﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-02-28</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 28 February 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 23 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 18 March 2024. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 27 February 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 27 February 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 18 March 2024, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR KATTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House calls on the Government to immediately legislate for significant reform of Australia's food retail sector to better protect Australian farmers and consumers, by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) divesting to reduce the market share of the major two corporations in the food retail sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) imposing a customs tariff of five per cent on imported products in recognition of the economic, social and environmental impacts of imports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) introducing a maximum markup of 100 per cent on all produce between farmer (processor) and retail outlet; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) removing the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct as a measure which has long been used to control and restrain suppliers and producers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Katter</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 COST OF LIVING: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 12 February 2024</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Mr McCormack, in continuation</inline>) on the motion of Mr Burnell—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that cost of living pressures, including the cost of groceries, are putting Australians under the pump;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that to ensure that Australian consumers and suppliers are getting a fair deal, the Government has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to conduct a pricing inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commenced an independent review of the Food and Grocery Code led by Dr Craig Emerson, which will examine whether the code is effective in ensuring Australian suppliers and farmers are getting a fair go; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) partnered with consumer advocacy group CHOICE to regularly provide shoppers with better information on the comparative costs of grocery goods at different retailers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises these measures are further examples of the Government ensuring everyone is doing their bit when it comes to easing the cost of living crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR COLEMAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the eSafety Commissioner recommended a mandated trial of age assurance technology in her Roadmap for Age Verification, as a way of protecting children from online harm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government refused to support the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation and instead backed the development of industry codes as a stopgap measure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's decision has been widely criticised by leading child and women's safety advocates across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes the evidence of the eSafety Commissioner during Senate Estimates on 13 February 2024, in which she confirmed there were already a range of age assurance technologies that can be used to protect children from online harm, and that such 'technologies are getting better all the time';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Government for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) its refusal to support the recommendations of the eSafety Commissioner to support a mandated trial of age assurance technology; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) failing to support the Opposition private Member's bill for the introduction of such a trial; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Minister for Communications to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) reverse her position on an age verification trial and support the Opposition's plan to implement a trial;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) announce plans for a new trial within 30 days; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) commence a trial of age verification technology within three months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Coleman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS SPENDER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expensive and unreliable fossil fuel energy has driven up power bills by over 20 per cent in eastern states;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) households can reduce their bills:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) by an average between $1,134 and $1,822 a year with rooftop solar;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) between $514 and $1,594 with more efficient electric appliances; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) by even more with insulation and improved energy efficiency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) renters, apartment dwellers, and those on moderate and low incomes cannot get these savings, meaning over half of households are missing out on cost-of-living relief;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has taken significant positive steps in this area, including the Household Energy Upgrades Fund, Solar Banks Scheme, and funding for social housing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) despite these positive steps, no funding has yet been disbursed from the Household Energy Upgrades Fund, and the 110,000 households that will be supported through the scheme are just a small fraction of the millions which need help; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) accelerate disbursement of existing support via the Household Energy Upgrades Fund;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) fund a 'people power plan' to lower energy bills in the May budget, with significant additional support for renters, apartment dwellers, and those with lower incomes and savings, as well as new measures to help landlords, homebuilders, and people in regional and rural communities hosting large-scale renewable projects and transmission lines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) work with state governments to urgently implement promised mandatory energy performance disclosure for rental properties, and minimum energy performance standards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Spender</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's economic management has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, something the former Government promised but never delivered;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) seen inflation begin to fall in the face of global pressures, helped by the Government's cost of living policies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) returned real wages growth faster than expected;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that the Government's cost of living tax cuts will see every Australian taxpayer receive a tax cut on 1 July, and means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 11.5 million taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut than under the former Government's plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australians who earn up to $40,000 a year will receive a tax cut when they would not have under the former Government's plan; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) these tax cuts come on top of the billions of dollars in targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief, much of which was opposed by the Opposition, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) energy bill relief;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) cheaper medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) cheaper childcare;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) strengthening Medicare;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) higher income support payments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the stark contrast in policies between the Government wanting Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, while the Opposition wants Australians to work longer and for less.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 26 February 2024</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Ms Scrymgour, in continuation</inline>) on the motion of Ms Price—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Government spent $450 million on the divisive Voice to Parliament referendum that was rejected by each state and territory, excluding the Australian Capital Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the proposal for a Voice to Parliament was put forward as an urgent solution to help close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) since the referendum this Government has been completely absent in this space and has demonstrated that they have no plan B; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) there are proposals on the table that would make a demonstrable difference that this Government refuses to implement, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) announcing an audit into Commonwealth spending for Indigenous specific programs to identify waste in financial resources and programs that are making a difference;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) establishing a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) re-instating the cashless debit card in vulnerable communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to focus on practical actions like these to assist in closing the gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS CHESTERS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) March is Endometriosis Awareness Month;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) endometriosis is a progressive, chronic condition that can start at puberty and continue beyond menopause; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) endometriosis affects one in nine Australian women and girls and approximately 200 million worldwide and can take an unacceptable average of seven years, often with crippling pain, before a diagnosis is made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Government is addressing endometriosis at a national level with a significant $58.3 million package for endometriosis and pelvic pain announced in the 2022-23 budget, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delivering 22 dedicated endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics around Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) access to new Medicare funded MRI scans to assist investigations of infertility for those with severe endometriosis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) developing an endometriosis management plan, and other measures to better support those affected with endometriosis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) congratulates the many endometriosis patients, their families, organisations and health sector leaders for their continued advocacy on endometriosis awareness and education.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Chesters</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR CONAGHAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the growing illicit tobacco industry is costing the country $4.2 billion in revenue each year this government fails to strengthen penalties and enforcement measures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the continued failure to seriously address the illicit tobacco trade:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has enabled organised crime groups to fund serious criminal activity including large scale drug importation and human trafficking;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) has seen an increase in violence and attacks on lawful retail tobacco businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) has had a detrimental effect to the health of individuals and community safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) heavily impacts on public revenue to the amount of $4.2 billion annually, and;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) continues to severely impact the ordinary trade of lawful retail tobacconists;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the leadership of the previous Government on enforcement on the illicit tobacco trade by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establishing the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce in 2018, a multi-agency taskforce to protect Australian revenue and detect and disrupt organised crime syndicates that deal in illicit tobacco; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) introducing amendments to the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 for the establishment of a new Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner with the Australian Border Force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the valuable work of law enforcement and other agencies to detect and respond to the escalating illicit tobacco trade and related crime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increase the penalties for illicit tobacco offences;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) work with states and territories to implement compatible licencing systems for tobacco sales to assist in enforcement, detection, and disruption efforts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ensure that multi-jurisdictional responses can be adequately funded.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 15 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Conaghan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS BYRNES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme has now supported more than 100,000 people into home ownership since the election, bringing home ownership back into reach;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) almost one in three first home buyers in 2022-23 were supported by the scheme, a significant increase from the previous year under the former Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government delivered on its commitment to introduce the new Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months ahead of schedule in October 2022, and it has assisted more than 15,000 people across regional Australia into home ownership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government has also expanded eligibility of the Home Guarantee Scheme to help more Australians who were locked out under the previous Government into home ownership</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government wants to provide even more support for people to own their home through the Help to Buy scheme, which is due to start later this year following the passage of state legislation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Help to Buy will support eligible home buyers with an equity contribution of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes, with eligible buyers needing as little as a 2 per cent deposit to buy a home; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the Home Guarantee Scheme and Help to Buy are just two parts of the Government's broad and ambitious housing agenda, with the Government committing funding of $25 billion in new housing investments over the next decade including committed funding to support thousands of new social and affordable rentals, with many already under construction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Byrnes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR HAMILTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes comments by the Minister for Home Affairs in the House on Wednesday, 14 February 2024 in regard to 'parents who just cannot afford to buy the groceries they need for their families... parents who are struggling terribly with rents... people who can't afford to fill their car up with petrol';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes comments in the CommBank iQ Cost of Living Insights Report for November 2023 that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australians are spending more on essentials such as insurance, medical costs and pharmacies, leaving less funds for purchase of discretionary items such as household goods and clothing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) younger Australians between 25 and 29 years old have been the hardest hit with a 5.1 per cent decline in their total spending, the only age group to decrease both discretionary and essential spending;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that under the Government:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the costs of food, housing, electricity, insurance and gas have all increased;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) real spending power has been reduced; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) younger Australians, with and without children, are being especially impacted by rising living costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns the Government for the current cost of living crisis which is due to the Government's mismanagement of the economy and failure to adequately address high inflation and increased interest rates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to immediately develop and implement sensible economic policies to address Australia's cost of living crisis which is hurting all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hamilton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS MASCARENHAS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 20 and 21 March 2024 mark the Science Meets Parliament 2024 event in Canberra; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Science Meets Parliament provides the opportunity for parliamentarians to directly engage with Australian scientists;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the work of Science and Technology Australia to organise the event;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) importance of science in helping Australia solve some of its biggest challenges and diversifying the economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Government's commitment to support and celebrate the achievements of Australian scientists; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes the Government's goals to embed science in government policy making.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 26 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Mascarenhas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR PASIN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the current crisis facing Australia's wine grape growers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that inland wine regions of the Riverland in South Australia, the Murray Darling and Swan Hill regions in New South Wales and Victoria, and the Riverina in New South Wales are being disproportionately impacted by the structural disequilibrium in supply of, and demand for, wine grapes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that since 2021, average revenue per hectare of vineyard in these inland regions has dropped by 52 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further recognises that many growers have been unable to cover their cost of production;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) acknowledges that without government intervention to support growers to adapt in this critical period, the wine grape growing sector will experience forced exits and widespread vineyard abandonment which can lead to significant biosecurity risks, attrition of younger generations in the affected areas, and adverse mental health consequences across regional communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to urgently support Australian wine grape growers with a targeted financial support package for eligible vineyard owners to adapt to changing market conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 15 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pasin</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 DR FREELANDER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) sleep is essential to good physical health and to mental and emotional wellbeing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) insufficient sleep increases risks to long-term physical and mental health;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) four in every ten Australians currently experience inadequate sleep; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) inadequate sleep has substantial economic and productivity costs for Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the recent SBS television series 'Australia's Sleep Revolution' with Dr Michael Mosley and its role in raising awareness of the importance of sleep to health and wellbeing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the eleven recommendations of the inquiry and report, <inline font-style="italic">Bedtime Reading</inline>, which was completed in the 45th Parliament by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the committee's bipartisan and comprehensive recommendations which highlighted the need for sleep health to be recognised as a national priority due to its health significance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government's response to the report published in August 2023, which supported or supported in-principle ten of the eleven recommendations made by the committee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Government's focus on sleep health as a national priority alongside fitness and nutrition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the sustained attention required by the Government, in collaboration with states and territories, to ensure our health system acknowledges, addresses, and responds to the growing prevalence of inadequate sleep and its harmful impacts on health, well-being, and social and economic outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 February 2024.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Freelander</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 February 2024</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7140" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7141" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7158" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>A strong and sustainable funded biosecurity system is essential to protecting Australia from devastating and costly pest and disease outbreaks and to safeguard our $99.9 billion agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries well into the future. All Australians benefit from a strong biosecurity system. It protects our unique environment, our economy and our way of life from a myriad of increasing and complex biosecurity threats.</para>
<para>A robust biosecurity system is fundamental to protecting our international trade and enables our regional and remote communities to prosper, providing security for 1.6 million jobs across our agricultural supply chain.</para>
<para>But a world-class biosecurity system does not just naturally occur. It needs to be sustained and supported by predictable, long-term funding that is equitable, transparent and secure.</para>
<para>The government has done just that. We've delivered on our election commitment to sustainable funding for Australia's biosecurity system.</para>
<para>The May budget last year included new and permanent funding of more than $1 billion for four years and $267 million per year ongoing from 2027 to 2028.</para>
<para>That's a first for Australia. We've never had sustainable, predictable and permanent biosecurity funding. That is despite it being recommended in numerous reviews and reports, and continuously highlighted as a priority for industry.</para>
<para>Without this new package, funding for the Commonwealth biosecurity system would have declined over the forward estimates by 15.9 per cent, almost $100 million per year, to less than $500 million in 2026-27.</para>
<para>The previous government's biosecurity funding legacy was to lock in funding cuts of almost $100 million a year.</para>
<para>Not only has this government delivered greatly increased and permanent funding for the Commonwealth biosecurity system; we have made changes to the way biosecurity is funded to ensure it is more sustainable and more equitable.</para>
<para>More taxpayer funding than ever before is being committed to biosecurity. Additionally, risk creators and those who benefit from strong biosecurity protection are also making additional contributions.</para>
<para>Primary producers, whether growing for the domestic market or exporting into premium overseas markets, benefit considerably from our favourable biosecurity status.</para>
<para>This is reflected in the returns being secured from our export markets and the costs of recovering markets where outbreaks occur. In 2022-23, ABARES forecast agricultural, fisheries and forestry exports to be valued at around $82.7 billion.</para>
<para>The Biosecurity Protection Levy will now support a direct contribution from primary producers to Commonwealth biosecurity funding.</para>
<para>Funding from the Biosecurity Protection Levy will support Australia's biosecurity system and our efforts to manage the risk of the entry of pests and diseases that threaten our economy and environment.</para>
<para>This package of three bills will introduce a new legislative framework to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of the new Biosecurity Protection Levy. The package includes two imposition bills and one collection bill.</para>
<para>The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection levies that are duties of excise in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products and goods produced in Australia.</para>
<para>The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection charges that are duties of customs in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products that are exported from Australia.</para>
<para>The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 provides for the collection and administration of levies and charges imposed by the levies bill and charges bill.</para>
<para>The two imposition bills provide for the making of regulations that would prescribe the rate of biosecurity protection levies and charges.</para>
<para>The legislation will provide for the imposition of biosecurity protection levies and charges separately to the primary industries levies and charges framework.</para>
<para>We know that many producers already invest in biosecurity preparedness and response capabilities, be it on farm as well as through research and development or membership fees for Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia or industry groups. These investments are critical to biosecurity. But they do not fund our biosecurity efforts at the border, at airports, at seaports and at mail centres, and nor do they fund the technical, scientific and surveillance work that is funded through the Australian government biosecurity budget.</para>
<para>This means that funding from the Biosecurity Protection Levy will not replace or duplicate the efforts of producers; rather, it will support important Commonwealth biosecurity activity to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australia in the first place. Currently producers, whilst a significant beneficiary, do not contribute directly to Commonwealth biosecurity efforts to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australia.</para>
<para>However, it is not just down to producers to contribute more. Under the changes we have introduced, risk creators, like importers and travellers, are also contributing more to Commonwealth biosecurity funding.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2024, a new cost-recovery charge on low-value goods imported into Australia by air or sea will be introduced and is expected to recover around $27 million annually. Up to now, taxpayers have been paying this cost.</para>
<para>This is in addition to an increase in fees and charges for importers that was implemented from 1 July last year. These increases were as a result of the first comprehensive review of biosecurity fees and charges since 2015 and are expected to add around $36 million to the biosecurity bottom line.</para>
<para>As these and other changes to cost recovery roll out, we expect to raise around an extra $100 million per year from importers from 2024-25.</para>
<para>Not only are importers paying more but, from 1 July this year, international travellers will also be contributing more to government funding to support biosecurity costs associated with international travellers. The passenger movement charge will increase from $60 to $70 per international traveller.</para>
<para>Biosecurity threats are increasing due to a rise in the volume and complexity of trade, the effects of climate change and the ever-increasing worldwide spread of pests and diseases. Our biosecurity system needs to keep up with these changes and we need to be able to plan for the future.</para>
<para>The government's structural reforms to biosecurity funding will bolster the Australian biosecurity system and ensure it continues to be recognised as among the best in the world. This package of bills will establish a new legislative framework that contributes to us maintaining our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, and protecting our farmers, economy, and environment from biosecurity risks, now and into the future.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7157" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 (charges bill) is part of a package of bills to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of a new biosecurity protection levy to support Commonwealth sustainable biosecurity funding.</para>
<para>This bill provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection charges that are duties of customs in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products exported from Australia.</para>
<para>The charges bill is being introduced with another imposition bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024.</para>
<para>Together, the package of bills will establish a new legislative framework for implementation and management of the biosecurity protection levy to support the government's commitment to sustainable biosecurity funding and the benefits it brings to all Australians.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7159" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 (collection bill) is part of a package of bills to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of a new biosecurity protection levy to support Commonwealth sustainable biosecurity funding.</para>
<para>The collection bill provides for the collection and administration of biosecurity protection levies and charges, including through the making of rules. The bill will trigger monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, and will thus provide access to a set of modern and flexible compliance and enforcement tools, as well as information management, and offences and civil penalties.</para>
