been some illegal boat arrivals. That's a terrible message to send across the world to those awful people smugglers, who are always watching. It should come as no surprise that those illegal arrivals came after Labor ripped $600 million from border security in their most recent budget, a decision which, according to the Australian Border Force Commissioner, would leave his frontline forces 'stretched'. As a result, the Department of Home Affairs admits maritime surveillance has decreased due to workforce and asset shortages, and that directly resulted in a return to the human tragedy we saw during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, a dark time when there were 50,000 illegal boat arrivals on 820 boats and, tragically, there were at least 1,200 deaths at sea. The Prime Minister was central to that period in government. As Prime Minister, he can't even look the Australian people in the eye and say that Operation Sovereign Borders is operating as it did under the coalition government. Labor will do anything to try and pull the wool over the eyes of Australians, but their complaining does not mask their policy failures. Can we trust this Prime Minister when all he and his ministers have done is lie, deceive the public and underdeliver on national security? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member. Before I call the member for Holt, I will bring standing order No. 90, reflections on members, to the attention of everybody in the chamber: All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly. That includes calling other members liars. Gender Equality 97 18:11 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt As we approach International Women's Day, I rise to shed light on the pivotal steps taken by the Albanese Labor government in advancing women's economic empowerment. Since forming government in 2022, the Australian Labor Party has embedded women's economic equality as a core ideal for our nation. Today we have seen the publication of individual companies' gender pay gaps by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. This signals a momentous shift in Australia's approach to measuring gender parity in the workforce. For too long gender pay gaps have lurked in the shadows. They have perpetuated systemic injustice that upset the full participation and advancement of women. But with a stroke of the legislative pen in March 2023 by the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, we are seeing a new era of transparency—one that holds employers accountable for the conditions within their workplaces. The public naming and shaming of companies with significant gender pay gaps will serve as a powerful catalyst for change and compel them to confront gender pay inequalities head on. Under the stewardship of the Labor government, the gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest point in a decade, with the latest figures revealing a 14.8 per cent gap in the private sector and a notably reduced 10.4 per cent gap in the public sector. We should recognise this as tangible progress. However, despite these remarkable strides in recent years, there is still so much work to be done. For the first time in our nation's history under the Albanese government, we boast a majority of the federal caucus being women, with a record number of women occupying seats in cabinet. This milestone isn't just a symbol; it is transformative. It underscores our firm belief in the power of diversity and the proven impact of having women at the decision-making table. Let me be clear: it makes a big difference. Having women in positions of leadership isn't just about representation; it's about driving solid change. It's about recognising the unique perspectives and experiences that women bring to the parliament and utilising them to shape policies that uplift and empower all members of our society. Over the course of Labor's first two budgets, we have also made significant investments aimed at supporting women in every aspect of our lives. Whether it's through increased funding for child care, extended paid parental leave provisions, bolstering women's safety initiatives or advocating for fairer wages, we have left no stone unturned in our quest to level the playing field for women across this great nation. By prioritising gender-sensitive policies, we are not only advancing the economic interests of women but also fostering a more equitable and inclusive society for all. To take an example: Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts policy will put more money back into the pockets of 90 per cent of taxpaying women. Further, we are forging ahead with the development of a comprehensive national strategy to achieve gender equality. This strategy will serve as a road map—a blueprint for building a future where every woman has the opportunity to thrive and succeed unrestricted by the constraints of gender bias and discrimination. In closing, let me leave you with some sobering statistics. While Australia has made strides in recent years, we still have much ground to cover, with a national gender pay gap of 13 per cent. Women continue to earn $252.30 less per week than their male counterparts. These disparities are not just numbers; they represent the lived experiences of millions of women. It is truly our duty to ensure that they are afforded the same opportunities, rights and dignity as their male counterparts. I have met a lot of great women here and seeing the diversity in parliament gives me the opportunity to go out to my community and point to our example. I look forward to attending many events in my electorate, especially all the breakfasts and lunches! I'm looking forward to all that. To all the women members of parliament, all the women working in this building, all the women who live in my community of Holt, all Victorian women and women across this great nation I say happy International Women's Day! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:17