<para>Compliance measures and penalties will be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement.</para>
<para>The collection bill will also provide for the appropriate use and disclosure of information, while ensuring effective safeguards for sensitive information.</para>
<para>Alongside the collection bill are two companion bills: the two imposition bills, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024.</para>
<para>Together, the package of bills will establish a new legislative framework for implementation and management of the biosecurity protection levy to support the government's commitment to sustainable biosecurity funding and the benefits it brings to all Australians.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7160" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>It is important to ensure that the administrative processes and regulation under legislation remain fit for purpose and that obsolete legislation is removed from the Commonwealth statute book.</para>
<para>The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 will achieve this by removing unnecessary regulation, modernising administrative processes required under agriculture legislation and repealing a redundant act.</para>
<para>Research and development corporations play a vital role in the advancement of the agriculture sector. This bill will streamline processes under the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 by removing unnecessary requirements that are barriers to efficient administrative processes. The modernisation of administrative processes includes enabling the requirement to invite nominations for appointments to research and development corporation director positions to be met through advertisements on appropriate websites or publications instead of requiring newspaper advertisements. The bill will also provide for a more efficient process for winding up selection committees after nomination processes for research and development corporations directors are complete and allow for lists of suitable persons to be utilised for nominations for a further six-month period.</para>
<para>The bill will also contribute to the clean-up of the Commonwealth's statute book, by repealing the obsolete Rural Adjustment Act 1992. The provisions within this act are now obsolete or have been superseded by other legislation and arrangements. This bill will also make amendments to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 2013 that are consequential to the repeal of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992.</para>
<para>This bill will ensure that the administrative processes under agriculture legislation remain fit for purpose for modern times and contribute to keeping the statute book up to date.</para>
<para>Debated adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7163" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to a child support scheme that ensures adequate and fair financial support for all children of separated parents.</para>
<para>This bill is a technical amendment to ensure that the child support scheme operates as it is intended.</para>
<para>In the context of 2023 AAT proceedings, Services Australia identified concerns that 2018 amendments to child support and family assistance legislation were not operating as intended due to unclear drafting.</para>
<para>Instead of strengthening interim period provisions, the 2018 amendments unintentionally limited the circumstances where an interim period can apply. Under the legislation as currently enacted, an interim period can only apply at the start of a new child support assessment or family tax benefit claim where the breach of the care arrangement occurs at that point.</para>
<para>In February 2024, the Federal Court confirmed that the 2018 amendments did not operate as intended and observed there is an urgent need for legislative reform to simplify this.</para>
<para>Through this bill, the government is taking action to quickly resolve the legislative uncertainty and restore parliament's intent from the 2018 bill. Passage of this bill is essential to ensure child support legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply.</para>
<para>Interim periods are an important and longstanding feature of the child support scheme.</para>
<para>Child support payments and family tax benefit entitlements are based on a parent's percentage of care for a child. Ordinarily, this is based on each parent's actual care of the child.</para>
<para>However, where a written care arrangement is in place for a child—such as a court order—a parent's percentage of care can be based on that written care arrangement for an interim period.</para>
<para>Interim periods are important because they encourage compliance with written care arrangements. Interim periods prevent a parent who is withholding care of a child from financially benefiting through higher child support and FTB payments. They also ensure the other parent is not financially worse off through higher child support obligations and lower FTB payments.</para>
<para>Interim periods encourage participation in family dispute resolution. For an interim period to apply, the person with reduced care must take reasonable steps to have the care arrangement complied with. For example, trying to work with the other parent to reinstate the care arrangement, seeking assistance from a dispute resolution service, starting legal proceedings or notifying the police that the child has been taken without consent.</para>
<para>It can be a lengthy and expensive process for parents to resolve parenting matters through the family law assistance system. Where they have done so, these orders made reflect the court's decision about what is in the best interests of a child. The orders should be followed unless special circumstances exist.</para>
<para>Importantly, existing rules will continue to apply to protect parents and children who are at risk of violence or where there are child welfare concerns. If a care arrangement has changed due to a fear of violence or neglect, Services Australia is able to ensure the child support and FTB payments are based on actual care and an interim period would not apply.</para>
<para>The bill clarifies provisions in child support and family assistance legislation to ensure interim periods are available in a broader range of circumstances, consistent with longstanding policy and practice. While not known as an 'interim period', child support assessments have been able to reflect the contravention of a court order or parenting plan since 1998. Interim periods in their current form have existed since 2010, when child support and family assistance legislation were aligned to have the same care determinations.</para>
<para>The bill includes retrospective provisions to ensure past decisions made since 2018 and in line with the intended policy are legally valid. This is important to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be financially disadvantaged by having these decisions disrupted.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>12</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>President of the Republic of the Philippines</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the House invite His Excellency Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., President of the Republic of the Philippines, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 29 February 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on 29 February:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the House shall meet, at the ringing of the bells, at no earlier than 10.20 am and the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and an address by the President of the Republic of the Philippines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the conclusion of the address by the President of the Republic of the Philippines the House shall suspend until the ringing of the bells, when business shall proceed in accordance with standing order 34;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the provisions of standing order 257(c) relating to good order shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries for the period set out at (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Federation Chamber shall not meet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the President of the Republic of the Philippines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) any variation to the arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker or by a motion moved by a Minister.</para></quote>
<para>It's a privilege to move this motion inviting the President of the Philippines, His Excellency Ferdinand R Marcos Jr, to address the parliament tomorrow. Australia and the Philippines have been working together for almost 80 years. Our partnership is one grounded in a commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Now, as we look to the future, we want to deepen engagement across defence and security, trade and investment, and people-to-people links.</para>
<para>Australia was proud to elevate our bilateral ties with the Philippines to a strategic partnership during the Prime Minister's visit to Manila last year. This elevation reflects the deep connections we share through business, education, tourism and family, including more than 400,000 people of Filipino heritage that call Australia home. President Marcos's address to parliament tomorrow will be an equally historic occasion, celebrating our strong relationship.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7155" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7152" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>13</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs I present the committee's report incorporating additional comments, entitled Inquiry into the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Bill 2023, together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry into the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the ART bill, and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Bill 2023, the consequential bill, at the request of the Attorney-General. The committee scrutinised the bills to ensure they achieve the government's policy objectives and do not have unintended consequences. The bills are intended to, among other things, provide for a mechanism of review that is fair and just, timely, informal, inexpensive, accessible and responsive, that improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making and that improves public trust and confidence in the tribunal.</para>
<para>The bills re-establish the Administrative Review Council, retain the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, and make essential modifications to the operation of the merits review framework. They promote consistency and simplicity by repealing special arrangements that overlap, duplicate or unnecessarily displace core provisions of the ART bill. The bills would implement all three recommendations of the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into the performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system. There are four recommendations of the royal commission into the robodebt scheme and two recommendations of the rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system.</para>
<para>It's clear the AAT has lost the confidence of the Australian public, and there is broad support for establishing the new administrative review regime with the bill's stated objectives. The proposed reforms create a new tribunal—the Administrative Review Tribunal. That would be a self-correcting system, with several backstops to ensure that government and ART decisions are made correctly and transparently, that defective decision-making by government can be held to account and that systemic issues will be escalated and responded to effectively. These features include the ART, which will be independent from government and will monitor and support the integrity of the administrative review system. The new Tribunal Advisory Committee and the guidance and appeals panel will review the operation of the ART, respond to emergency issues and help ensure correct and consistent decisions are made. The new code of conduct and performance standard requirements, stronger reporting obligations and a requirement for professional development for members and staff further support the bill's objectives.</para>
<para>Some concerns were raised that there will no longer be an automatic second-tier review for social security and family assistance matters as the AAT currently provides. The committee is satisfied the best elements of first- and second-tier review have been incorporated into the design of the art and the systemic issues will be escalated. The new model of review will be accessible to allow people to resolve their matters as quickly as possible without unnecessary formality. The guidance and appeals panel will then provide a critical safeguard to deal with material errors of law and fact. That said, the committee encourages the government to continue to engage with stakeholders and work through their concerns in relation to the proposed changes to the existing two-tier merits review structure for social security and family assistance decisions.</para>
<para>Several submitters suggested the ART bill should require the use of a selection panel in the appointments process for ART members. While that is not strictly necessary, because the government has indicated that such matters can and will be provided for by legally binding regulations, the committee encourages the government to give further consideration to adopting that suggestion. The provision of legal aid, particularly to vulnerable applicants, will be important to the ART's success in meeting its policy objectives. The committee is aware the legal services that assist applicants to the AAT may have limited capacity to support any further demand generated by the transition from the AAT to the ART. The committee strongly supports the government acting on the findings of the upcoming review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership.</para>
<para>While noting the proposed new administrative arrangements for migration and protection matters do not go as far as many would like, the committee is of the view that the consequential bill meets the intended policy objectives of streamlining the administrative appeals process while maintaining the currents principles of administrative review. Together with other measures announced by the government, the arrangements in the bill will help address the crippling delays in the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT. Those delays are motivating bad actors to take advantage by lodging increasing numbers of non-genuine applications for protection, and this comes at a cost to people in genuine need of protection and to the broader Australian community. The committee recommends that both bills pass the House and encourages the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to give further consideration to the matters raised by submitters and in this report as part of its inquiry.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank my committee members for their diligence in attending to this inquiry and to all those who contributed their time and expertise by preparing quality submissions during December 2023 and January 2024.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The short time allocated for this review both for stakeholders to provide comments for hearings and for the report consideration or preparation, means that I've constrained my additional comments to a few key areas—namely, the appointments process and a statutory review. I absolutely recognise the need for reform of the AAT. I've had numerous constituents report to me the long delays and lack of appropriate outcomes from the AAT in its previous form, but institutional reform must be done carefully.</para>
<para>One of the biggest problems with the existing AAT has been the politicisation of the appointments process. I understand that, in the last three years of the coalition government, 40 per cent of tribunal members had political backgrounds. This is unacceptable and undermines trust in our institutions. It's problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the appointments were not necessarily based on merit. This problem is addressed in the new legislation with a merit-based appointment process. Secondly, the appointments were political. They were made as favours to political allies, no doubt on the understanding that the philosophical underpinning of the decisions would be sympathetic to the government and that the tribunal members would avoid doing anything that would embarrass the government.</para>
<para>Given that this was one of the drivers of the reform, it seems particularly important that this structural issue is addressed in the legislation, and it's not. In the hearing, the Attorney-General's Department favoured a regulation model where the appointment process is addressed in regulations, rather than in the legislation. The regulation model relies on the perceived safety net of merit based appointments and future flexible regulations. Given the past issues, I'm not satisfied that these issues can be appropriately addressed in regulation. The bill should enshrine key safeguards to avoid the politicisation of appointments in the future. There are some improvements that could and should be made to the appointments process, which are consistent with the views of many of the integrity experts who made submissions to the inquiry.</para>
<para>There are six changes I'd like to see. Firstly, the minister should be required to use assessment panels, rather than the minister having a discretion to do so. Secondly, panels should be required to consist of independent individuals with appropriate expertise so they're not made up of a majority of Australian government employees, political employees or contractors. Thirdly, the minister should be required to only appoint a candidate shortlisted by the relevant panel, unless there are exceptional circumstances, in which case an explanation should be submitted to the House. Fourthly, for integrity reasons and to prevent the politicisation of the ART, a former member of the Commonwealth parliament should not be eligible to be appointed as a member of the tribunal until completion of a two-year cooling-off period from the end of their term. We must stop the revolving door between politics and other institutional roles. Fifthly, the qualifications and prior work experience of all members of the ART should be published to build trust in the new tribunal. And, sixthly, all appointments to the ART should be required to resign their political party memberships and resign from the ART before standing for political party preselection.</para>
<para>As well as improvements to the appointments process, I'd like to see a statutory review clause requiring an independent review after three years. Given that the Attorney-General has called the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review for decades, this seems reasonable and is backed by the Law Council of Australia and the Centre for Public Integrity. The majority report refers to the AGD stating that the ART Bill seeks to create a self-improving, self-correcting system, but the continuous monitoring by the ARC within the new system is part of the system itself. An independent review after a set period would review the whole of the system, including the operation of the provisions in relation to the ARC.</para>
<para>No doubt there are more detailed issues that also deserve scrutiny that are beyond my capacity to address in the short time available. For this reason, I'm glad to see that there will be a Senate inquiry into the bill. In the meantime, I urge the government to address these fundamental issues in the House before the legislation is passed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7123" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7124" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I stand before you to shed light on the challenges and concerns surrounding the Help to Buy legislation, which holds the promise of aiding first home buyers. However, as we delve into the details, it becomes apparent that the journey from promise to operation has been far from seamless. Firstly, let's acknowledge that the only housing policies currently providing support to first home buyers are those inherited from the former coalition government. The Albanese government, despite announcing this legislation over 20 months ago, has seemingly dragged its heels in introducing it as a policy. The Help to Buy policy, a key electoral promise, was slated to commence on 1 January 2023. However, we find ourselves well into 2024 and there is still no concrete time line for its implementation. In the midst of a housing crisis, the belated arrival of Help to Buy feels like too little too late. This raises concerns about the government's ability to deliver on its commitments within the promised time frame. The primary concern is: what has the Minister for Housing been engaged in and what has the government been doing, displaying such tardiness and breaching an election promise? This is another example of the government's failing to fulfil its commitments, specifically the pledge to have the scheme operational by 1 January 2023. To meet this deadline, introducing the bill into parliament in late 2022 was necessary. However, it took nearly 18 months for the bill to make its way into the House.</para>
<para>Presently, our country is witnessing record lows in housing approvals and builds. Homebuyer numbers are at their lowest since the Gillard government. Rents are soaring, vacancy rates are at historic lows and we are experiencing record levels of migration. At a time when construction approval for homes is dwindling and the rental market is becoming more challenging, we are grappling with both rising rents and a surge in migration. Last year alone, we saw over 520,000 migrants arrive, setting a global record in migration. Despite these pressing housing issues, the government's response is delayed by 18 months, resulting in a lacklustre offering. This is particularly disheartening, especially considering the urgency of addressing housing concerns. In addition to a previously discussed bill on vacancy fees, this seems to be a symbolic gesture of action, disguising the government's lack of substantial efforts in addressing the critical challenges faced by the Australian population. Moreover, the Help to Buy scheme relies on the active participation of states and territories. These entities are required to pass their own legislation to partake in the scheme. While Labor went to the election with promises of a shared-equity scheme, they failed to communicate the requirement of state government approval. This oversight leaves us questioning the feasibility of promises made without proper explanation of the details of operation.</para>
<para>The Help to Buy program, with an estimated cost to the Commonwealth of $5.5 billion, is not without its limitations. It is open to only 10,000 households each financial year, making it a relatively small and niche initiative. Shared-equity schemes, as we know from existing state-based programs, have proven to be underwhelming, with available places remaining unclaimed. This raises a fundamental question: why introduce yet another shared-equity scheme when existing programs are not seeing widespread adoption? The answer appears to be rooted in political optics. Labor, it seems, wants to be seen to be taking action, without necessarily addressing the core issues at play. The shared-equity model, while well-intentioned, does not seem to resonate with Australians, as evidenced by the availability of spots in various state-based schemes.</para>
<para>Shared-equity schemes, in the broader context of housing affordability, raise key concerns that cannot be overlooked. There is a fear that they may carelessly contribute to further growth in house prices, potentially intensifying the very issue they aim to solve. Moreover, encouraging individuals for whom homeownership might not be the most suitable option could lead to undue financial risk. Australians who aspire to homeownership often seek independence and autonomy, and the prospect of joint ownership with the government may not align with their aspirations. The symbolism of having government officials involved in the homeowner's personal affairs, especially in financial matters, raises genuine reservations. Shared-equity arrangements also present an imbalanced responsibility dynamic: homeowners bear the burden of repairs and maintenance, while the government claims a share of appreciated value upon sale. It raises the question of whether this is a fair and reasonable arrangement, especially when compared to the responsibilities shouldered by the homeowners.</para>
<para>After waiting for over 20 months for this legislation, it seems more like a box-ticking exercise for the Albanese government than a thorough and thoughtful approach to addressing the housing crisis. The legislation, as it stands, leaves us with more questions than answers. It is evident that the hard work required for a successful prosecution has not been done. The threadbare nature of the legislation prompts numerous crucial questions that demand immediate attention. What are the specific eligibility criteria for individuals or families to qualify for the Help to Buy scheme? If homeowners make improvements to their homes, what implications does that have for their participation in the scheme? Will they be required to invoice the government for repairs and maintenance, such as fixing a leaky roof? If an individual or a couple earns a cent above $90,000 or $120,000 respectively, will the government force the sale of their home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure compliance with these thresholds? What reporting obligations do participants in the shared-equity arrangement have? How transparent is the process, and what measures are in place to ensure accountability?</para>
<para>In the event of a decline in housing prices and participants falling behind on mortgage payments, will the government force them to sell their homes for less than the purchase price? What are the property price caps under the Help to Buy scheme? Are these caps uniform across all states and territories? How many of the 40,000 places will be available in each state and territory? What criteria determine the allocation of these places? Are these specific lenders that have committed to participating in the Help to Buy scheme, and how is their involvement regulated? In essence, the current state of the Help to Buy legislation raises concerns about its viability, transparency and effectiveness. The lack of clear answers to these questions leaves us in a precarious position, considering the potential impact on individuals and families who might opt for this scheme.</para>
<para>One particularly concerning aspect is the imposition of a housing tax of up to 40 per cent every time a participant sells their home under the Help to Buy scheme. This tax, while aimed at recouping government contributions, raises questions about its fairness and its potential to discourage participation. We also cannot ignore the lessons from similar schemes implemented elsewhere. For instance, a comparable scheme in the United Kingdom was found to inflate house prices by more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed most. This raises a red flag about the unintended consequences and potential side effects of the Help to Buy scheme on the Australian housing market.</para>
<para>The Help to Buy Bill seems to be more about fulfilling an electoral promise than crafting a well thought out solution to the housing affordability crisis. After waiting for over 20 months for this legislation, it appears to be more of a rushed effort than a comprehensive plan. The Albanese government must recognise the gravity of the issues at hand and invest the necessary time and effort to address them thoroughly. The Australian people deserve a housing policy that is not only well intentioned but also well implemented. The uncertainty surrounding the Help to Buy scheme demands urgent attention, and it is crucial that the government provides comprehensive answers to the myriad questions posed today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of opposition to this disastrous and desperate proposal by the government. It's becoming more evident day by day that the Albanese government is long on spin and short on actual detail and genuine reform. While they say that they've got a clear plan, the stark reality is that it's the opposite. This Australian Labor Party is now introducing the legislation despite having made this policy position over 20 months ago. While Australians suffer in the midst of Labor's concurrent housing crisis and cost-of-living crisis, the introduction of this underwhelming Help to Buy scheme is simply too little too late.</para>
<para>The government has already failed to deliver a key election policy, it would have seemed, by the nominated start date of 1 January 2023. It won't see the light of day until well into 2024 at the earliest. Notwithstanding the limited and niche nature of this vanilla shared-equity product, election policies should be delivered in the time frame promised. The only housing policies delivering support to first home buyers are the housing policies Labor inherited from the former coalition government.</para>
<para>The Australian public have had enough of the government encroaching on their freedoms and involving themselves in their day-to-day lives. We've only just emerged from the COVID era, when the government took unforeseen and historic measures of intervention in people's day-to-day lives. The last thing that people want now is to have the Albanese Labor government taking a foothold in what would be their pride and joy: their place of residence, their home. When it comes to being effectively tenants in common with the Commonwealth government, who can trust anything that the Prime Minister says after the recent tax cuts backflip? If this legislation passes, how can a recipient trust that the Labor government won't change the rules after settlement? Can you imagine rolling over in the middle of the night and one of the Prime Minister's proxies, or the Prime Minister himself, is taking up 40 per cent of your bed?</para>
<para>Another issue is that Help to Buy also relies on the involvement of states and territories, with states being required to pass their own legislation to participate in the scheme. Labor went to the election promising to put in place a shared-equity scheme. However, they failed to explain that the scheme needs state government approval to operate. This means Labor has made yet another promise that it can't necessarily keep.</para>
<para>So what is this Help to Buy? It's a small, niche program open to only 10,000 households each financial year and will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion. What we know already is how underwhelming shared-equity schemes have been to date across Australia. These schemes are so unwanted by Australians that there are places remaining in each of the available state based schemes as we speak. For example, there are places in the New South Wales Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper scheme, Victoria's Homebuyer Fund, South Australia's HomeStart shared-equity option and Tasmania's MyHome shared-equity program. It begs the question: why on earth would the Albanese Labor government seek to introduce yet another shared-equity scheme when we know that similar schemes aren't being used by Australians? The answer is quite clear: Labor want to be seen to be doing something without actually delivering anything meaningful. They're currently panicking at the thought of being critiqued for their lack of a plan and have responded with what is effectively a very lacklustre proposal. This bill is far from the silver-bullet solution that they were promising young Australians.</para>
<para>Key concerns raised about the shared-equity schemes as a policy for tackling housing affordability are that they may contribute to further growth in house prices artificially, that they may encourage those for whom homeownership may not be the most suitable option to take on undue financial risk and that they divert resources from supporting people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Those who want to buy a home want to own it themselves. They don't want the government owning a portion, and they really don't want people like the Prime Minister or the Minister for Housing sitting with them at the kitchen table. Where will it end? Will they be there when there are big moments for the family, perhaps attending funerals or weddings? If they're there for 40 per cent of your home, what's next? It hardly seems reasonable that, if you own a property jointly with the government, all the repairs and maintenance on the home are your responsibility and yet, when you sell the home, the government will come and take their proportion of that appreciated value—all the perks, none of the responsibility. Why is this not surprising coming from what is an out-of-touch Labor government?</para>
<para>After waiting over 20 months for this legislation, this appears to be nothing more than a box-ticking exercise for the Albanese Labor government to say that it's launched its signature housing policy. It is clear from this bare legislation that the government has failed to do the hard work, and we are once again left with more questions than answers. What are the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home? Will you have to send the government an invoice for repairs and maintenance when there's, for example, a leaky roof or a dripping tap? Will they help mow the lawn? What happens if you earn a cent over the $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? Will the government force the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure you don't earn a cent over that threshold? If you enter one of these shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? Quite typically, there is absolutely no incentive for an Australian to get ahead because now we know that, the more you earn, the more Labor will tax you and, in addition to that, they will be asking for their share in your home back. What happens if housing prices fall and you're behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you to sell that house for less than you paid for it? What are the property price caps? How many of the 40,000 places will be available in each state and territory? It's completely lacking in detail. Is this going to replace the four schemes that I mentioned earlier in my speech or add to them? We just don't know. Critically, we also don't know which lenders are participating in this scheme and the terms on which they will participate.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we know that Help to Buy may soon equate to 'force to sell'. Without the right settings in place and based off this legislation, we simply don't know if they will be. What we do know is that every time a participant sells their home they face up to a 40 per cent housing tax as the government swoops in to take its share. We contrast this to the coalition's strong record of prioritising homeownership.</para>
<para>I haven't been in this place very long. My maiden speech is at the forefront of my mind when debating issues like homeownership for young Australians. I mentioned homeownership in my maiden speech because it is a critically important component of the lifestyle that Australians deserve. They want to seek the Australian dream, and they should have it.</para>
<para>In government, the coalition had a strong and proud record of supporting Australians to enter the housing market through a range of initiatives which pulled on varying economic and financial levers. We understand that owning your home is one of the most important hurdles to reaching the living standards enjoyed by retired Australians. We know that 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home. Homeownership offers security and stability for individuals and families. There is nothing more quintessentially Australian than owning your own home.</para>
<para>Over the last three years, the coalition government's housing policies have supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. The coalition has supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, which consists of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent, respectively. The coalition's Home Guarantee Scheme is now supporting one in three first home buyers.</para>
<para>We protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications, which generated $120 billion of economic activity. We provided $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. This saved $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. We unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through the $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive.</para>
<para>Since 1 January 2020, the home guarantee schemes have assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single parent families get into a home of their own with a deposit as little as five per cent or two per cent, respectively—a 2019 election commitment that has been delivered.</para>
<para>Of the 60,000 guarantees issued, 52 per cent have been taken up by women, which is well above the market average of 41 per cent of women entering into homeownership, according to CoreLogic data in 2021. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers, of which almost 35 per cent were nurses and 34 per cent were teachers.</para>
<para>Addressing the deposit hurdle is one of the most challenging aspects of getting on the property ladder, which is why the first home buyers can accelerate their deposit savings through super with an increased release amount of up to $50,000—up from the former limit of $30,000. This means the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they saved in a standard savings account. As of March 2022, around 26,800 first home buyers have released $371 million to purchase their first home. More than 21,100 of these first home buyers purchased a home after the 2019 election, following Labor's commitment to abolish the scheme.</para>
<para>I remind the House of the 137,000 Australian families that applied for a HomeBuilder grant of up to $25,000 if they built a new or substantially renovated home during the COVID pandemic.</para>
<para>HomeBuilder delivered a secure pipeline of construction work that kept hundreds of thousands of tradies and small businesses in work who would have otherwise been facing the unemployment queue. HomeBuilder broke every record, from the number of dwelling approvals to the number of commencements, and delivered $120 billion of economic activity during our most challenging time. But, importantly, it addressed the supply side of this housing issue.</para>
<para>The coalition government also established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, dedicated to improving housing outcomes by supporting efforts to increase the supply of homes for Australians. This included providing more than $2.9 billion of low-cost loans that saved community housing providers more than $470 million and supported more than 15,000 dwellings.</para>
<para>During our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policies aided more than 300,000 Australians in purchasing homes. First home buyer numbers increased from around 100,000 when the coalition came into office to nearly 180,000 in the coalition's last full financial year in government. Our commitment to first home buyers has also been reiterated with the announcement and recommitment to the super home buyer scheme, which will allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation to a maximum of $50,000 to help with the purchase of their home.</para>
<para>Where the current Labor government seeks to encroach on your liberty, your independence and your bank account, only a coalition government will genuinely support self-determination. This bill before the House is simply not fit for purpose and definitely doesn't meet the lofty ambitious agenda that Labor insisted would be seen with them in government. The Australian people have been again led up the garden path by this Prime Minister, who desperately needs a solution. Quite frankly, this is not it. For the reasons I've outlined, I support my coalition team in opposing this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we debate the Help to Buy Bill today, I want to reflect first on how we have come to be in a position where the Commonwealth has to help people buy a home. In 1984, it cost $64,000 to buy the average home, and an annual income back then was a shade over $19,000, making the average house price 3.3 times the average annual income. Today, it's more like 10 times the average annual income. Late last year, PropTrack's <inline font-style="italic">Housing Affordability Report</inline> showed that Australian households on an average income need to save 20 per cent of that income for more than 5½ years to accumulate the 20 per cent deposit needed to buy a median priced home. Back in 1984, it took just two, not 5½, years to achieve that. According to the Visual Capitalist, Australia has three of the 15 most unaffordable housing markets in the world, including Sydney, where it costs 13.3 times the gross median household income to buy the median house price. Sydney ranks second most unaffordable behind Hong Kong at 18.8 times the median income by median house price. Melbourne is ninth in those rankings at 9.9 times and Adelaide is 14th at 8.2 times.</para>
<para>The reason I mention capital city housing unaffordability is that Australia is a massive country with regional communities that dearly would love to grow, such as regional towns in my north-west Victorian electorate of Mallee. Worse still, housing affordability is so bad that even in my regional electorate we have a lack of affordable housing. Relatively speaking, income levels for rural cities like Swan Hill mean rent is simply not affordable. The policy levers need changing, and what is lacking in the policy detail by this government so far is the realisation that Australians have undergone a tree change, a sea change, even a vine change if you like. Regional Australia Institute's <inline font-style="italic">Big Movers</inline><inline font-style="italic">2023</inline> report found an additional 54,000 millennials headed for the regions—who would have thought it?—during the latest census period, 2016-21, compared to the previous census period of 2011-16. The lockdown-happy Andrews Labor government intimidated the people of Melbourne, and they voted with their feet, relocating to regional cities or towns. Working from home became the new norm, and now workers are hoping to lock that in as part of their job entitlements. Many sectors of the economy realised work could be done from home, reducing building leasing costs for their companies but also overcoming the tyranny of distance in regional Australia. Our regional towns and cities have wonderful lifestyles to offer Australians, clean air and environments and close-knit communities where people care about each other. Yet time and time again in this place, we see initiatives designed to fix Sydney and Melbourne problems. That is the risk this bill poses among many other risks I will outline.</para>
<para>The coalition opposes this bill. I remind the chamber that the Albanese Labor government promoting this bill is a government that breaks its promises. They promised 100 times not to change stage 3 tax cuts and broke that promise before Australia Day. Today, on this bill, the Albanese Labor government would have us believe they didn't break their Help to Buy promise. This policy was due to begin 1 January 2023—a little over a year ago. After their doomed referendum with an almost half-a-billion-dollar taxpayer bill, Labor have been so distracted that they didn't get on with this initiative until now and broke their promise of starting it almost 14 months ago. Another looming broken promise is the ticking clock on the Albanese government's promise to build 1.2 million homes over five years from 1 July 2024. The Housing Industry Association has confirmed Labor will fail to deliver at least 200,000 homes on this target. Only the Labor apologists think the full target can be achieved. Those are the same delirious apologists who think Labor's $275 reduction in power bills will materialise in its promised time frame.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the state-federal Labor sandwich that the voters of Mallee find themselves trapped in cripples the opportunities for regional economies to grow. Labor bled doctors out of the regions and prioritised childcare subsidies for the wealthy while failing to add childcare places in childcare deserts, such as my electorate in regional Australia. Labor left our roads wrecked by the combination of wet weather and heavy truckloads during bumper harvests. Road repairs have not been anywhere near sufficient. In the northern part of my electorate, the water minister prowls around looking for so-called willing sellers—who are actually distressed sellers—to sell their water to help Labor hang on to the electorate of Boothby in Adelaide. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has carried over—or, in layman's terms, not used—30 per cent of its allocated water for 15 years because they can't use all the water they have for the environment already. Yet here we are. Labor wants to buy more just at the time the Sunraysia economy was poised to boom. In my electorate of Mallee, the Mildura-Swan Hill region was expected to have a gross value of production in horticulture of $2.2 billion per annum by 2029-30. We were on a great and positive trajectory after the scarring of the millennium drought. But no—this water minister wants to seriously compromise the projected growth in my electorate through buybacks. We are at risk of losing 10 per cent of our water for irrigated communities in Sunraysia alone if these buybacks occur.</para>
<para>Then comes the state of the labour market. I've spoken in this place before about our agricultural workforce shortages, but today I want to focus on the shortage of labour in the housing sector. Mallee tradies will be hard pressed to find apprentices to address a skills shortage due to a collapse of trade training under Labor. The latest data from the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research shows the number of apprenticeships and traineeships fell by 12.63 per cent in Mallee after the Albanese Labor government's first year in office. In just one year it's dropped 12.3 per cent. In the final months of the coalition government, the number of trade apprentices hit record highs across Australia. There were 429,000 as of June 2022. That's a 25 per cent rise on the same time in 2021. After just one year of Labor, apprentices and trainees have fallen to 377,645—a loss of one in 10 trainees. Labor promised to skill more Australians than the coalition, but the numbers don't lie—something the Albanese government could learn from. The apprenticeship downturn compounds the problems caused by Labor burying businesses in red tape with complex new industrial relations laws.</para>
<para>To make matters worse, Labor's tradie tax will drive up prices of tradies' work vehicles with the 2025 fuel efficiency standard, which could see vehicles you commonly see on work sites rise in price by as much as $15 ,000. Why? So people in the inner cities can show off their new EVs directly funded by the people of Mallee, robbing country Peter to pay city Paul. Labor policies have been an unmitigated disaster for Mallee tradies and farmers, most of whom are small family businesses. The Albanese Labor government have abandoned their blue-collar roots to appease their union backers and exert control over crucial nation-building industries.</para>
<para>Into this mix of Labor's poor management of the economy comes a huge inflow of migrants, a simplistic policy lever to prop up the economy without dealing with the productivity improvements that are desperately needed. As I asked in question time on Monday, the Albanese Labor government granted over 500,000 visas in the past year, with more than 1.6 million visas projected to be granted over five years. When housing supply is already in crisis, adding further demand is not helping. The Help to Buy scheme proposed in this bill comes with an expected spend of $5.5 billion, all on the credit cards of Australian men, women and their children because, let's always remember, it's not Labor's money being expended here; it's hard-earned taxpayer money. They today, or their children in the future, will be the ones to pay for the profligate spending by this government.</para>
<para>As we emerge from the pandemic, we have huge debt levels to pay down, but the Albanese Labor government wants to spend more on something that state governments should be doing. In fact, they are doing it. There are current schemes under Victoria's Homebuyer Fund, the New South Wales government's Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper scheme, South Australia's HomeStart Shared Equity Option and Tasmania's MyHome shared equity program. When you consider that all the mainland state governments are Labor governments, this bill represents a damning indictment on their own team. There is clearly a housing affordability problem, and responsibility lies at the feet of the states, where predominantly Labor have been in office for most of recent history.</para>
<para>By contrast, at a federal level the coalition set the standard on helping the housing market with the highly successful Home Guarantee Scheme and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to help regional homebuyers with as little as a five per cent deposit being eligible to receive a guarantee from the Commonwealth, with 10,000 places set aside for that program. During the pandemic, the coalition intervened in the mark to support our economy. Intervention was necessary as we faced the closest analogue to wartime Australia has faced in living memory.</para>
<para>The HomeBuilder grant drove the highest level of new home commencements in more than 20 years at that time—a lifeline for the construction industry, which was flailing from the start of the pandemic. HomeBuilder helped the 137,000 Australian families that applied for a grant of up to $25,000 if they built a new home or substantially renovated during the COVID pandemic. It's estimated that HomeBuilder generated $120 billion of economic activity. The HomeBuilder $15,000 to $25,000 grant encouraged individuals and families to invest hundreds of thousands in a new home. When considering the amount of money being pumped into the economy all the way down to the construction supply chain, the coalition government's HomeBuilder intervention generated an extraordinary return on investment. Few would have expected how successful the program would be and by how much it would exceed expectation.</para>
<para>Local builders in Mallee, like Garraway Developments, were at one stage run off their feet with 12 to 18 months of work ahead of them. The coalition can be trusted to support home construction because we have the runs on the board. What's more, we took policies to the last election to keep supporting our tradies and Australian families to afford their own home. The coalition has a strong record of prioritising homeownership because we understand that owning your home is important to Australian living standards. Some 85 per cent of renters hope to one day own their own home. It's an aspiration. In the last three years in office, the coalition government's housing policies helped over 300,000 Australians buy their own home, and 60,000 of those were through the government guarantees. I note that 52 per cent of the 60,000 guarantees were to the benefit of women, which is well above the market average, for entering into homeownership, of 41 per cent women, according to CoreLogic.</para>
<para>In conclusion, who can you trust to help Australians buy their own home? You can trust the coalition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. The housing issue is not an issue new to this parliament or previous parliaments before it. In fact, it was there in the time of Sir Robert Menzies, who was PM for more than 18 years in this nation and was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports by Her Majesty the Queen after his retirement. In the 1961 election campaign, at a public meeting, a gentleman called out to Sir Robert Menzies, 'What are you going to do about 'ousing?' And he said, 'I'm going to put an H in front of it, before I start.' And there lined up the 1961 election, which was won by one seat, I believe.</para>
<para>In the housing policies that emanated from there, from Menzies to prior to the election of this government, the coalition, as the member from Mallee has told us, has had a direct eye on getting people into homes. In fact, the nation's wealth from the Menzies years and his direction of bringing everybody into the housing market made the big difference in this country in getting us to the point where nearly 70 per cent of homes were owned by people who were workers, who were small-business people, who were managers. It was a direction of the egalitarian nature of Menzies to say: 'No, we are not going to have a class society where we've got the rich and the middle class and the poor. We're going to have the middle class getting all the strength that we can give them so we can look after the poor and so that the middle class can earn money, pay tax and own their own home.' That was the trust and that was the world that I grew up in.</para>
<para>Now, when people my age talk about paying up to 18 per cent interest rates, it means we always have an eye on the market and can say that interest rates, as you've seen them prior to the pandemic and post the pandemic, are not real. Of course, I've been wrong for a long time; they have remained low for a long time. Small businesses back in the nineties were paying 22 per cent interest, but, remember, at that time, my loan was $30,000. I was stunned a few years later, when Priscilla Ruffolo—who was a great help to me in the 2004 election campaign and worked with me and Senator Judith Troeth at that time—and her husband, I believe, went out and got a $400,000 loan. I nearly fainted! I didn't realise until then that that was the normal loan for people to go out and get.</para>
<para>I recently learnt of a couple that borrowed $1 million—well, it was probably five or six years ago—to buy their home and pay it off. Now, the problem with that is that one Reserve Bank governor said, 'We're not going to increase rates until 2024.' But 2024 came very quickly. Small interest rate rises, when you're on four and you go to six per cent—that's a 50 per cent increase in your outlays that you need to find out of your household budget. They say, 'It's only four to six.' No, it's a lot of money if you've borrowed a lot of money. Every intervention that I know of that governments have done since I've been around this place—in and out of it since 1990—has increased the price of the home by the value of the intervention.</para>
<para>I believe this policy from this government, the Help to Buy Bill—and it was stated by the member for Mallee, by the way, that programs like this already exist in each state. So why would you say, 'We're going to do that federally,' unless all you wanted out of a policy was something to talk about at a public meeting—so the Prime Minister can turn around and say in a public meeting, 'But we've got our Help to Buy Bill, which is going to help people to get into the housing market.'</para>
<para>What you've got to do to get people into the housing market, in my view, is get out of their lives as much as you can and get out of taxing them the way that you do. And don't forget state governments. The federal government can say, 'We'll give you a helping hand. We'll give you a first home buyer's grant. We'll find ways to get you into housing because it's very important for your wellbeing over your life span. We'll help you, and we're the best government to do it for you.' But then the state government comes along, and I think I've added up between five and nine new property taxes or interventions.</para>
<para>When I talk about interventions in the housing market, I'm talking about rentals as well, because a lot of people rent, and they choose to rent. They choose to rent. People that rent out those homes to those renters, the landlords—so condemned in this country so many times—have had restrictions put on them by state governments that mean their house has to meet a certain standard before they can rent it out. Some of those standards are onerous for an old home. The cost of renovating that house to bring it up to that standard may be too great—to conform with the new paradigm put in by the Victorian state government. Therefore the landlord has a dilemma, and so has the estate agent, because they can't break the law by renting out that house that hasn't got the facilities required.</para>
<para>The renter can't make a decision and say, 'No, that house will do me, it's fine, because the rent's cheaper and I can get into that house. I'll supply my own secondary heating source; I'll supply my own solar power or whatever is required by the Victorian state government. I'll do that and I'll have that house.' The problem is the estate agent is in trouble and the landowner is in trouble if they rent the house to the renter.</para>
<para>So what happens? The house sits vacant or is sold to someone who's going to live in that house, so it goes off the rental market. In fact, in one agent's area—a fairly large agent—150 homes have gone off his rent roll. A hundred and fifty homes disappeared off the rent roll for two reasons. One is that the owners of those homes were people investing in the property market. I've never been a big share investor. My family are not share investors; they're property investors. We always bought property. That was our focus. So these mums and dads, like me, would buy a property. They'd borrow to do it. But the recent increase in interest rates means that their costs have gone through the roof and they've got to hand that on to renters, so you're getting a higher cost of rental.</para>
<para>I heard in the Federation Chamber today from the member for Groom that in his electorate, in the town of Toowoomba particularly, the rental opportunity is only 0.9 per cent. That means there are practically no houses at all in Toowoomba to rent. Therefore, when there is a home to rent, what happens? You actually have a line-up of people bidding higher to gain opportunity to have that home as a rental. So they're paying more out of their income for their rentals because of the failings of governments previously, state and federal and local, that have held up property development, slowed down the opening-up of new land and slowed down planning permits. So people are struggling to get into the market.</para>
<para>There are a whole lot of pressures outside of what government's trying to do. It's like having a bucket full of holes. The federal government, with Help to Buy, wants to stand there with a hose and pour water into a bucket with a whole lot of holes in it. The holes are everywhere. That intervention by government at a local, state and federal level means costs and charges put on for every inspection of a new home. A friend of mine building his own home in the city said he couldn't believe the number of charges he had to face up to for every inspection on the home. Every time there was a stage completed in the home, the inspector came in and it was another $400, another $700 or another $1,000 for an intervention that, in the past, we wouldn't have had. My generation didn't face the property taxes we face today and a generation of developers didn't face the taxes they face today. So there are all sorts of barriers being put in place by government in the interests of the government's income.</para>
<para>I believe—I'm not sure, as I haven't checked with the Parliamentary Library ; I'd like to check with the library—that 60 per cent of Victoria's state government income is now coming from property taxes. Our generation didn't pay those property taxes. They didn't pay the land taxes. They didn't pay the increases in land taxes. There has been dramatic land tax increases in Victoria over the last three years, the last three budgets, and they're putting them up again. I've even had a member of parliament in this place who inherited a property from her parents complaining about the Victorian land tax bill that she has to pay and how it's risen. She has terrific tenants in there that have been there for years. She can't put up the price on those people. They're family to her.</para>
<para>So this bill, I believe, will not be a help-to-buy bill. I have a fundamental problem with government intervention. I hope I have made this point in this address—that is, when the government encourages a couple or an individual—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear from the member for Mallee that it's 52 per cent women. That's great. That never happened in my day. It's great women have the opportunity. But every time there's an intervention it puts another increase on the price that the individual pays either as a renter or as a builder. You can be encouraged to be in an arrangement that the Australian government is involved in where increases in interest rates or costs will leave you out of pocket and out of a house. The house will go back to the bank. For any of you who have never been here at a time when banks have gone to people and said, 'You can no longer afford to live in that house because we own more of it than you do and you're out and we've going to sell it off,' they have the right to do that. Anybody my age and a little bit younger would remember those days of people losing their homes. They'd remember the mortgagee auctions. You know who benefits out of that—only the wealthy. I pray that this bill does not lead people into an arrangement that will cost them dearly in the long run. A house and a home is very important to every family, from all the way back to Sir Robert Menzies. Put an 'h' in front of housing—that's what we have to do to concentrate our efforts on our next generation. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a lot of important issues on the minds of people living across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania. Some very hard conversations are taking place across dinner tables or in workplaces that haven't been had for generations. They are conversations about not being able to get ahead; conversations about families not being able to keep their heads above water; conversations about not being able to afford to put food on the table, or not being able to afford to put petrol in the car; conversations about taking out a loan to get their kids back to school or to pay an electricity bill or to pay other bills that are stacking up; and conversations about needing to take a second or third job in order to get by, and being put on a never-ending waitlist for a childcare place. Without doubt, putting a roof over their heads is important on their list.</para>
<para>It's sad but true that one in three Tasmanians now believe that they will never own their own home; they've put that out of their mind. Whether it's buying or renting, the property market has never been so unaffordable or the rental market as tight as it is right now in Tasmania. When we start talking about regional Tasmania, housing is even more scarce.</para>
<para>The issue of housing is challenging. I have no doubt that all of us, on all sides of this place, acknowledge these complex challenges as a shared responsibility across all levels of government. This only adds to the complexity of implementing effective solutions. There's no quick fix. But, I'm afraid, the Albanese government certainly has a responsibility to be part of the solution. Those living across my electorate in the north-west, on the west coast and on King Island just want this government to do its job: nothing more but absolutely nothing less than they were elected to do. We're facing a housing crisis in my state; that's for certain. It's almost a daily front-page headline splashed across every newspaper in the country, and certainly across my state in Tasmania. Government's job is to develop effective policy based on evidence and analysis. Government's job is to have done the work to be certain that the policies being put before the parliament are effective in solving these problems.</para>
<para>Families across the nation are struggling with homelessness, or the threat of homelessness, or are unable to afford a home. They deserve assurance that this policy will produce the outcomes it seeks. Unfortunately, it does not. Firstly, it's not enough. This Help to Buy Bill 2023 offers a niche program that categorically fails to address the real and pressing need in the housing market. It fails to address the market. It's not going to have a real impact on increasing the supply of our national housing stock. We all understand the critical shortages, but is this the bill that the Albanese government should be introducing in response to our crisis? At best it is available to 10,000 households each financial year. The bill makes no sense. The Housing Industry Association has just confirmed that Labor will have a shortfall of at least 200,000 homes of its 1.2 million homes promised to the Australian people. Labor will need to build 20,000 homes per month in order to meet the 1.2 million target. What is their response? To introduce bills that promise to supply 10,000 households a year. The response does not match the crisis, but it must.</para>
<para>Another reason that this is bad policy—and I certainly don't agree with this approach—is that the policy doesn't seek to improve homeownership. It is a policy that moves desperate, would-be homeowners into co-ownership with the federal government. Having a government own part of your property is hardly the Aussie dream. Right across the country, would-be homeowners have seen straight through this. They've seen it for the rubbish that it is, because there are already schemes like this operating at the state level, and many states, in fact, have implemented them. They just don't work. Places remain unfilled in New South Wales's Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper scheme, in Victoria's Homebuyer Fund, in South Australia's HomeStart Shared Equity Option and, in my home state of Tasmania, in the MyHome shared-equity program. Australians just aren't interested in this type of scheme. It's stupid. In the minds of Australians, they think, 'Co-owning your home, the roof over your head, with the government—what could possibly go wrong!'</para>
<para>Where I live, they want less government intervention in their lives, not more. The MyHome shared-equity program in Tasmania was launched on 1 July 2022. Through this program, just 200 Tasmanians have been approved. Now, I'm not going to begrudge those 200 families getting into the housing market in Tasmania, absolutely not. But when one in three Tasmanians believe that they will never be able to afford their own home—and they're looking for help—this niche scheme just isn't enough. There are more questions than answers with this policy. This is simply another example—and they're starting to stack up right now—of this government not doing the work required and the analysis required of the market prior to developing legislation and rushing it through this place.</para>
<para>Important questions on this program remain unanswered, such as: What are the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home? Will you have to send the government an invoice for repairs and maintenance for a leaky roof or something like that? What happens if you earn a cent above the $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? Will the government force the sale of your home? What happens there? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure that you don't earn a cent over the threshold? If you enter into one of these shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? What happens if the house price falls and you are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you to sell your house for less than you paid for it? What are the property price caps? How many of the 40,000 places will be available in each state or territory? What lenders are participating in the scheme? The questions go on and on and on.</para>
<para>This is the most significant, important, crucial and risky decision that families can make, particularly in these trying times, and these questions need to be answered in their minds before they go through and formulate that decision and apply that risk-mitigation strategy onto their decision. But these questions have been left unanswered.</para>
<para>Labor continue to break promise after promise that they made in the lead-up to the 2022 election. They promised to build 1.2 million homes over five years from 1 July 2024. Well, it's now likely that they will fall hundreds of thousands of homes short of that target, and the data backs it in. In fact, they're likely to deliver no more than 200,000 homes fewer than what was delivered during the last five calendar years under the former coalition government. Between 2017 and 2021, under the former coalition government, we built 1,029,043 homes across Australia. This was during a pandemic—the worst health and economic crisis in 100 years. It was an incredible achievement. Contrast this with this government's phase. Not only has it failed to contribute to the housing crisis solution, but, under this government, rents have increased 26 per cent in an already inflated environment. First home buyers and new home approvals remain at their lowest levels in more than a decade. Lending for new homes remains at a shameful 20-year low, and we've recently seen the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade. Despite all of this, this government believes now is the time to implement its big migration plan.</para>
<para>Lack of affordable housing is a national crisis that requires real and meaningful responses from this government. The Albanese government has had two years in order to make up its mind and formulate this bill and to ensure not only that it is fit for purpose but that this policy makes a real difference. This bill is not what this country needs. Those living across the north-west of Tasmania, on the West Coast and on King Island, rightly expect much more to be done by this Labor government in order to support them getting a roof over their head.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Owning your own home is still the great Australian dream. At the moment, for many people, their great Australian dream is to first find a rental property and then a rental property that they can actually afford. In my electorate, in the south-west of WA, realestate.com.au lists current vacancy rates in the Bunbury region at 0.45 per cent. It's the nation's lowest vacancy rate for the seventh consecutive month.</para>
<para>Since Labor came to government, rents in Australia, as we know, have increased by 26 per cent on average, and Perth has been ranked Australia's second-worst city for rental affordability. Australia-wide, first home buyers and new home approvals remain at their lowest levels in more than a decade. At the same time, ASIC data shows that, between July 2022 and April 2023, 1,709 construction companies across the country went in to administration. But there was also a recent news.com.au article that put the figure at 2,349 construction companies across Australia that have collapsed in the last year alone under the Labor government's watch. So it's no wonder we've recently seen the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade.</para>
<para>When you see the Labor government's immigration policy of increasing overseas immigration to over 500,000 over the past 12 months and, in the same time frame, the number of new dwelling approvals at only 162,000, there's clearly a discrepancy in these numbers. They don't add up, and that's what you're hearing from people on the ground. It's adding to both housing and rental pressures for those living here and those migrating to Australia. Labor is going to add to this shortage by increasing migration by 1.6 million people over the next five years.</para>
<para>The dream of owning your own home is a dream shared by those who were born in Australia as well as those who've come here to live. For so many of our historical migrants who've chosen to come to this great country, Australia, they came because the opportunity was there to work hard and save money, and to buy, pay off and own their own home. Often that was their No. 1 priority and the opportunity they saw in Australia—one they didn't have in the country that they originated from. Owning their own home actually set them up for life and gave them the security they were so desperate for.</para>
<para>I saw this firsthand living in Brunswick Junction and Harvey with our early, mostly Italian, migrant families. Their absolute priority was to put a roof over their family's head, pay it off and own that home so no-one could take it away from them. Of course, some of these people had come from areas where they simply lived in a landlord's property and they didn't own any of it, so this was a golden opportunity that they took advantage of. But they've also drummed this into each subsequent generation, their sons and their daughters, and said: 'You need to work. You need to save your money and you need to buy a house.' I've heard this myself more than once.</para>
<para>But, when I look at this bill, what I don't want to see is this great Australian dream of homeownership turn into a nightmare for the people who sign up for this Labor government scheme. There is no detail of what people will actually be signing up to. What we do know is that, when you finish paying off your house, if it's a new home you build, the government will actually own 40 per cent of your home and will be entitled to 40 per cent of what you sell it for, whatever the increased value of that home is at the time that it's sold. If it's an existing home you buy, the government will own 30 per cent of that home and will be entitled to 30 per cent of the increased value of that home when you sell it. You won't own your home 100 per cent outright, which is the Australian dream. But there's actually no detail about what happens if your home decreases in value over that time. I've seen that in my own electorate and dealt with people who owed more than the house was worth.</para>
<para>For anyone considering signing up to one of these deals, please do your homework. Get sound advice. What upfront costs over and above the actual house price will you still have to pay for and factor into your calculations before you say 'yes'? There are several states already, as we know, running these types of government and private homeownership schemes. New South Wales runs a shared-equity scheme that is so attractive to the market that 94 per cent of the places are still available. I'm concerned about who will take advantage of this one. WA runs the Keystart program—another shared-equity scheme. In 2022-23, there were 90 loan approvals under the scheme. As at 30 June, 2023, 149 of these equity loans were in default, with eight loans deemed mortgagee in possession in 2022-23. Neither of these figures is really surprising, given the 12 interest rate rises under the Labor government and what those have done for people's mortgage repayments.</para>
<para>But what will happen to those who are in default under Labor's Help to Buy scheme and whose houses are deemed to be mortgagee in possession like those in the Keystart scheme? Do you know what that will be if you take it on? Who will the lenders be, and what arrangements will they have with the government and the homeowners themselves? How will the homeowners repay the loans? Can the owner refinance if they need to? None of it's explained in this bill. Will they lose their home? Given the state government owns 30 per cent of each of these homes and the federal government will as well, what happens next? What will happen to the people in these same circumstances under Labor's Help to Buy? At a state level, the government owns 30 per cent of that home. What happens when there is a decrease in value? At a federal level, it could be 30 or 40 per cent on an existing home. What happens if those housing prices fall, and you're behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you to sell your house for less than you paid for it? There's nothing in this bill explaining this or even who will be eligible. What's the criteria? What happens if your home is damaged or needs repairs? Who pays and when? Who bears the cost and the value of that? What happens if your income increases, you earn some more money and you're above the threshold, so you no longer qualify under the rules? What happens?</para>
<para>Before people sign up, please find out. This is what you need to know. You will need to know all of this. Which agency will monitor and manage this side of things—your incomes? Who will monitor and manage that? Will it be the ATO or another entity? If so, how will that work? Will you have to buy back the government's share of your property, and if so on what terms and what time frames? Will the price caps be adjusted over time? Should property prices continue to escalate? Will those actual price caps be adjusted to match what you can and can't buy? This will be on a state-by-state basis. I just wonder how many of these 10,000 a year for four years will be available not only state by state but for those of us who, like the member for Durack and me, live in regional and remote parts of states like Western Australia. Do the price caps reflect the actual cost of building a home in a major capital like perhaps Sydney? There are some significant costs in trying to build a home in a place like Sydney. I wonder whether people with a HECS-HELP debt will actually qualify for a housing loan. That will depend, I think, on the lender and their criteria, but nothing's explained in this bill. If participants buy in popular areas, will this scheme increase the price of housing in that area more broadly? Would that provide a barrier to even more people who are not in the scheme to be able to buy into that area?</para>
<para>That's just a snapshot of the reasons. I'm actually asking people to please do your homework before you sign up. What don't you know that you'll need to know before you take this step? The government will own either 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the home that you buy or build. Primarily, people need to get full details—absolutely. They'll need to know what they will have to pay upfront outside of that actual home's costs. What are the other costs involved before you even get to building or buying the home?</para>
<para>There is no doubt that there is a severe shortage of housing. It's no different in my electorate of Forrest in the south-west of Western Australia. A number of my local governments have been actively calling for our state government in WA to assist them in being able to install basic services and basic utilities such as connecting electricity, sewerage, water, telecommunications and access roads. Some of them have got projects like that ready to go. We also need to speed up local and state government approval processes. The red and green tape is a nightmare and just so costly. It's adding to the cost of building a home at all. In WA, we saw the Aboriginal cultural heritage act that would have added to this and worsened the process, as would the original proposed changes to the water act in Western Australia that have since been taken off the table. All of that has simply made local governments even more hesitant in this space. It's further increasing the costs for local governments, developers and even those just trying to build their own homes.</para>
<para>In my patch, Albemarle, a lithium producer with the only lithium hydroxide plant in Australia, is having to build its own village to accommodate its workforce because there are no other options. When you look at the caravan parks and anything else that's available, often they're now populated by people needing permanent accommodation. In Dunsborough the local Rotary Club actually did a project providing lightweight swags for people who are living rough, living in the bush because they can't get affordable accommodation. They were surprised at the age of who came out of the bush to take advantage of these lightweight swags.</para>
<para>We've also got significant problems in WA with delays in Western Power approvals and the cost. The Help to Buy scheme will not meet the needs of Australians in the circumstances that I'm talking about. But, again, I want to warn those who are considering taking up this option to please do your homework. Do your own due diligence so you are fully aware of all of the costs from the beginning to the end of this process. This will depend on the criteria the government sets, because they're not there now.</para>
<para>The median house price in Bunbury is currently $718,000. Will this qualify people under the Help to Buy scheme? In Busselton, that amount is $685,000. Will this qualify? In Capel it's $469,000, according to realestate.com. We have a significant number of people right around Australia but even in my part of the world who are homeless. In the census of 2021, there were 809 homeless people in Bunbury, and I suspect that's a much greater number now. I hear about it when I talk to my agencies that are working in this space and doing everything they can to help people. The combination of homelessness and high rents is forcing more people into this space, people they've never, ever seen before, people seeking help with food and accommodation that have never had to seek it before. I'll end where I started. If anyone is considering this scheme, please make sure you get all of the information, know exactly what you're signing up for, and know that you are going into a shared-equity scheme where the government will own either 30 or 40 per cent of your property when it's time to sell.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The word 'crisis' is often overused. Everything seems to be a crisis these days. But I tell you what—when it comes to housing in this country, we do have a genuine crisis. From south-west Australia, in the electorate of Forrest as we've just heard about, through to the top of Queensland and to the bottom of Australia down in Hobart in Tasmania, wherever you go and wherever you look, there genuinely is a chronic shortage of accommodation for people. Of course, without safe, reliable accommodation, you can't be healthy. You can't hold down a job. You can't raise a family. People end up in this spiral of disadvantage, and it's very, very hard to get out of. It's all for want of a reliable, safe, affordable roof over their heads.</para>
<para>It's no wonder the average age of death for homeless people in Australia is 44 years of age. I'll say that again, because that's just a staggering figure. The average age of death for homeless Australians is 44 years of age. That's half or less, Deputy Speaker, than what you and I might hope to achieve. It's no wonder there's something like 4,700 people on Tasmania's social housing waiting list, with an average wait time of more than two years for priority 1 applicants. These are staggering figures. This is in a population of about half-a-million people.</para>
<para>It's not just the homeless who are doing it terribly tough these days, of course. Rents right around Australia, especially in Greater Hobart, are high, are getting higher and are unaffordable. In fact, Hobart remains the equal-least-affordable capital city—a title it has held since 2018. To put that in perspective, we have some of the lowest average wages but some of the highest average rents, the result being that we are consistently one of the most unaffordable capital cities in the Commonwealth—and that's for renters. The situation is so bad, I've actually met people holding down a good job while living in their car, because they can't afford the rents that are being demanded. That is completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>Don't get me started about people who have thumping big mortgages and are suffering mortgage stress. In fact, it is judged that over half of the mortgage holders in my electorate of Clark are at risk of mortgage stress; 51.9 per cent in the electorate of Clark are judged to be at risk of mortgage stress. That's half the mortgage holders in my patch. Many of them are going without essentials. They're not going to the doctor. They're not getting their scripts filled. They're not having three good meals a day. They're not providing the opportunities for their children that we might take for granted as highly-paid and, I'm sure, accommodated people in this House.</para>
<para>It raises the question: how on earth could Australia find itself in this position? We are the 12th-biggest economy in the world. We are fabulously wealthy. It's not the shortage of money. In fact, when you look at mean wealth per adult, we are fourth in the world behind only Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. When you look at median wealth per adult, we're second in the world. Australians are the second-richest people on the planet when measured by median wealth per adult. And it's not like the government doesn't have enough money. In this financial year, the federal government will spend a forecast $684.1 billion—in other words, more than $684 thousand million. So it's not for lack of money. There's plenty of money in this country; we are a very rich and fortunate people. What's missing, for a start, is a lack of vision.</para>
<para>I do commend the government for the reforms that it is rolling out, including today's bill. I think today's bill is welcome, even though it has shortcomings. But, really, we're just putting bandaids over things and tinkering around the edges. We need more vision. We need more bravery. We need more political will, and we need less political division to see that vision realised.</para>
<para>Sadly, we do need to have a debate, for example, about negative gearing. But, as soon as there's a whiff of a mention of negative gearing, it doesn't become an opportunity in this place for an intelligent debate of ideas; it becomes a political opportunity to score points. I'll have a go at the opposition here. They're the worst offenders here. A debate about negative gearing would be a very worthwhile debate to have—for people to come in here in good faith to debate their point of view, and may the best and strongest point of view win the day and result in policy change. Instead, it's just an opportunity to score points and to drag down whoever's in government. I lament that fact. The country is the poorer for it.</para>
<para>There are so many things that we could be doing if we had that vision, if we had the political strength and if we had a less confrontational parliamentary system. For example, we should be increasing investment in homelessness and crisis accommodation and support services, including in workforce capacity and development. We can afford it; we're the 12th biggest economy in the world. This year, the government is spending two-thirds of a trillion dollars. We can afford it. We can afford to increase investment in homelessness and crisis accommodation and support services.</para>
<para>We also need to coordinate improved national rental standards which offer renters genuine protections and security of tenure. You can't bring up a family when it's month by month, six months by six months or even 12 months by 12 months. Why can't we look at other countries that have succeeded in this space? For example, look at some of the European countries, where people can have lifetime tenancy, with 20-year leases and 15-year leases. That's the sort of security that families need, and not just families—that everyone needs. Let's say you're an individual on the disability support pension, a client of the NDIS, and you're sitting in a private rental. You can't be worrying about where you'll be next month or in six months or in 12 months. For your health, for your recovery, for your peace of mind and for your mental health, you need to know that you've got a secure roof over your head and it's not something you have to be worried about.</para>
<para>We need to increase income support payments and, in particular, Commonwealth rent assistance. I note that this changes from time to time, but, again, I feel that we're tinkering around the edges. The sort of increase to CRA that is needed is a big increase. Now, my critics might say that that will just encourage landlords to jack up the rents. Of course, it would be a driver, in some areas, for increased rents, but then we loop back to my previous point about improved national rental standards and genuine protections. I know that the ACT has limits on how much rent can increase.</para>
<para>I'll have a go at the government now. The government keeps saying, 'Yes, but this is a matter for the state and territory governments.' Well, be strong; be a government that leads. Get all the premiers and chief ministers into a room and say, 'Right, let's put aside our differences and let's work together to improve the safeguards for renters.' That would, among other things, help to keep a lid on rent increases as a result of Commonwealth rent assistance.</para>
<para>We need meaningful resourcing and decision-making power for the Indigenous community housing organisations. We need targeted incentives to local and state governments to deliver well-planned medium- and high-density social and affordable housing close to where people live, not way out on some greenfield site with poor services and poor public transport. I've left the best one till last, and that is implementing serious progressive tax reform to address systemic housing inequalities which are currently baked in and favour wealthy investors and developers over average Australians.</para>
<para>I know the government got badly burnt at the 2019 election. I get that. I can see why they're gun shy. But let's show some strength. And I can see why the opposition see this as a political opportunity to bang the government on the head if they even mention changes to negative gearing or capital gains tax discounts, for example. But can't we just, for one policy area—we do it on national security most of the time. Why don't we do the same thing on homelessness and say, 'Right, let's bang our heads together and have a think about this.'</para>
<para>Getting rid of negative gearing completely and immediately would of course be highly problematic for people who have made investment decisions in good faith, particularly as they're approaching retirement. But, heavens, can't we come in with reform that perhaps grandfathers investors up until now or perhaps puts caps on it? We can acknowledge that there are a lot of mum-and-dad investors who might have one investment property or two investment properties or whatever, but why can't we cap it and say you can't get negative gearing on 20 houses or 30 houses—in fact, the sorts of numbers of houses that some members in this place and in the Senate have, I would point out. There are ways to design these. But it's got to be something we work together on; otherwise, we're going to be back here next year and the year after.</para>
<para>We're fine. We're fat, dumb and lucky. I reckon everyone in this place has got a roof over their head. Many people in this place own a number of properties. I'm lucky, I'll admit it. My wife and I own a holiday shack down at the bottom of Tasmania. We're the lucky ones. But how about we start governing in the best interests of everyone else, the majority?</para>
<para>During the stage 3 tax cuts debate, I remember seeing a figure. Only about four per cent of Australians earn over $180,000—or taxpayers, I should say. I think that was the figure. Only about two per cent of Tasmanians earn over $180,000. In other words, compared to 98 per cent of Tasmanians, we're rich. We have a moral obligation to work together and not just argue over everything. Even this Help to Buy shared-equity scheme—okay, it's not perfect. Okay, it's only 40,000 properties. Okay, it's on a first come, first served approach. It's far from perfect. But, I tell you what, it's better than nothing.</para>
<para>Why do we have to fight over everything? Why is every idea from this side opposed by that side? Why is every good idea on this side opposed by that side? The losers are our communities that we are sent here to represent, and, when we do argue over everything and we fail to work in a collegiate way, we let our communities down. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>I'll be supporting the bill. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. If we don't get this bill through the parliament, those 40,000 homes which hopefully will be bought or built will not happen. I take the point from the member for Forrest. Yes, there are lots of questions. Yes, people need to go into this scheme with their eyes wide open. But that doesn't mean we stop it. Maybe we need to amend something; we need to fix it—put in some safeguards. I don't know. But it's no reason to stop it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Durack is the largest in Australia, spanning from the outskirts of Perth all the way up to Wyndham in the Kimberley. Despite the distance between each town in the total 1.4 million square kilometres and all the unique circumstances that my electorate faces, everywhere I go, everyone is suffering from a housing crisis.</para>
<para>Only last November I addressed this very House about the Australian dream of homeownership and the fact that it's slipping away from younger Australians. That dream is being stolen by the Albanese government. Sadly, statistics are showing our youth are losing hope about ever owning their own home. I must admit that I copped a bit of flak about that after that speech last November not because it was not true but because I didn't go far enough stressing that everyone is worse off under this current government.</para>
<para>Finding affordable housing is like finding a needle in a haystack. But we must find a solution. We owe it to those Australians who are trying to get their foot on the first step of the property ladder. Since those opposite were elected, rents have increased by some 26 per cent. First home buyers and new home approvals remain at their lowest levels in more than a decade. Lending for new homes remains at a shameful 20-year low, and we've recently seen the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade.</para>
<para>What is this Albanese government's response to this housing crisis? Well, it's this so-called Help to Buy scheme before us today, a policy that is, frankly, too little too late. This policy was at the front and centre of those opposite's housing agenda before the last election, yet it has taken them some 20 months to bring it before the House. Despite the delay, we still have so many unanswered questions. Basic questions around eligibility and home improvements are yet to be answered. Honestly, they've had plenty of time to sort this out. It's unclear whether this Help to Buy Bill will instead force people to sell.</para>
<para>We know this government is not big on aspiration, but what happens once you earn over the $90,000 threshold for an individual or the $120,000 threshold for a couple? Will you be forced to sell your dream home? The reality is that Australians don't want to share ownership in their home with the government, and we know this because shared-equity schemes already exist across multiple jurisdictions in this country, and they are simply not being taken up. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania there are plenty of places left, but people are simply not taking up the opportunities. In fact, in New South Wales 94 per cent of places remain available. Are we really supposed to believe that Labor's very own equity scheme will drastically improve the housing crisis? I say no, it will not.</para>
<para>Even if this bill manages to pass parliament, which, at this stage, I don't think it will without some concessions being made to the Greens political party, the states and territories in Australia will need to pass their own legislation to participate in this scheme. I don't know how it's going to work when they've their own schemes that are not getting taken up. It's hard to see any Australian being supported by this scheme for many months, and this is despite this government's promise that it would start 1 January 2023.</para>
<para>This scheme is very underwhelming and contradicts the bold claims being made by those opposite. Let's remember that this is designed to support just 10,000 households per year. There are millions of Australians out there who are currently renting who are in the property market, with 85 per cent of renters hoping one day to own their own home. Even if this policy were successful, frankly, it would be just a drop in the ocean. Worse yet, this policy may contribute to further increases in the cost of housing. A similar policy introduced into the United Kingdom was found to have inflated prices by more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed the most. So the solution from this government is a plan to legislate more inflationary pressures into the housing market. Honestly, it is just nuts!</para>
<para>There has been a lot of talk from the Albanese government about boosting the supply of homes. Their target of 1.2 million new homes over the next five years already now appears to be another broken promise. The Housing Industry Association has predicted that Labor will fall at least 200,000 homes short of this target. If new home builds continue at the current rate, Labor will be lucky to even get to 800,000 homes.</para>
<para>My electorate isn't just stuck with this hapless government over here, opposite us; it's also stuck with the incompetent WA Labor government, who are failing in their responsibility to supply social housing in Western Australia. There are significant wait times for social housing right across Durack. In the Mid West and Gascoyne regions, there is an average wait time of 133 weeks. It's 139 weeks in the Pilbara, 154 weeks in the East Kimberley and a whopping 226 weeks in the West Kimberley. While the state government brags about delivering surpluses, some of the most vulnerable people in my electorate are left waiting for years simply to get a roof over their head. They are failing to roll out the regional modular build program quickly enough, and their spot purchase program has contributed next to nothing to the number of social housing units in regional Western Australia. Frankly, it's remarkable that between June 2017 and July 2023 the number of social homes fell, despite WA's resident population increasing by over 200,000 people. The residential construction industry in WA is also going through significant turmoil, with at least 23 residential builders going into liquidation only last financial year. Dwelling approvals remain very low by historical standards, and the WA government is sitting on land that regional councils are hoping to have unlocked to house essential workers. Some towns literally have not one vacant home available and are unable to grow. While there is a serious supply issue, with fewer builds occurring than under our coalition government, there is also record demand for housing.</para>
<para>Under Labor we've seen the highest immigration numbers in our nation's history. In the 2022-23 period, migration added 518,000 people to Australia's population, and the Albanese government is planning for a further 1.2 million people over the next five years. Of course we need skilled workers, but that's not the full story with these numbers. In the 2022-23 period, 283,000 of these arrivals were international students. They're not here to build houses or to use their skills for other purposes, and they are competing with Australians for the limited housing supply on offer. It's no wonder the rate of rental vacancies has recently hit a record low, and it doesn't look like improving anytime soon.</para>
<para>Let me reiterate the madness of this approach. The government is bringing more people into the country than ever before and, at the same time, fewer houses are being built. More people, fewer houses; fewer houses, more people. Why can't those opposite understand that their strategy is driving up housing prices? It's simple economics. We know the Prime Minister is a student of economics. Maybe he needs to join some of those international students and go back to school to do a refresher course in supply and demand. This is an essential component that is driving the housing crisis, and it is in no way addressed by the bill that we are currently debating.</para>
<para>Only the coalition can be trusted to turn this around and restore the great Australian dream. As the member for Sturt noted in his contribution—and I note he's in the House with me—the Liberal Party has always been the party of homeownership. This legacy stems from the leadership and vision of the great Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of our great party. I'm very proud of the work that we did in government on this front. We established the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. We established the HomeBuilder program during the pandemic and kept the construction industry afloat during a time of deep uncertainty. During our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policies assisted more than 300,000 Australians purchasing their own homes. Under our government, the number of first-home buyers reached its highest level in nearly 15 years. In our last full financial year in government, that number was close to 180,000. When we came to government in 2013, that number sat at just 100,000. Our commitment to homeownership and to that Australian dream continues, and we will take to the next election a strategy to support Australians to purchase their own home and to reinstate the Australian dream of homeownership.</para>
<para>This will include a sensible approach to immigration, as we need to get that balance right. I think all Australians understand that. We will do what this government has failed to do in reducing the cost of living. After all, how can a family possibly save for a home when they're living from pay cheque to pay cheque? It's simply not sustainable. We're also committed to introducing the super homebuyer scheme. This scheme will allow first-home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation up to a maximum of $50,000 to help with the purchase of their first home. This strategy will do far more to assist Australians into the housing market than the approach set out by those opposite. I believe housing will be front of mind as we head towards the next election, and Australians will be able to reflect on the terrible record of those opposite.</para>
<para>I'd like to switch focus very briefly by acknowledging the leadership of former prime minister Morrison. He has a legacy to be proud of, and it's not just limited to our strong record of housing. Given his valedictory speech yesterday, I'd like to thank him for his service to our nation. As former prime minister, Scott Morrison, the ex-member for Cook, arguably faced the most difficult circumstances facing a prime minister since the Second World War, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. I was very proud to serve in his cabinet, and I want to thank him for his support and encouragement. I'd like to thank him for his leadership and also to wish him and his family all the very best for the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023, because this bill has more questions than it has answers. This bill has so little detail it's not funny. This bill requires so many links and the cooperation of so many that it's hard to see that it will achieve anything it is setting out to do. As a matter of fact, this bill should be taken away from this House, and the government should start again.</para>
<para>As the previous speaker has very eloquently noted, how can the government be bringing in 1.6 million people over four years and yet have policies in place which are leading to a decline in housing starts? Just to give this House a sense of what is happening, 1.6 million people is the size of the City of Adelaide. We're bringing in that many people in the space of four years. Where are they going to live? It's a very simple question that the government needs to answer. Where are they going to live? All we're seeing at the moment is housing prices going through the roof, rents going through the roof and rental vacancies collapsing. At the same time—and I have this straight from my own electorate—timber mills provide the wood that goes into the houses, but there's no demand for the timber that they're producing, because no-one is building houses. It is a calamity.</para>
<para>What does the government come up with? It comes up with this Help to Buy Bill scheme. What does this involve? It involves the government taking equity in your home loan. The first question we need to ask the government is: why are you putting your own program in place when the states already have equity schemes in place? The thing about it is not only do the states have their own equity schemes but they're not fully utilised. There are actually gaps and vacancies in the equity schemes at the state and territory level. Why is the federal government saying, 'We're going to come in and put our own in place?'</para>
<para>The Albanese government continues to, I should say, bemuse—though I think bemuse is the wrong word, because this is about people, especially young people, trying to get into homes. The Albanese Labor government keeps betraying what it said to the Australian people before the election. Before the election the Albanese Labor Party did not say that their Help to Buy scheme would be dependent on the cooperation of the states and territories. So for them to be able to introduce their scheme and for it to work properly they need every state and territory to come on board.</para>
<para>The one thing they've done is say they would pay for all the expenses around it, so I assume what the states and territories will do is say, 'We had our schemes in place, which weren't being fully utilised, so we'll take the money from the Commonwealth to pay for our own schemes because—as many members would know, and I'm sure the member for Bradfield would know this clearly—many of the states are going broke due to their economic mismanagement, and I particularly point to Victoria. It beggars belief, but the Victorian state government are heading towards $200 billion in debt. They would see Anthony Albanese coming from a long, long way, and they would say thank you for helping us! As we know, Dan Andrews and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are very close mates. We're starting to see that play out in the way this mob governs—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Victoria, shocking!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, but he's giving him advice and he was giving him advice, and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing programs like this being run out by this government, and they're not going to work. They're not going to deal with the problems we're facing right now.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Swanson</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to bring up a point of relevance regarding the member for Wannon. We do need to stick with the topic in this debate. I would also like to bring the member for Wannon back to reflections upon members and the correct use of people's names. I know he gets it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree. The member for Wannon needs to refer to people by their designation and needs to avoid a discussion between himself and those opposite. I'm sure he understands that very well.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Paterson for her point of order and her helpful guidance. One of the things I always find very useful is that when you make some political points which start to niggle a little bit and that those opposite know are very relevant and very true, they tend to take these points of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wannon, stick to the topic.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Anyway, it is clear from this threadbare legislation that the government has failed to do the hard work you need to do when you're governing. Governing is not just some sort of ride at Luna Park. You actually have to do the work.</para>
<para>The following are the types of questions that we need answers for. What is the scheme's eligibility criteria? Maybe the member for Paterson could answer that for us, because we can't get it out of the minister—and many people would say that the member for Paterson should be on the front bench because she'd do a much better job than half the ministers who've been put before us by the Prime Minister. Maybe she could tell us what the scheme's eligibility criteria is. What happens if you make improvements to your home? Will you have to send the government an invoice for repairs and maintenance, such as a leaky roof? That's a very good question that we can't get an answer to. What happens if you earned a cent above $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? Will the government force the sale of your home? These are all legitimate questions that, when you go into a joint mortgage with the government, need to be answered, and the minister cannot answer them. Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure people don't own a cent over the threshold? So, if, all of a sudden, you get a pay rise, is that the end of your Help to Buy scheme? What does that mean to your shared equity? We don't have an answer. What happens if housing prices fall and you are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you to sell your house for less than you paid for it? Once again, maybe the member for Paterson will be able to help us with an answer to that question. These are pretty straightforward and simple questions. What are the property price caps? We still don't know what the property price caps are.</para>
<para>I might be mistaken here, but my understanding is that this policy was announced before the last election and that it was meant to be rolled out, I think, six months after, and we haven't seen that happen. Here we are now, nearly but not quite hitting the two-year mark, and we still do not have an answer for these simple questions. What are the property price caps? How many of the 40,000 places will be available in each state and territory? You know you've got to do this with the states and territories, but do you have any idea how many will go to Victoria, how many to New South Wales or how many to Queensland? We don't know. The Australian people don't know. Maybe the government doesn't know or maybe it does. Who knows? I think there are so many questions that it beggars belief, to be honest. And then what lenders are participating in the scheme? We don't know that. We're nearly two years in. This was a policy announced before the last election, and we have no idea about these answers.</para>
<para>One of the things we do know is that this scheme will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion. I must say, when we need housing addressed in this nation right now, when we need the rental crisis addressed right now, the government is spending $5.5 billion, and yet we've got nothing to show for it. At this stage, and maybe the member for Paterson can help again, has one house been built by this scheme since the government came in? Has one apartment been built by the scheme since the government came in? Have we had one?</para>
<para>So I'll just explain this again: 1.6 million people are coming into the country over four years. For those in the gallery listening, that's the size of the city of Adelaide. The government introduced a scheme before the last election to help with housing, and yet here we are, nearly two years into this government, and how many houses have been built? Zero. At least they haven't gone backwards. At least they haven't been—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pasin</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Demolishing houses.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>demolishing houses. I suppose that is a very good point.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's still time.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is still time. Maybe by the two-year mark we will have seen houses beginning to be demolished. Like I said, you would be bemused if it weren't so serious.</para>
<para>What is it that the government could be doing? They could be taking a leaf out of our book, because, when we were in government, we were able to deliver new houses. As a matter of fact, our schemes helped support and contribute to the building of more than 300,000 purchases of homes. That is a track record that those opposite should have looked at and should have said, 'Okay, how can we build on that?'</para>
<para>Just to give you an idea—because these ideas might help: the coalition has supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme; protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications, generating $120 billion of economic activity; provided $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments, to be reinvested in more affordable housing; unlocked 6,900 social and affordable market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand; and established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through superannuation.</para>
<para>Any of those schemes could have been picked up by the government and they would have delivered outcomes. We wouldn't be standing here now sadly mocking the government for not having facilitated, through this program, the building of one new dwelling—not one new dwelling. It is a shame and it's a pity, and it's actually leading to dislocation, it's leading to disharmony and it's leading to communities just asking what the hell is going on. If you're a young Australian at the moment, you are seriously now asking yourself: will I ever be able to own a home? And that is not a question that we want young Australians to be asking at the moment. What we need is for the government to provide answers to young Australians—and it's not just young Australians. There are many Australians right across the board, in whatever circumstances, who are now looking to purchase a home, and they look at the affordability question and they say, 'That is now beyond me.' As a matter of fact, the median wage now will not support you being able to buy a medium-value house. And that is wrong.</para>
<para>We need to address this and we need the government to act. They're not acting through this bill; as a matter of fact, they're making a bad situation worse, because the maths just do not add up. The questions are not being answered and it is another debacle. This is the absolute responsibility of the government. They need to do better and they need to do better quickly.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Help to Buy Bill and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill and to follow the excellent contribution, if I may so, by the member for Wannon. As the member for Wannon articulated, the coalition opposes the Help to Buy Bill. Let's be very clear about what we support and what we oppose. We support effective policy measures to help more Australians buy their own home. We've always supported that and we have a very proud record of implementing effective policy which achieves that very objective. Sadly, the scheme before the House today, contained in this Help to Buy Bill, is not an effective policy. On the contrary, it is poorly targeted, it is badly designed and it is very poor value for taxpayers' money.</para>
<para>I want to be crystal clear: this is not a debate about whether one side of the House or the other more strongly supports all Australians who want to having the opportunity to buy their own home. That is something that on this side of the chamber we very strongly support. The question before the chamber today is whether the particular policy mechanism proposed by the Albanese Labor government, embodied in this bill, is an effective mechanism to achieve that objective or whether, in fact, it is ineffective and it is nothing more than a cynical political gambit from a party that wants to be seen to be doing something, when on any analysis the proposed measure is going to have, at best, an almost inconsequential impact.</para>
<para>Let me lay out the reasons I say—we say—this scheme is poorly targeted, badly designed and poor value for taxpayers' money. It is open to only 10,000 households each financial year. That is why the excellent, extremely effective, extremely experienced shadow minister for housing delivered, when he was the Minister for Housing, effective policy mechanisms which got hundreds of thousands of Australians into their own homes. He speaks with authority and experience on this subject, and he describes this scheme—I think entirely accurately—as a niche program with, in total, some 10,000 households. The maximum upper limit on the number of households who can participate each year is 10,000. For that niche benefit, taxpayers will be on the hook for $5.5 billion. While the Labor party never shows any evidence of recognising this fundamental reality, the amount of money available to the government to spend is finite. It's limited. It's not inexhaustible. That means you need to assess the range of policy options in the menu of possibilities in front of you based upon those which most effectively and efficiently deploy taxpayers' money. This scheme, I'm sorry to say, does not meet that test.</para>
<para>We can look at the experience of the numerous shared-equity schemes which have been in place at the state government level over many years—for example, the New South Wales government's Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper scheme, the Victorian government's Homebuyer Fund, the South Australian government's HomeStart shared equity option and Tasmania's MyHome shared equity option. The simple fact is that, in each of these schemes, there are places remaining. Demand falls short of supply. We do not have a constraint in the supply of places in shared-equity schemes around Australia. Yet, for some mystifying reason, the policy geniuses on the other side of the chamber thought it was a ripper idea to announce yet another shared-equity scheme, notwithstanding the clear market evidence that there isn't a shortage of supply; there's a shortage of demand for places in shared-equity schemes. There are more than enough places already available from the schemes provided by state governments around the country. Yet, for some mysterious reason, the Labor party at the Commonwealth level thought it was a ripper idea to announce another one.</para>
<para>Why would they do that, you might ask? The answer is pretty obvious. They want to be seen to be doing something about the problem of Australians getting access to housing without actually doing anything meaningful or that will make a material difference. There are well-recognised issues with shared-equity schemes, which means that they are a niche policy solution, as the shadow minister for housing has rightly said. Amongst those well-recognised problems is that that they may encourage those for whom homeownership is not necessarily the most suitable housing option to take on undue financial risk. They may divert resources from supporting those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including because of rental stress.</para>
<para>But there's another, more fundamental problem with shared-equity schemes which explains why they are at best a niche solution and why the number of people who have come forward to take up places in the schemes provided by state governments around Australia has fallen short of the number of places available. That problem is this: if you want to own a home, you want to own a home. You don't want to own a home on a shared basis with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing. You don't want them or their representatives to be sitting around the kitchen table when the will is read out to determine who gets to take a share of ownership when you've died. You want to own a home. This has been an aspiration of millions of Australians for decades and decades. Millions of Australians have embarked upon the homeownership journey, and it has benefited them for many reasons throughout their life, including by giving them that sense of security and stability that you have when you own your own home and by giving them greater autonomy because they can make a choice about whether they want to put up some pictures on the wall without having to check with the landlord.</para>
<para>Of course, there is also the fact that purchasing home, as most of us do—very few of us are in a position to buy a home outright—is a means of enforced saving and a means of building wealth throughout your life. It is particularly important when you get to your retirement years that you own a home. That is one reason why the policy objective of having as many people as possible owning their own homes is very important. It's important for a range of reasons, but certainly one of those is that more people owning their own homes in their retirement years means that more people will be able to enjoy a retirement in which they are not continually anxious about their housing options and about paying for those housing options. That is a fundamental philosophical reason why the relevance and the applicability of shared-equity schemes is always going to be at best a niche policy response.</para>
<para>On top of that fundamental design or philosophical issue are a whole range of important questions of detail in relation to the operation of this particular scheme that have not been adequately answered by the government, which leads one to suspect that they haven't yet worked out the answers. What, for example, are the eligibility criteria to participate under the scheme? What happens if you, as the co-owner of a home with the Australian government, spend money on making improvements to your home? What if you spend money on making necessary repairs to a leaky roof? Do you then send an invoice to the government so that they pay 50 per cent of the cost? What happens if you spend $50,000 on a kitchen or a bathroom renovation? Do you send an invoice to the Commonwealth government for 50 per cent of the cost of that? That will contribute to the increased value of the home when it's ultimately sold. As the details of this scheme, such as they are, suggest, the Commonwealth will then be entitled to 50 per cent of the gain in the value of the home—the price that you sell it at compared to the price it was bought at. But if some of that gain comes because you, the homeowner, have spent $50,000 on a bathroom or a kitchen renovation, how is that to be equitably worked out?</para>
<para>The answers to those questions remain, it must be said, an enduring mystery. What about the income test that applies for eligibility under this scheme? We know from what the government has said that your income must be below $90,000 if you are an individual or below $120,000 if you are a couple to be eligible to participate in the scheme. What happens if you've bought a home under this scheme with the Commonwealth government as your co-owner on an income of $80,000 and then a couple of years down the track your income increases—you get a pay rise or perhaps you change jobs—and suddenly you're earning $95,000. That's very good news, but it won't be good news if the fact of having increased your income means that the Commonwealth government then says to you: 'Right, you're out. You're no longer meeting the eligibility requirements of this scheme, so pack your stuff and get out of the house. It's got to be sold.' Again, we don't know the answers to these questions.</para>
<para>What are your reporting obligations if you participate in one of these shared-equity schemes? What happens if housing prices fall? It does happen sometimes. More often than not over the past 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, house prices have risen, but from time to time they fall. That's in the nature of markets. What will happen if housing prices fall and if you, as the owner or co-owner, are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government step in as the co-owner and say: 'We're at financial risk here. We insist that the home be sold'? You're out on the street. And the sale price that you realise is less than you paid to get into the house. All of these are perfectly foreseeable scenarios, but it is very hard to know what the answers to these questions are, because the government's been extremely vague.</para>
<para>One of the other undistinguished features of this government's poor administration of this area of policy is that Australians were promised—Australians were told at the last election—that this Help to Buy scheme would be in place by 1 January 2023. It does not take much intellectual effort to work out that that deadline has been hopelessly missed. We're already almost a year and two months past that deadline. But, of course, there's another factor here—although the Labor Party didn't make this plain to Australians when they announced this policy—which is that, because of the way it's designed, the state and territory governments each need to pass their own legislation to allow the scheme to operate.</para>
<para>Members of this House should not think that, once this legislation passes the federal parliament, this government has delivered on its promise. On the contrary, there's more work to be done. We are already more than halfway through the term of the Albanese Labor government, and this is but one of many areas where it is hopelessly behind time and where what it is actually delivering falls vastly short of the soaring rhetoric of its promises. Members might well ask, 'What's the urgency in getting this done and why has the government moved to guillotine this evening so that the bill has to be passed?' It might very well be because they're pretty embarrassed about the fact that, as of 1 March, we're going to tip over from one year and two months to one year and three months, and they want to try and at least get the legislation through.</para>
<para>But I say to Australians: do not think that, once this legislation is through, there's going to be a miraculous change in the availability of housing, because there's more that needs to be done. It's a niche scheme at best, and poorly targeted, badly designed, poor value for taxpayers' money, and politics over policy substance. The coalition opposes this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to congratulate for their contributions the Manager of Opposition Business and shadow minister, together with the shadow minister for immigration, both of whom I've had the opportunity to listen to while I've been in the chamber.</para>
<para>There is so much wrong with this bill, the Help to Buy Bill 2023. I want to start with the last point. In my maiden speech I referred to an Italian phrase which I spend a lot of time thinking about, particularly in my public life. Loosely translated, it is 'between the saying and doing, there's the ocean between'. And so it is here in terms of this shared-equity proposal by those opposite. There is a long way between the saying and the doing.</para>
<para>What was the saying? The saying was in the lead-up to the last election. With much fanfare, faced with a growing cost-of-living crisis and particularly a housing crisis, the wannabe Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, indicated that his government—were they to be brought to government—would legislate this scheme and have it operational by 1 January 2023. That was the saying. But we're now well and truly into the doing, unless of course you don't think that much can be achieved in 14 months, which of course it can be. That's the best-case scenario. We're at 14 months right now.</para>
<para>Not that it was shared publicly with the Australian people at the time, but, as we have just heard and as is the case, in order to make this policy operational—I won't say 'effective'—there will need to be legislation mirroring it in each of the state jurisdictions. This proposed bill hasn't even left this place yet, so to think that it would be operational by the end of this calendar year is optimistic. I think it's a more likely scenario, and perhaps the reason to guillotine it, that those opposite have indicated: 'We need to get it legislated so that we can do one of two things. Either we can say, "Well, we've done our part," and blame the states'—which is something that occurs regularly—'or, alternatively, we can avoid any criticism associated with the scheme having not kicked off.'</para>
<para>The first thing is their rank delay in doing anything in this space so as to effectively hoodwink the people of Australia into voting for them but then not being able to carry through. It's a theme that's becoming increasingly consistent for those opposite. But the next point is, quite frankly, we have a Minister for Housing who comes into this place and is fond of saying—presumably from information she's finally got from the conga line of round tables that she conducts—that the solution is supply. Then why would she provide a proposal which is all about being a demand-driven mechanism? This proposal, as ineffectual and niche as it is, is all about driving up demand. It has nothing to do with supply.</para>
<para>While I'm talking about how niche this proposal is—it's 10,000 homes, and that's if it's able to be legislated with all the conditions present—this is against a backdrop of, as we heard from the shadow minister for immigration, 1.5 million new arrivals on our doorstep. I don't live in Adelaide, but I've spent a lot of time in that city, of course, because I'm a South Australian. While I'm here and whilst we're talking about housing—obviously 10,000 homes are insignificant when we're talking about needing to house an additional 1.5 million people, and that's not to mention the crisis that we're facing right now in real terms—I want to pause for a minute and say that it's not just houses that you need to provide when you're seeking to grow your population by that number over such a short period of time. A population the size of Adelaide needs schools, roads and hospitals. Just like the way those opposite have been ham-fisted in this proposal, they're not working on the infrastructure and investment you need to support those other elements.</para>
<para>Why would you think about legislating a shared-equity scheme like this when shared-equity schemes exist all over the country, in almost every jurisdiction, and they're undersubscribed, in many cases, by 90 per cent? There's no shortage of opportunities for people who might want to participate in a shared-equity scheme to do so. But here's a newsflash for those opposite: they don't want to. The reason why they don't want to is that Australians, on average, want government out of their life and not in the kitchen. That's the reality. They want government working for them, not controlling them.</para>
<para>I think this is the greatest example I've seen for a while of the differences between the two major political parties. I think the most significant achievement of our founder, Robert Menzies, was taking private homeownership to a majority level here in this country. Sadly, we're now seeing the rates of private homeownership fall off the cliff. Why is private homeownership important? We need Australians to take an interest in this country. You can't have a property owned democracy if nobody owns property in the democracy. Homeownership also provides security for retirement. The cases I see around elderly Australians and stress invariably involve them not owning their own home. So if we can get a greater percentage of Australians owning a stake in Australia and, importantly, their own home then, yes, it will provide security for their retirement, but it's more than that. As a cultural conservative, I will say this to the last breath I have: a strong society is a product of strong families. Strong families need the support and security of a family home.</para>
<para>Now those opposite would have the government not only at the kitchen table but on the title deed as a second mortgage holder. We have heard from the Manager of Opposition Business about all the difficulties associated with that, and I will run through those in a minute. But the principle is this: we do not want the government having an interest in your home; we want you to own your own home. I can highlight the difference between our respective policy positions. The shadow minister is here. He did so much as minister, whether it was around HomeBuilder or other schemes, to assist 300,000 Australians to get into a home during our time in government. The 'home first, super second' policy that we took to the last election is one that we have recommitted to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a terrible policy, raiding your super.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Terrible' I hear. I'm going to take the interjection. Those opposite would like the government to take an interest in your property but don't want you to use your own savings to do exactly the same thing. Newsflash for those opposite—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's for retirement.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection that it's for retirement. I have to tell you that money in a bank account ain't much good to you in retirement if you don't own your own home. That's why it's got to be home first, super second. I want Australians to use their own funds to get themselves into a home. Young Australians who are working hard and putting money away in their super should be able to access that as a deposit for their home. Those opposite—and you heard it from the member for Bennelong—are opposed to that. I think that may have something to do with the position that industry super takes in relation to this. And, of course, who runs industry super funds? Those opposite want industry super funds investing in housing stock so that they can own the homes but don't want you to use your own super to buy your own home.</para>
<para>While I am talking about consistent themes, I have to say that something struck me about this proposal and I thought: 'Goodness! I remember a debate like this—high on rhetoric and low on detail.' The rhetoric here is that it is a help-to-buy scheme. It sounds pretty cool. I would love help to buy a lot of things, particularly a home. But what about some of the detail? The last time we had a debate that was high on rhetoric and low on detail it was a catastrophic failure for the progressives. It was the Voice campaign. It was high on rhetoric but very low on detail.</para>
<para>I have some simple questions for those opposite. I think Australians are entitled to have answers to these questions. After all, this scheme is going to cost the Australian taxpayer $5.5 billion. That rolls off the tongue, but let me put it another way. It's $5,500,000,000. That is more money than you could fly a rocket ship over, and so the Australian people deserve some clear answers. What's the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens with improvements to the home? Do you need approval before you extend the home?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Thompson</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just call Albo.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, put a call in to the PM! What happens, as you heard asked by the Manager of Opposition Business, if at some point your income exceeds the threshold of $90,000, or $120,000 for a couple, thanks to pay rises or other things? What happens when the property is sold? What happens if the price of the property falls? Are we going to be forced into selling homes? Will this Help to Buy scheme become a force-to-sell scheme? I would really like to know where these 40,000 places will be. What percentage of them will be in regional Australia, for example, or regional South Australia particularly? These are all questions that are unanswered. I think it unreasonable that the Australian people be asked to spend $5.5 billion on this niche program without those details to hand.</para>
<para>With respect, the minister should spend her time focused on supply. Can I tell you what's happened in the last 14 months? Housing starts have almost stopped in this country. As the member for Barker, I'm privileged to represent areas home to the radiata pine industry. That industry is principally about structural timber, and that structural timber goes into the frames and trusses of the homes around this country. I get a very early lead indicator of what's happening in terms of housing starts across the country because I drive past timber mills on a very regular basis and I see what's happening to their stock and inventory. I can tell you right now that they're running out of space to stack the timber. Why? Because there's no demand for it. Why is there no demand for it? There's no demand for it because housing starts have stopped.</para>
<para>We've got a minister over here fixated on a policy that Labor promised in an attempt to hoodwink the Australian people to deliver them to government. While she acknowledges that it's all about supply, supply, supply—because that's what all of the peak bodies in this portfolio space are telling her—she's fixated on delivering a policy which is all about driving demand up. Demand's not the problem. There are more Australians that want a home than can get into a home. Newsflash: supply is the problem. That's why the price of housing is going up to unaffordable levels. That's why Australians can't afford to rent. We need to get more stock onto the market, and you're not going to do that with a help-to-buy scheme, particularly when you already have those schemes all around the country and many of them are 90 per cent undersubscribed.</para>
<para>Please, minister, focus on supply. Roll out the supply this country needs so that we can maintain ourselves as a property-owning democracy. Don't focus on these niche programs; help people to get into homes. Drive down the cost of living. Get on and do your job.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to be able to speak here today on housing, homelessness and some of the issues that Australians are experiencing around the country. Homelessness, in particular, has gone through the roof under the Albanese Labor government in the last two years. It's just skyrocketed.</para>
<para>The coalition will oppose the Help to Buy Bill 2023. The reason why is that we think $5.5 billion could be better spent elsewhere. As the member for Barker just said, very correctly, this is bad policy. This is policy on the run. When you talk about the minister, I really think that she has no idea what she's doing in this portfolio. When you speak about the HAFF, she doesn't even know how it was going to be invested. In giving more social housing to the states, how is she going to reduce the maintenance bill through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement? For Queensland, where I come from, every dollar that we give is spent on maintenance, every year. There isn't one new social house; they spend all the money we give them on maintenance. What is the minister going to do about that? No idea. Labor's record has seen homelessness increase considerably. In the midst of a housing crisis, this underwhelming Help to Buy scheme is too little too late. The Australian dream is to own your own home, not one with the government. They don't want to own it with the government.</para>
<para>The problems with the scheme have been pointed out during this debate. First of all, it needs all the state governments to approve it. But the states already have help-to-buy schemes. They already have schemes that are very similar to this one. Guess what? Not all of the places are full; a lot of those places are still empty. The member for Wannon said earlier—and I agree—that the federal government is going to give a whole lot of money to the states in order to get them to sign up for this scheme, and what are they going to do with that cash? We don't know. They'll probably use it to replace or invest into their existing schemes, which currently are not full. Only a Labor government would come in and go, 'Well, if we've got these schemes all around the country in different states and they're currently not full, we're going to bring in another scheme on top of that.'</para>
<para>What happens if wages go up? The Leader of the House, the minister for industrial relations, comes into this place every day in question time, spruiking how wages are going up. Mind you, they're not keeping up with inflation. But he comes in every day, saying, 'Wages are going up. We're doing this; we're doing that,' but what happens if you go above $90,000 and you're in a help-to-buy scheme? Does that mean the house then has to be sold? Could it be sold at a loss? These are questions that neither the minister nor anyone else in the government has addressed during this debate.</para>
<para>What about insurance costs? Who is paying for the insurance? We've seen insurance under the Albanese Labor government go through the roof. It is not just rents and mortgages; insurance has gone up considerably. So, if the government owns 30 or 40 per cent of the house, are they going to pay 30 or 40 per cent of the insurance bill? What about the rates bill or the local council? Are they going to pay 30 to 40 per cent of the rates bill? There are no answers. What about repairs and maintenance? Something might need upgrading. Are they going to pay 30 to 40 per cent of that bill, or is that all on the person that has 60 to 70 per cent of the ownership? Will the Australian Taxation Office be auditing income to ensure they don't earn a cent over the threshold? If you enter into one of these shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? These are all questions unanswered by this Labor government. What lenders are participating in the scheme? How many of the 40,000 places will be available to each state and territory? What are the property price caps? None of this has been communicated.</para>
<para>Let's face it: Labor's record when it comes to housing and homelessness is pretty atrocious. I'm not talking just about the Albanese Labor government; I'm also talking about state Labor governments. In Queensland the Palaszczuk and Miles Labor governments have a particularly shocking record. Homelessness has increased. It's gone through the roof in the last two years. There wouldn't be a member in this House of Representatives who hasn't seen more rough sleepers starting to emerge around the country. The member for Lindsay agrees. The member for Herbert agrees. We're seeing it all over the place. I'm sure we'd also see it in Victoria. It is partly because of the 12 interest rate rises that we've seen under the Albanese Labor government. When the coalition was in, there was one interest rate rise. Then we had 12 consecutive interest rate rises.</para>
<para>At the same time, we have Labor governments—not just the Albanese Labor government here but around the country—talking down negative gearing. We know that the Prime Minister and the Albanese Labor government do not like negative gearing. We hear it from their coalition partners, the Greens. The Albanese Labor government can't get one piece of legislation through this parliament without the support of the Greens in the other place, so the Greens have been continually barking on, for the last year and a half, encouraging them to break the stage 3 tax cuts after the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said they wouldn't. They said 100 times they wouldn't. Eventually, they caved in to the Greens and broke it. What they don't tell you is that people earning over $135,000—a lot of public servants in Canberra and others, a lot of small-business people who work hard—will see their taxes go up by seven to 15 per cent under this government, and they're given a lousy three per cent at the bottom and. Who in Australia has ever heard someone saying, at 19 cents in the dollar, they're paying too much tax? But this government's big idea was to reduce that to 16 cents. That's the Prime Minister 's big plan for stage 3 tax cuts. The truth is no-one in this country would be getting a tax cut if it weren't for the coalition government, and this is all very relevant because the cost of living is going through the roof and we're seeing more homeless people. Meanwhile, Labor are out there spending half a billion dollars on Voice campaigns.</para>
<para>We know that in 2019 the Labor government took to the election that they were going to get rid of negative gearing. They were going to change it. Now their coalition partners in the Senate—the Greens—are asking them to do exactly the same thing. Guess what? Ninety per cent of the housing in this country is owned by the private sector. If you can't negatively gear it when interest rates are going through the roof, what does that mean for rents? It means that there will be more rent increases because if you can't take a loss against your income when interest rates are going through the roof, rents will go up. It will also mean—as this government talks down negative gearing and increasing taxes on people earning over $135,000—the very mums and dads and the very people who are more likely to build an additional investment home, and that's exactly what we need at the moment.</para>
<para>We've got 1.5 million migrants coming in under this government over the next few years. Three times higher than what it was under the former coalition government when we were bringing in 160,000 a year. They're bringing in all these people with nowhere to live. We've got homelessness going through the roof, and at the same time they're talking down negative gearing and putting up taxes on median income earners who earn over $135,000. How are they incentivising people to build an investment property to help out in the middle of this housing crisis? It's not good.</para>
<para>The reality is that the minister has no idea. The coalition's record has been particularly good. In the last three years of the coalition government, we had 300,000 Australians purchasing homes. That's a hundred thousand per year. This scheme helps 10,000 people a year—10 per cent of what the former government was doing. NHFIC was a landmark coalition achievement that delivered $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to community housing. We know that the state Labor government in Queensland hates community housing. Palecek and Miles have done nothing for 10 years up there. Now, finally, they're starting to look into it. Why did they hate it? Because Campbell Newman, the former premier up there, liked it. 'Oh, we can't do anything that the coalition did up here.' The coalition federal government helped 21,000 people into social and affordable housing in our term. That would be more people, by the way.</para>
<para>Labor has changed the name of NHFIC to Housing Australia to somehow take ownership of it. Guess what? It's a coalition policy that they've adopted. Good on them for doing so, but at the end of the day that's what's been working. Under the coalition, first home buyers reached their highest levels in 15 years. More than 60,000 people in Australia—first home buyers and single parent families, predominantly women—were supported into home ownership through the Morrison government and through the coalition government through various home guarantee schemes. They are still running today, and that's good. We want to expand them further when we come back to government.</para>
<para>The First Home Super Saver Scheme, which some of the members that have been here a few terms voted against, assisted 27,600 first home buyers in accelerating their deposit through superannuation—another good scheme of the coalition. Over 137,000 HomeBuilder applications were processed. That absolutely turbocharged supply. That's what we need when you're bringing in 1.5 million migrants in the next few years and when you're talking down negative gearing and pushing up interest rates like this government has done.</para>
<para>We've seen homelessness go through the roof. When we talk about homelessness, this is this record of the coalition. We get the figures for homelessness through the census every five years. The last census was done in 2021, before that it was 2016. In that time, the population increased significantly. Guess what? While the coalition were in government there were 564 less rough sleepers in Australia in the 2021 census than there was in 2016.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ramsey</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly, member for Grey. It gets better. There were 1,128 less couch surfers. That's people that have gone through separation, kids that have had fights with their parents sleeping at their mate's house on the couch. Homelessness reduced by 1,128 under the coalition.</para>
<para>We heard the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Prime Minister opposite, when they were spruiking the Voice, talking about overcrowding. Guess what? Overcrowding went down under the coalition. We reduced it by 3,193 people. There were 3,193 fewer people in severely overcrowded dwellings, which mainly impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and Pacific Islander people that are living in Australia. That's our record. They are the facts. You can't dispute them.</para>
<para>Do you know what went up? Supported accommodation. There were 3,056 more people in supported accommodation. Do you know when that happens? It's when the government builds more houses to help women and children escaping DV. They are counted as homeless because they don't have a lease, but they are living in brand-new houses. It's still homelessness, and we will continue to work on that. Is the minister doing anything about it? Is she talking about these figures? I can tell you now that there wasn't a government in Australia talking about these homelessness figures until the Morrison government started doing it. Most members in this House wouldn't even know that there are five different categories of homelessness.</para>
<para>There were more people in boarding houses as well, but the Morrison government wrote, with the Queensland Labor government, to all boarding houses on how to reduce homelessness. It reduced in Queensland. Do you know the worst state for homelessness? Victoria. It went up by some 6,000 people in that space of time. Pathetic. Do you know what the best state was? New South Wales. We had a Liberal government at the time.</para>
<para>So the reality is that when it comes to homelessness I am prepared to back the coalition in every day of the week because the record shows that we had a significant impact in government in reducing it. When the next census comes out in 2026, if the Albanese government is still in power, I expect to see a big increase in homelessness. I don't want to, but the minister has had two years to act, to get cracking and to start talking about these things rather than schemes like this that cost $5.5 billion that we don't particularly need.</para>
<para>The coalition will take our super homebuyer scheme to the next election. We will be taking that scheme into Bennelong. We are happy to debate the member opposite, who got in on the back of the lie that that they wouldn't change the stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bring it on, mate. We will be there spruiking it. We have super funds run by industry. It's all right for them to invest in social and affordable housing. AustralianSuper and all the rest of the mates of the members opposite that run these industry super funds can invest in super, but they won't allow mums and dads and their kids to use their super to invest in their first home when, on sale, the money goes back into their super. They'll be better off. We will be spruiking this right up to the next election.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Buying a home has been labelled the Australian dream for a reason. You work hard and you save and getting the keys to your own slice of Australia is truly one of life's greatest accomplishments. You may go it alone. You may achieve this with your partner or a business partner. But now the Albanese Labor government have decided they want a slice of the pie as well. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a shared-equity scheme that will see the Albanese Labor government own up to 40 per cent of your home, your safe haven, your sanctuary. It will not be yours wholly and solely.</para>
<para>As awful as this bill is, the government has already failed on its delivery. This was a key election policy that had a nominated start date of 1 January 2023. Twelve months on, we are only now debating it in this place. What on earth has the housing minister been doing? What on earth has this government been doing? Eighteen months late, we get this pathetic bill. In the midst of Labor's housing crisis, you would think that they would be pushing their election policy to be delivered on time. Right now, we have housing approvals and builds at record lows, and homebuyers are at their lowest level since the Gillard government. We've got rents skyrocketing, vacancy rates at record lows and now record migration. Regardless of how ineffective we on this side are proving this bill to be, it is too little, too late. People don't want to co-own a home with the government. This is a big-government strategy. If the failed time line isn't enough, then the contents of the bill should prove that Labor have no understanding of the wants and needs of everyday Australians when it comes to housing.</para>
<para>Let's look at what this scheme is doing across the economy. This small niche program will only be open to 10,000 households each financial year and will cost the Commonwealth—the taxpayer—$5.5 billion. An article in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> stated 'Labor needs guardrails on spending'. With policies like this, that could not be truer.</para>
<para>The ongoing issues that present themselves in this bill are of great concern. Homeowners are set to be tied to this Albanese Labor government for the lifetime of their homeownership. Who will be responsible for repairs and maintenance? You will be. Who will be responsible for making any improvements to the home? You will be. If the government own 40 per cent of your home, shouldn't they pick up 40 per cent of the bill? But you can bet your bottom dollar that, when the house is sold, the government will be there to collect their portion of the sale. Does that include its appreciation value? The Prime Minister's sitting at your kitchen table because he owns 40 per cent of your home. This is a big-government approach—government well and truly in your life and not out of it. For the Prime Minister to own 40 per cent of your home just goes to show how out of touch he is with normal Australians. The fine print of this scheme perfectly describes this government: all care, no responsibility.</para>
<para>But the most concerning part of this legislation is an age-old Labor tactic. It's what it doesn't say. As always, this government's legislation leaves more questions than answers. What are the eligibility criteria? What are the owner's reporting obligations? Are there price caps? How many places will be available in each state and territory? How many will be available in Townsville? This is not the first time I've been in this place asking question after question of a government who have put forward an ill-thought-out piece of legislation with holes that we on this side need to patch up for them.</para>
<para>I'll use an example the shadow minister used. We were told during the election that there would be no income caps for eligibility and that, in the end, it would mirror some of the income caps in other legislative schemes. Let's assume that this scheme will apply to people who earn up to $90,000 a year, for example, or couples who earn up to $120,000. A question the government can't or won't answer is: what happens if you've got two people and they earn $120,000 a year—$60,000 each—and they enter into the shared-equity product with the government, and one or both of them get a pay rise? All of a sudden they are over the $120,000 cap of the eligibility criteria. Will the government, the 40 per cent owners, sell the home out from under them? What happens if you fall behind in your mortgage repayments? These are legitimate, reasonable questions. You'd think the minister would have answers to them, but you'd be wrong.</para>
<para>We on this side of this House are all about opportunity and reward for effort. We understand what it means to Australians to own their own home and what comes with it—independence, security, self-pride. We want to give all Australians the opportunity, and we have a strong track record in backing this up. We implemented the Home Guarantee Scheme, which supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership. Australians were able to get into the housing market with a deposit as little as five per cent. This saw record rates of women, essential workers and single mums jump at the chance to become homeowners. The scheme was oversubscribed and should be used as a case study when implementing new housing policies.</para>
<para>We set up the HomeBuilder applications which protected the residential construction industry and generated more than $120 billion of economic activity. More than 137,000 Australian families applied, and the scheme delivered a secure pipeline of work that kept thousands of tradies and small businesses in work. This was a record-breaking scheme and contributed to our robust economic activity during one of the world's latest challenges.</para>
<para>A landmark coalition achievement was the creation of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, now known as Housing Australia. Since its creation it has delivered $2.9 billion in low-cost loans to community housing providers and supports 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. We know that homeownership is the Australian dream, and we have made a possible for thousands of Australians. The coalition's housing policies have always been successful and have always been in line with the wants and needs of everyday Australians.</para>
<para>During our last three years in government, our housing policies aided more than 300,000 Australians in purchasing homes—21,000 social and affordable homes, with first home buyers increasing by 80,000, reaching their highest levels in nearly 15 years. They were successful because we listened to what the nation wanted. We set up the opportunities, delivered them and then backed away to let individuals and families do the rest—a small government approach. The same cannot be said about the Albanese Labor government, who, 20 months after they committed to the unwanted Help to Buy Bill are still yet to pass it. This is clearly another big government approach. The Albanese Labor government continues to encroach on the lives of everyday Australians, and this bill is no different. They want to tell you what car you buy, and now they want to tell you what state they want your family home.</para>
<para>It's already abundantly clear that Australians do not want this. We know this because we've seen the failures of other state Labor governments' attempt to implement shared-equity schemes. There are places remaining in the schemes in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It just goes to show that the Labor Party are not the party for the people. They do not understand the wants and needs of everyday Australians. If they did, they would not be implementing yet another shared-equity scheme, which has already been proven unwanted across the nation.</para>
<para>Whether you own a home or are in the process of saving up or it's still a distant dream, I want you to think about how you'd feel when the keys of the front door, your slice of Australia, are handed to you. If you're like me, you'll be flooded with a sense of pride, achievement, accomplishment. You'll have feelings of freedom, independence, safety and security. You'll throw your head back, smile and say, 'I did this; this is mine.' Think about how you'd feel knowing that the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, owns 40 per cent of it.</para>
<para>Australia is not a dictatorship. We're a democratic society, and we have been chosen to make the best decisions possible in behalf of our communities. We know that Australians don't want this. This bill should be scrapped, and the Albanese Labor government needs to set up policies that get out of your way, not in your way. People don't want more politicians in their lives. People don't want a government owning 40 per cent of their home. People want the freedom to live the life that they choose, to buy the car that they choose, to not feel the hand of government on their shoulder as they purchase a home, worried about what happens if they get a salary increase, a promotion; what happens if they sell; what happens if there is depreciation; what happens to their future.</para>
<para>These are questions that the minister should be able to answer. I know from well before my time in politics that I didn't want government in my house. I didn't want government's hand controlling what I do. I wanted small government. Make decisions, national decisions, big decisions on behalf of the Australian people. Don't tell me what I can and can't buy. Don't tell me that the government needs a percentage stake in my house. The Prime Minister doesn't sit at my kitchen table. I don't want him to sit there, and neither does the majority of people around this country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to apply for it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want the member for Bennelong to sit in my kitchen either, to be honest.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Laxale</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to use it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why waste taxpayer money then? It doesn't work around the country, yet the member for Bennelong wants people to have the government sitting inside their homes at their family table.</para>
<para>The coalition wants a smaller government. The politicians on this side of the House do not want to tell people what cars they have to buy. They don't want to force people to go into partnership with the government to buy their home. We want people to be aspirational and to have that vision and to have that security. That's why we will oppose this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an essence of truth within this Help to Buy Bill, which is that it is the Australian dream to own your own home. Menzies knew that and he drove policies which led to record levels of homeownership in Australia. Owning your own home is the best superannuation investment you will ever make. It is an investment in your family and your business security. It is the launching pad for success. I can't tell you how pleased I was when the last of my three children signed on the dotted line for a housing loan, because I knew they were on the sticky paper, that pathway to success. I knew they would make that commitment to make the payments on their home and that would give them the leverage in later life to do a whole host of things which, if they'd had to pay rent for their entire life, would likely be beyond their reach.</para>
<para>But how do you get there? How you get into ownership in this increasingly challenging world of the rising cost of construction and, even more so, the rising cost of land around our urban centres, which can constitute more than half the price of the home, is a difficult and vexing question indeed. Just to go off on a little bit of a tangent, I often debate with friends about whether we should be having urban infill and people living in higher density—it's better for your transport options and that kind of thing—or whether we should continue this sprawl outside our capital cities. In my case, they're coming into my electorate in the southern reaches of Grey onto the Adelaide Plains, where previously high-value farming lands are now being covered up with what we would have once said were quarter-acre suburban blocks, but of course they're not anymore. They're 450 square metres, and the house takes up the whole block. How do you trade that off?</para>
<para>I think back to my own childhood and upbringing. My own children actually had the run of a farm, but even the kids in the town had the run of the streets. Now, of course, parents in this modern world aren't prepared to let their children go out unaccompanied on the streets. So they come home from work and they pick the kids up from child care and they all but put them on a leash and take them down to the park. They don't put them on a leash, obviously, but you understand what I mean. This is a problem. How we get people into their own homes and onto this pathway for success is a moot point.</para>
<para>I can't see the punters taking up this scheme. I just can't see them signing up. It is full of uncertainty, like other programs the government has put forward in recent times. There's a big announcement and then we'll sort the detail out on the way. Of course that was the pathway of the Voice: 'We'll sort it out. Don't you worry about that. We'll sort it out later.'</para>
<para>I was fortunate enough, quite some time ago now, to have been in a position to purchase a unit in the city when my kids reached the age of attending university. I figured it would be better off to keep the rent internal than it would be to pay it to someone else, and it's proved to be a good investment, and I'm certainly mindful of the fact that not everyone is in a position to do that. I have to say: it's a nice little place, but it sits on a strata title. And when I say 'but' it's a soft 'but'. I have six other very good residents or owners. We are able to sit down and negotiate whatever needs to be done, whether the units need to be painted or whatever it might be at that particular time, whether we have the white ants specialists in. But I can tell you what, it comes as a bit of an awakening to me, who was raised on a farm, that you actually have to consult with someone else before you make alterations to your own place.</para>
<para>And that is at the basis of this proposal of the government—there is somebody else that has an interest in your home. In this case it's the government, and, because there is no detail in the bill, we don't know what that exactly means. We do know that there are a number of state schemes already that offer shared ownership—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania—and they're all undersubscribed. That's why I think this one will be undersubscribed. I think it'll be drastically undersubscribed.</para>
<para>We assume that the 60 per cent owner of the home is responsible for 100 per cent of repairs, but we're not too sure. We certainly assume that they will be responsible for 100 per cent of the rates and 100 per cent of the insurance. What will the government say if you're underinsured? Will there be somebody vetting the level of insurance on your property? Repairs are one thing, but there are not many people that own a residence, let's say, for a period of 20 years and don't improve it. You might put in a pergola, a garage out the back, another bedroom or an upgraded kitchen. You might even put a swimming pool out the back if you've got enough room. Who the hell owns that? And is somebody else going to chip in? Are you going to extend your loan or whatever to make this happen? All those things. Anything that is this murky is pretty hard to sell, and that's why I think the punters will hold back. Then, of course, there are the income thresholds which aren't included in the bill but were part of the now government's spiel leading into the last election, the $90,000 for the single income earner and the $120,000 for a combined household.</para>
<para>One of the great things, of course, about seeing my kids line up and sign their documents for their housing loans is that all of them have had increases in their wages because their skill level has risen since the time they signed those documents. It's one of the things about buying homes in Australia: what looks to be a difficult task early, if things go right for you—if things go as they normally would—it actually becomes an easier task as your life progresses. It makes sense that somebody who is 35 would be earning on a higher wage level than someone who is 25, and that someone that is 45 would be earning more than they were when they were 35. That's not just because they've been on the job longer: it's because they've gotten better at the job and taken a promotion. They've moved their way up the steps. Not everyone will do that, and I understand that, but it is certainly the case for most people.</para>
<para>So it seems almost inevitable, even though this $120,000 mark would, presumably, be indexed, but we don't know that either. Presumably, the government would seek to index it. But even at that rate it is almost certain—$120,000, let's face it, for a couple is a modest income in the current world—that they will break that point at some stage. So they'd be living in a house where there's a disincentive to earn more money and a disincentive to improve your property. I would have thought that is a pretty negative position to put yourself in when you are signing up for what is the biggest investment in your life that's going to have the greatest outcome on your quality of life as you age.</para>
<para>The next question is, of course: what happens when the purchase is complete? I've looked at the numbers and done a back-of-the-envelope calculation on this, and it looks like the government is allowing for $5½ billion over four years for 40,000 homes. I think that equates to a loan of about $350,000. It would be fair to say that's not going to buy many places in Sydney—or in Adelaide, for that matter. Consequently, these are unlikely to be new builds. They're likely to be older builds. But what happens when you have reached this point of paying off your portion of the loan? One would presume that you would then be able to purchase the other 40 per cent from the government if you choose to. The house would have to undergo some kind of evaluation. But what happens after that point? Do you pay interest on the outstanding amount, and what will that be calculated at? There will be the RBA interest rates and the market interest rates. All these are just completely unknown. I am and think everyone should be reluctant to sign a piece of paper when they don't know what the answer is, at the end of the day. Markets can go up and down. Mainly, they seem to go up. But, in real terms, they can take a bad turn on you, and everyone needs to allow for that possibility.</para>
<para>Surely the better way forward here is the pathway we've trodden before, which is low-interest loans. In fact, there are a number of options still available in the NHFIC, which we established. It has a terrific track record. The thing, of course, is that, with a low-interest loan, it should be the second mortgage after the initial loan that you take out, presumably with a bank or some sort of home loan corporation. You pay down the liability as you go along, but it's your place, and it's your incentive to pay the loan off quicker. It's been successful. I don't really see why government is trying to abandon this pathway and come up with one which I think will be pretty unpopular. As I said, your investment in your house will be the best investment in superannuation and your future that you are ever likely to make. Of course, the coalition took a policy to the last election—which was opposed by those opposite and by the superannuation industry, unsurprisingly—which would have allowed people to draw down on their super accounts for the deposit on their first home. This is not the super saver account that you actually have set aside within your superannuation savings.</para>
<para>Given that this is, as I said, the best investment you are ever likely to have and that, should you sell the home at some future date, the indexed amount would be paid back into your superannuation fund, it effectively is your superannuation saving. In fact, people in better conditions are able to buy property and put it into their self-managed superannuation fund. I don't think they can do that with their house, incidentally, but they can with other properties. Actually owning your own superannuation investment is not anathema. It's not an untrodden pathway. It is a way to success. The fact that your super is tied up in your house will give as good a return as anything else—I'm absolutely very confident of that—and it gives you the ability to do other things along the way, like establish your business and whatever. I think the proposal as it stands won't do any harm, but it won't do any good. It's likely to be underspent some way down the path. We'll say, 'Well, that one didn't work.' I guess you could say that at least the money wasn't wasted, but, if it it's not going to do any good, I wonder what on earth we're standing here debating for today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. Housing is no doubt one of the most significant issues even in my electorate of Flynn and throughout Australia. Many communities have vacancy rates of less than one per cent, leaving families filled with stress and anxiety about keeping a roof over their heads.</para>
<para>In the midst of the housing crisis, the underwhelming Help to Buy Bill is too little too late. Help to Buy relies on the involvement of states and territories, with states required to pass their own legislation to participate in the scheme. Labor went to the election promising to put in place a shared-equity scheme. However, they have failed to explain that that scheme needs state government approval to operate. This means that Labor has made yet another promise that it can't necessarily meet—not that the states will withhold their approval, because, after all, the Albanese government is offering to pick up the cost by funding a shared-equity scheme when the majority of states already offer shared-equity products. Help to Buy is a small, niche program with only about 10,000 households each financial year, and it will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion.</para>
<para>What we know already is how underwhelming these shared-equity schemes are. These schemes are so unwanted by Australians that there are places remaining in each of the available state-based schemes already. The Labor government has failed to do the hard work, and we are once again left with more questions than answers. What are the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home? Will you have to send the government an invoice for repairs and maintenance such as for a leaky roof? What happens if you earn a cent above $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? Will the government forced the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure they don't earn a cent over the threshold? If you enter into one of the shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? What happens if housing prices fall and you are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you to sell your house for less than you paid for it? What are the property price caps? How many of the 40,000 places will be available in each state and territory? What lenders are participating in the scheme? What does the affordable house even mean, and what defines 'affordable housing'? Help to Buy can equal 'forced to sell'. What we do know is that, every time a participant sells their home, they face up to a 40 per cent housing tax as the government swoops in to take its share. A similar scheme in the UK was found to inflate the price of houses more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed most.</para>
<para>The Labor government can claim to be supportive of building more homes, but their policies say otherwise. Chris Bowen announced in Gladstone in 2023 that 215 of Australia's largest carbon emitters would be required to cut their emissions by 4.9 per cent and each year till 2030 to help reach its climate emissions targets. As this safeguard mechanism or carbon tax begins to take its toll, impacted businesses will be forced to pass on their costs to consumers, adding fuel to the flame of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. This will see the cost of everything from food to housing skyrocket when families can least afford it. Two hundred and fifteen of the largest industrial facilities affected by the safeguard mechanism, 28 are operating in the electorate of Capricornia and 18 in the electorate of Flynn. Around 30 per cent of these targeted facilities are in Central Queensland. One of the targeted facilities in my electorate is to Cement Australia facility at Fisherman's Landing. It is the largest cement kiln in Australia. If Labor is going to impose these taxes onto these critical industries, of course they are going to have to pass on their costs to consumers, so concrete will become more expensive and therefore houses will become more expensive. We are seeing new home builds become more expensive amid the cost of energy-intensive resources such as cement, glass, and aluminium all increasing.</para>
<para>Since Labor's safeguard mechanism was announced, I have called it an attack on heavy industry and the thousands of workers that work in the sector, and it has proved to be exactly that. It has also proven to be an attack on housing. Aussie manufacturers rely on cheap energy to make things on shore, but Labor's continued demonisation of gas and coal, broken promises to bring down power prices and the implementation of things like safeguard mechanism will force more Australian Manufacturing offshore. This means fewer jobs for Australians and fewer jobs for my local community, and seeing exactly that. It will also mean fewer products to build houses with. An article by ABC Wide Bay quotes from an interview with Jesse Zielke, a builder in the Bundaberg region. Jesse said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We've still got some products that we're struggling to get when we need them, particularly concrete.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those products that do require a lot of energy also take up a lot of room on a truck, so the fuel required to get the bricks and concrete to site is definitely still rising in price.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Zielke also raised the challenge of sourcing labour, which remains difficult.</para>
<para>There is a high record of immigration under Labor's 'big Australia' policy, confirmed by the ABS. Record overseas immigration added 518,000 people to Australia's population in the 2022-23 financial year, according to the ABS statistics. Jenny Dobak, head of migration statistics at the ABS, said overseas migration was at a 'record high'. This is 8,000 more people than Labor's forecast on Monday, an increase of 2,000 people a day in just four days, and 118,000 more people than the government forecast in the May budget. People will be asking Labor: where will all these people live? Migrant arrivals increased 73 per cent, to 730,000, from 437,000 arrivals a year ago. International students accounted for 283,000 arrivals, an increase of 100 per cent. Labor say they don't want a big Australia, but under the Albanese government 900,000 people will arrive over two years and 1.625 million people will arrive over five years. Labor will not commit to reducing their record immigration levels, as Australians endure cost-of-living pressures, housing shortages and rent hikes.</para>
<para>Experts continue to make the link between Labor's 'big Australia' and the housing crisis. For example, AMP Deputy Chief Economist Diana Mousina said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The high pace of immigration is not compatible with the level of housing supply that we have in this country. We're just not building enough homes to keep up with our population growth.</para></quote>
<para>Brendan Coates and Trent Wilshere, from the Grattan Institute's immigration policy work, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Slowing migration would help vulnerable Australians whose rents are rising today.</para></quote>
<para>Qualitas Group Managing Director Andrew Schwartz said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the most sensible solution is a short-term reduction in migration to release some pressure in the economy, to give homeowners and renters a break and to buy some time to allow our housing infrastructure to catch up with demand.</para></quote>
<para>The former Treasurer Peter Costello said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That is an enormous adjustment for an economy to bring in 500,000-600,000 people. If they're in family groups … we're talking about another 200,000 homes. No wonder we've got rental shortages in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>ANZ Chief Executive Shayne Elliott said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Immigration is a really big driver of housing demand and from our perspective, from one of the largest providers of home loans in the market, it's a material driver.</para></quote>
<para>The Reserve Bank of Australia said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Strong population growth has added to demand for rental properties, particularly in major cities …</para></quote>
<para>The financial adviser and journalist Alan Kohler said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the government is doing the opposite—it's doing its bit to increase inflation and make life tougher for borrowers, in two ways: through "cost-of-living relief" subsidies and, most of all, through immigration.</para></quote>
<para>The former Deputy Secretary of the Department Of Immigration Abul Rizvi said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The problem for the Albanese Government is that it cannot deny the blow out in net migration under its watch.</para></quote>
<para>Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The rapid recovery in immigration is adding to the pressures in the housing market.</para></quote>
<para>AMP Chief Economist Shane Oliver said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Current immigration levels are running well in excess of the ability of the housing industry to supply enough homes exacerbating an acute housing shortage and poor housing affordability.</para></quote>
<para>We need to be thinking about policies that support the Australian dream of homeownership. Since 1 January 2020, the home guarantee schemes, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, have assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families get into a home of their own, with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent—a 2019 election commitment that has been delivered. Fifty-two per cent of the 60,000 guarantees issued have been taken up by women, well above the market average of 41 per cent of women entering homeownership. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers. Almost 35 per cent were nurses and 34 per cent were teachers. Eighty-five per cent of family home guarantees were used by single-parent mothers.</para>
<para>Addressing the deposit hurdle is the most challenging aspect on the property ladder, which is why first home buyers can accelerate their deposit savings through super with an increased released amount of up to $50,000 from $30,000. This means the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition 's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they saved in a standard savings account. As of March 2022, around 26,800 first home buyers have released $370 million to purchase their first home, and 21,000 of these first home buyers purchased a home after the 2019 election, following Labor's commitment to abolish the scheme.</para>
<para>More than 137,000 Australian families applied for the HomeBuilder grant of up to $25,000 if they built a new or substantially renovated a home during the COVID pandemic. HomeBuilder delivered a secure pipeline of construction work that kept hundreds of thousands of tradies and small businesses in work. They would have otherwise been facing an unemployment queue. HomeBuilder broke every record, from the number of dwelling approvals to the number of commencements delivered—$120 billion of economic activity during our most challenging time.</para>
<para>The housing crisis is an issue that needs cooperation from all three levels of government—local, state and federal. States and councils need to introduce policies that unlock land for development and make the development of new housing stock less expensive. All too often we have seen local governments lock up land and prevent housing developments while imposing a list of demands on property developers and ultimately treating them like cash cows. The coalition brought a comprehensive housing policy to the 2022 election and, if re-elected, the coalition would have: established the super homebuyer scheme to allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home; given Australians over the age of 55 the ability to invest up to $300,000 per person of their superannuation fund outside the existing contribution caps from the proceeds of selling their primary residence; doubled the asset test exemption for two years when pensioners downsize their family home, giving them more time to plan for the future; and helped more first home buyers get over the deposit hurdle by raising the number of low-deposit guarantees for first home buyers to $35,000 each financial year.</para>
<para>The coalition government also committed to delivering increased property price caps for home guarantee schemes to ensure Australians continue to have a choice when purchasing their home. We will increase the supply of new homes in regional areas by incentivising the purchase of new home builds, providing 10,000 low-deposit guarantees, each financial year for those moving to or within regional areas. This includes non-first-home buyers and permanent residents. We will expand homeownership opportunities for single-parent families by increasing the number of low-deposit guarantees for single-parent families to buy a home with a deposit of as little as two per cent to 5,000 each financial year and support greater investment in affordable housing, with an additional $2 billion of low-cost financing for social and affordable dwellings, bringing total low-cost financing to $5.5 billion, supporting around 27,500 dwellings.</para>
<para>I wish to conclude by saying that the Help to Buy Bill 2023 does not provide solutions that are in the national interest. That's why we oppose the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise with great pleasure to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. Homeownership has been the great Australian dream for a long time. It was Menzies, that great Liberal prime minister, who instilled that dream in people. Even today, 85 per cent of people who rent tell us that they want to own their own home, and for a lot of reasons they can't. The sad part about it is that so many of them believe that they'll never achieve that. I think that's a tragedy, when I hear people say that. It crushes dreams. The problem is that markets keep moving and, because of the cost-of-living crisis, they can't save a deposit.</para>
<para>I can remember when I bought my first home, at 21. We had 18 per cent interest rates back then—you're probably old enough to remember that, Deputy Speaker Buchholz—but we were able to do that on one income with three kids, which is nearly unheard today. Again, that's another reason I feel very sad for the current generation. They face far greater challenges. My first home cost less than two years of my annual salary at the time. That would be akin to buying a home today for about $180,000, and that just doesn't happen. The current generation are doing it tough when it comes to homeownership. I'm happy that the government is trying to find ways to encourage homeownership. As the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said yesterday, one thing we can't argue about is that both sides of the House want to help Australians in their own way. Where we don't agree is on the methodology. This is one of those classic examples.</para>
<para>There's another thing I'm not terribly happy about: this is something those opposite talked about at the election, and it took them 20 months to do something about it. In my electorate, I've never seen the homelessness situation worse. I've also talked to many people in construction, and they are saying that the phones stopped ringing last year. There are no contracts being signed. Many of the homes that are being built now are actually a hangover from the coalition government's time in government, when we had great initiatives to ensure people got into their own home. The focus has been on other issues, like the divisive Voice referendum and those sorts of things, but, at the end of the day, people need a roof over their head. It seems to me that should be the government's priority at all times.</para>
<para>The thing that I have against this particular legislation is that it's getting the government involved in people's lives. I know that socialists and the communists agree that this is what should happen—that the government should be in control of people's lives as much as possible. As a conservative and someone from the coalition side, I believe in governments making sure that we have supports, but people should always make their own decisions and the government should be involved in people's lives as little as possible. Partnership in business is all about partner selection. Having had five business partners in my time in small business, I can say that partners are a great thing; I really believe in them. But the challenging thing with partnerships—I know people who haven't had great partnerships in business—is selecting the right partner. In partnerships, you have to have people that are reasonable, and they have to share all the cost and the profits in a way that is proportionate to their investment. I would be very hesitant to enter into any sort of partnership with any level of government.</para>
<para>The other problem with this bill is that it's too complicated. It also relies on state and territory cooperation, which is a recipe for disaster. There are so many unanswered questions on this bill. What I want to know is what happens if someone wants to buy out the government's share in their home, either a piece at a time or in whole? How do you set that value? When you have a business partnership, you have a shareholders agreement that spells this out very clearly. What if there's a dispute over the valuation? What if the government says, 'According to our valuers, the property is worth $500,000,' and the other partner says, 'No, I think it's worth $600,000, or $400,000'? Whatever it is, how do we settle that? Which lenders have signed up for this scheme? What's the point of offering equity if the banks aren't on board? We haven't heard any news at all on that. What happens with the expenses associated with the home along the way? In a business partnership, these costs are shared proportionately by all the partners. Imagine if I went into one of the businesses that I was in partnership with and I said to my business partner, 'You can pay all of the rent, wage, electricity and phone bills, but we're going to share the profit equally'? How long do you think we'd be in business together? I'd say, not long, because if I'm going to earn the rewards, proportionately, I need to pay for the expenses proportionately. It's called commonsense and fairness. But this is not the case.</para>
<para>What happens when the rate bills come? Do you send an invoice to the government and say, 'Give me 40 per cent of the rates.' Stamp duties? Land taxes? What about their share of the insurance bill? And then what happens if you improve the property? What happens if you put a pool in or a pergola? What if you add another room onto the house? You've paid the money—the home owner. The one in there who owns maybe 60 or 70 per cent pays the entire capital outlay, and yet when that reward is reaped at the end they'll only receive 60 or 70 per cent, whatever the proportion is, after outlaying 100 per cent. It is completely unfair. The government needs to make sure that they are contributing to these ongoing costs. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>This just shows the lack of general business experience on the other side of the House. They have a few people who have been in business but the majority have not. I understand why they just cannot figure this stuff out. I get it's because they haven't lived it. This is the problem when you have governments that are mainly made up of people who are ex-bureaucrats, public servants, union officials or have worked in political offices. I don't have any problem with those vocations, but it means they are not set up and don't have the skill set to be able to make decisions that affect people who aren't involved in those industries. And that's not the average Australian. They are supposed to be a party that represents the average Australian and they simply don't.</para>
<para>Ten thousand places doesn't scratch the surface. In comparison, the past three years of coalition initiatives have helped 300,000 people to purchase a home. Let's talk about initiatives like us supporting 60,000 first home buyers and single parent families into home ownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. Deposits of as little as two per cent allowed so many who wanted the dream of home ownership but they'd thought that dream was dead. Now they're living that reality of home ownership. And I note that 52 per cent of these recipients were women and 85 per cent of family guarantee recipients were used by single mums. As a dad who has two daughters that are single mums, this is welcome news. These coalition measures ensured that the construction industry was absolutely protected and jobs were assured, with more than 137,000 home builder applications generating $120 billion worth of economic activity.</para>
<para>The coalition saw that state governments were failing people with social and public housing. For example, in Queensland—our home state, Deputy Speaker—between 2015 and 2020 the Commonwealth government provided $1.7 billion for social and public housing. That's a lot of money. In that time we had a net increase of dwellings of 241. Just over $7 million per home. Seriously, I'm in the wrong game.</para>
<para>By contrast, the coalition brought out the scheme where we had low-cost loans to community organisations who provided community housing. That investment was $1.7 billion and that provided 15,000 dwellings. Let's compare $2.9 billion for 241 dwellings or $2.9 billion for 15,000 dwellings at an average of $194,000 per dwelling. That's a better use of taxpayer money. And let's remember, it's taxpayer money, not the government's money.</para>
<para>The coalition established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which helped 27,600 homebuyers accelerate their deposit savings using their super. That's right: their super—not the industry super funds' super, not the government's super but their super. It's their money. Imaging letting people spend their own money on what they want! Isn't that a foreign concept? How strange! 'I'd like to buy a house for when I retire. Even though I've paid all this money in super, I still don't own a home. I couldn't get into the market because I could never get a deposit. So I'm going to go on the pension and become a burden.' Well, how about we help them get into a home so that they own it by the time they retire so they don't have to go on a pension? How about that? That's a bit of long-term thinking, and we can't get involved in that, can we, Member for Casey? Why would we bother doing that?</para>
<para>You've got to wonder why the federal government would put out a scheme that state governments have already got. They've already got them, and the take-up hasn't been completed. The states still have spots available in schemes that are almost identical to this. So the questions are: Why would you even do that? Why would you introduce a scheme like the schemes that the states already have no complete take-up in? The answer is: it's all about the headline. You've got to have the perception out there that you're going to fix things. But the devil is always in the detail, isn't it?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Thompson</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or lack thereof!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Correct. Well said, Member for Herbert. It's all about the headline, and it's all about spruiking: 'Look at us; look at what we're doing.' In reality, the scheme will deliver no help, and that is completely reprehensible.</para>
<para>I'm all for supporting the government in any type of initiative that will actually help people. And there have been times when there has been bipartisan support for different bills, which have gone through. When we were in government, they supported some of ours. Now they're in government, we have supported some of theirs. But we will not support the bills that are not going to cut through and that are not the best spend of taxpayers' money, and this is one of those cases. It's as simple as that. It's our job to make sure that the government are spending taxpayers' money wisely, and in this case they are simply not.</para>
<para>So I'm asking the questions: Why do Labor hate people getting on with their own lives? Why do they have to be involved? Why do they have to run people's lives? The greatest gift that you've ever been given as a human being as the gift of choice. When you take away choice, you dehumanise us, and that is simply unacceptable. I say to the government, credit for trying to do something but please readdress this. Implement some of the coalition's schemes that worked. Look at the results and implement things that actually work. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. When I was looking at the bill here in front of me, I thought we might have had a typo. It's actually 2024, last time I looked. We're nearly into the third month of 2024. Upon doing a bit of research into the aspirations of this bill to help 1.2 million people into homes, it seems to me that this is a bit of window-dressing, a bit of looking like you're doing something when you're not really doing something. Quite frankly, if this were of such an urgent nature, this legislation would have come into the House last year when it was drafted, and we would have dealt with it by now. Owning a home is important, but I'm not sure owning a home with the federal government as your partner is the way to go about it.</para>
<para>There are so many unanswered questions around how this works. If you want to put another storey on and expand the house, what happens with the value of the federal government's contribution, that 40 per cent, if you want to sell sometime down the track?</para>
<para>Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to schemes that help people get into homes. I'm remined of my time when I was mayor of Gwydir Shire back in 2004. Gwydir Shire had a homeownership scheme in partnership with the credit union. I suppose that's the advantage of living in a small community. You can assess what are largely younger couples that were solidly employed and good citizens but did not have that required deposit. For the assistance the council gave to help them into that home there was a slightly higher interest rate. Once the repayment schedules were being met, largely those people transferred over to a commercial lender. Twenty years on, many of those younger people then are well established now. They own most of their own home. As they look into their future, their retirement will be much more solid.</para>
<para>One thing I've learnt in 16 years in this job is that, for retirees, if you don't own your own home, life is much harder—incredibly so—than it is for those that do own their own home. We need to encourage people to be able to do this. I think the proposal the coalition had to allow people to use part of their superannuation—their own money—to help get the deposit to get onto the housing treadmill is a good, sensible solution. Once people make that big step—and I know it is quite a nervous time for people to make that step to purchase a home, but my observation and experience is that, the sooner you do that and the younger you are, the better the chance you've got of securing a house at the right price. There's a lot of social housing across the Parkes electorate, and one of the issues we find is that people are living in homes that they don't own and have absolutely no possibility of owning. There is a higher incidence of maintenance costs and general upkeep of those homes compared to people who own their homes. Some years ago in the town of Bourke, I was at the opening of a couple of new homes that were part of a scheme where people were able to get into them with a lower deposit. Rather than being social housing, they were actually from day one paying off their own home. Drive around the streets of Bourke now, 10 years later, and those homes stand out in the way they're presented: the pride and the way people have looked after them, because it's actually their home, not a rental home.</para>
<para>It is an issue, and homeownership is important, but I also think that there's got to be a bit of realism. Not everyone can own a home with a water view or close to where they might want to be in some of the more salubrious parts of town. Sometimes it's important that you buy a home that you can afford. I know numerous people of my generation who live in the city who are probably on their third home now. Their first home might have been a flat or a unit. They've paid them off and worked through them. I won't talk about the first home that I took my new bride too when I got married, because there are enough log cabin stories in this place as it is. I used to say that the mice didn't have to slow back to second gear to go through the holes in the floor, and a new bride with a brown snake with its head out the knot in the wall is not a good start to a marriage! All jokes aside, people can start off in a humble home and work their way up. They don't need to have the McMansion as their first home, and I think that's part of the issue that we're dealing with.</para>
<para>We've got some realistic and pressing issues in my electorate. One of them—would you believe it in an electorate that's half of New South Wales—is availability of land. In Broken Hill and Lake Cargelligo, this is really significant because Broken Hill, at the moment, is under a period of boom. During the pandemic, tourism blossomed in Broken Hill because people couldn't travel overseas. There's a large stored compressed-air battery being constructed in a disused mineshaft, the first of its kind in Australia, which will provide genuine 24/7 renewable energy to that area, and it's going to employ a lot of people. We've got a cobalt mine that is being developed. There's a magnetite mine as well as the other existing mining sector. So Broken Hill is in desperate need of new houses, but it's under western lands lease. It's surrounded by land that has a native title claim over it. I know that the community out there's very frustrated that they live in a vast landscape, and they can't expand the city. So much so that the council was actually involved in an auction that sold up a lot of the disused houses in the town to try and encourage people to come in and either renovate older homes or demolish them and build newer ones on existing blocks. This was because you can't buy land.</para>
<para>Lake Cargelligo's very similar. It's one of the most picturesque towns in the Parkes electorate with magnificent waterfront land that could be ideal to build houses on, but there are issues around native title, western lands lease and other things which are making it very difficult to actually open up that land. The irony of it is, in a sparsely populated part of Australia, access to land should not be an issue.</para>
<para>But there are other bright spots. I was at a regional development conference put on by the Orana RDA last Tuesday, and we heard a presentation from a representative of the Maas Group, which was started by Wes Maas. It's an iconic inspirational story for western New South Wales. Wes Maas came home from playing football for south Sydney with enough money to buy a second-hand truck and he borrowed the money, I think, for the bobcat. At the age of 41 or 42, his company is worth over a billion dollars. The Maas Group now have 8,000 blocks of land around many regional centres—Dubbo, Orange, Mudgee and I think up in Rockhampton in Queensland—and they are building houses as quickly as they can.</para>
<para>If this government wanted to help in that situation, we'd be doing more to encourage our young people into apprenticeships. The apprentice scheme that the previous government had was very popular. It encouraged young people into the trades. In my electorate, in the last year or so since Labor came to power, we've seen a significant drop in young people taking up those apprenticeships. And so, part of the issue is that people can have the money to buy a house, and, in most towns, there is land, but we are really struggling to find a skilled workforce that can construct the homes that we need.</para>
<para>There are a lot of other issues that the government could be dealing with that would stimulate the construction and purchase of homes without setting up a scheme where lying next to you in bed is the federal government as a part owner in your home. So we certainly think that this proposal is not to be supported. I won't be voting for this bill, for that very reason. I ask the government to go back to the drawing board and look at some practical, sensible solutions to help Australians own their own home. It is an important aspiration. It is securing the future of the next generations, and they need to be able to do that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New Vehicle Efficiency Standard</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again the people in my electorate of Dawson have been let down by the failed Albanese Labor government. At a time of a Labor created cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese government have now decided to shaft rural and regional Australia again. The family car tax will affect farmers, fishers, miners and mums and dads with large families who just want to get their kids to school. Under yet another tax blow from the Albanese Labor government, Australians could pay up to $25,000 more for their favourite family car, SUV or four-wheel-drive, or up to $18,000 more, by 2029, for their favourite ute.</para>
<para>According to research undertaken by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, hardworking Australians will have to pay $13,830 more for an Isuzu D-MAX, $14,490 more for a Toyota HiLux, $17,950 more for a Ford Ranger and $25,050 more for a Toyota LandCruiser. In Dawson, we just can't switch to other types of vehicles. The EVs cannot carry the weight. They can't tow the load and they can't cover large distances that require handling harsh and unsealed roads. On top of that, we don't have the infrastructure necessary to support electric vehicles. With this policy, the Albanese Labor government looks set to be the dodgiest car sales team Australia has ever seen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holland, Reverend Frederic (Ric)</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was pleased to join our community in bidding farewell to Reverend Ric Holland, a local legend, on Sunday. Reverend Ric is a compassionate, energetic and progressive individual committed to improving the lives in the communities he serves. He has enjoyed an esteemed, multifaceted senior management career in Australia and overseas. Reverend Ric has balanced roles both as an ordained minister and as a senior executive in the not-for-profit sector, including as the CEO of Melbourne City Mission.</para>
<para>I especially want to thank him for his incredible support for our community as the minister of Hampton Park Uniting Church and as the vice-chair and former chairperson of Hampton Park Community House. For years, under his leadership, the Hampton Park Uniting Church has helped thousands of people in our community by ensuring they get access to support services such as food relief, free legal services and playgroups. His selfless contribution has been driven by a genuine commitment to further embed the church and the community house as welcoming places of support, inclusion and empowerment. I thank you for your invaluable service, Reverend Ric.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Heck, Mr William Murray (Bill)</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to honour the memory and contributions of Bill Heck, who sadly passed away earlier this month, aged 90. Bill and generations of the Heck family have been stalwarts of the Beenleigh, Woongoolba and Jacobs Well area and the sugarcane industry for over 140 years. The family established and runs the Rocky Point Sugar Mill, which remains in operation today. Bill and the company provided significant economic benefits to the local area, through the mill, employing many residents and helping the sugarcane farmers develop their businesses. It was that service to the community, in addition to that hard work, that showed his true heart for our local community.</para>
<para>Through his work preserving our local history in Beenleigh, as the president of the Beenleigh Historical Village and Museum, and helping establish the Woongoolba pool, at which, for over 50 years, children learnt to swim, Bill was always giving back. Bill was instrumental in donating the old Heck homestead, Friedensheim, to the historical village for use as a function and information centre. I have had the immense privilege of knowing Bill and his family for many years. While Bill has passed, his legacy will live on. My condolences to his wife, Pat, and his family. Thank you for everything, Bill. May you rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pearce Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was very happy when our wonderful minister for health, Mark Butler, officially opened our first urgent care clinic in my electorate of Pearce, in the suburb of Clarkson, in August last year. I'm even happier to advise that urgent medical care is much easier for my local community to access. Before the clinic opened, residents requiring urgent medical attention had to make the journey to the Joondalup Health Campus, which is a considerable distance for those living in the northern parts of the Pearce electorate. Whilst Joondalup Health Campus is where patients with life-threatening injuries or illnesses attend, it is important that our community now has another option available to them for medical assistance.</para>
<para>The urgent care clinic in Clarkson has already had 5,800 presentations, and the feedback has been excellent, with patients advising of timely, professional and friendly assistance. The clinic is equipped to treat many conditions and injuries, and an appointment is not necessary.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has made urgent care cheaper and more accessible for our community and for those seeking medical care at short notice—and free under Medicare. The Clarkson Medicare Urgent Care Clinic is a most welcome initiative in my community, and I sincerely thank Dr Tim Koh and his amazing team for their dedication and support. This is without doubt another example of the Albanese Labor government listening to the community and delivering.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>People with Variability</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently learnt the phrase 'people with variability' from a North Sydney constituent and advocate, Mark Tonga. When I took a moment to digest this term, I realised the power it holds. By emphasising variation in ability rather than reduced capacity, I realised that this language holds the key to how we move forward as a diverse and inclusive society.</para>
<para>Mark shared with me the barriers for people with variability, including disability support pension settings that discourage people from venturing into small business and entrepreneurialism by restricting hours worked and their earning capacity. This is a huge loss for our community, where 3.7 per cent of the Australian population over the age of 16 are potentially locked out of this dynamic space. Meanwhile, Work First employment for people with variability usually means relying on government funding through either disability enterprises or supported unemployment services. Wage thresholds for people in supported employment are as low as $2.90 per hour, compared to a minimum wage of $23.23.</para>
<para>Disability does not mean inability, but our policy settings make it seem so. Mark has a vision for a future where government partners with enterprises led by people with variability and elevates them through a procurement directory. North Sydney wants to see a more inclusive, dynamic and diverse economy, and it is ideas like this one that I'm proud to share with this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sammy D Foundation</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In May 2008, 17-year-old Sam Davis didn't come home after a night out. The beloved son of my dear friends Nat Cook and Neil Davis was killed in a one-punch attack. Sam was a keen sportsman, playing state soccer, cricket and netball before switching over to AFL—and he was good; he was recruited by the South Adelaide Football Club for next season. He had a wide group of friends and a loving family. All of this, the hopes, the dreams, the plans, came to an end with a random act of violence—17 years of age. Nat and Neil channelled their grief into making a difference, into tackling youth violence so other families would not have to feel their grief, and the Sammy D Foundation was born.</para>
<para>Sammy D's evidence based approaches focus on violence prevention through schools and sports clubs across South Australia, and last year they gave 228 presentations and 440 workshops. They reached 41,000 young South Australians through 123 schools and 39 sporting clubs in one year. And the work continues, to ensure that each new cohort of students gets the message that they can help keep themselves and their friends safe. No-one wants that knock on the door to tell you the worst news. I'd encourage listeners to have a look at their program online.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing, Universities</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When the Prime Minister bought his first house in Marrickville, it cost $146,000, about five times the average income. Now a house in Marrickville costs $2 million, about 20 times the average income. When the Prime Minister went to uni, he did so for free, graduating without a student debt. Now uni students cop massive student debt, and often it rises faster than they can afford to pay it off. When the Prime Minister grew up, governments used to build enough public housing so that a worker who needed it could move into a good public home and build a good life. Now there is a shortage of 700,000 public homes and people often have to wait 10 years to get one. When the Prime Minister bought his first house he did not have to compete against property investors that used the capital gains tax discount to bid up the price of housing. Now, property investors will get $39 billion in tax handouts this year alone from this Labor government.</para>
<para>People are not upset that the Prime Minister got these opportunities; people are upset that a Labor government, in a country far wealthier than it was in the eighties, is denying those same opportunities today. People are upset that its Labor government is refusing to scrap student debt and make university free. People are upset that Labor is refusing to scrap tax handouts for property investors denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. People are upset that Labor is refusing to fund a mass build of public housing the way governments used to when it could. The government should listen to people right now who are frustrated with a group of politicians who got so many good opportunities when they grew up and are denying them now. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, workers in Werriwa woke up to the great news that the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living tax cuts past the Senate last night. It means that around 71,000 or 89 per cent of taxpayers in Werriwa will be better off from 1 July. That's much better off than they would have been if the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had not acted on cost-of-living relief. There are 13.6 million Australian taxpayers who will receive a tax cut, almost three million more than the previous government's plan. These tax cuts, coupled with the changes to the Medicare levy, will ensure more Australians are helped and will ease the cost-of-living pressures. The supermarket inquiry by the ACCC will further assist and ensure that Australian farmers and shoppers are looked after. The Albanese government's priority is to address inflation and costs of living. We're delivering $23 billion in targeted cost-of-living relief. The RBA agrees that this is what will improve Australia's economy. We've already made medicines cheaper, improved bulk-billing when you see a GP, provided more support for the costs of child care, increased rent assistance and provided further assistance in all parts of the economy, not to mention that wages are rising after the stagnation of the last decade. The Albanese government is ensuring that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Surf Lakes</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I bring to the attention of the House a groundbreaking development in my electorate of Capricornia. It has captured the imagination of auto enthusiasts worldwide: Surf Lakes. This world-first technology not only promises to transform the way we experience surfing but also represents a testament to the innovative spirit that defines Australia. Surf Lakes, with its cutting-edge technology, has created a world-first surf destination that exceeds traditional limitations. The ability to generate perfect waves of varying sizes and shapes in a controlled environment is nothing short of extraordinary. This development not only caters to avid surfers or beginners learning to surf but also opens doors for aspiring athletes, offering them a training ground like never before.</para>
<para>Surf Lakes is a testament to Australian creativity, showcasing our commitment to pushing boundaries and redefining possibilities. Surf Lakes, with its cutting-edge technology, has seen great interest overseas, capturing the attention of developers and even Thor. As we witness the growing recognition of Surf Lakes overseas, it's a reminder of the untapped potential within our borders. Australian businesses are not only excelling in their domestic markets but also carving out a significant presence on the international stage. The success at Surf Lakes underscores the fact that our high-tech industries are not just keeping pace with global advancements but setting new benchmarks, establishing Australia as a hub for innovation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another memorable milestone for the 47th parliament—the Albanese government's cost-of-living tax cuts passed yesterday. Everyone in Hasluck is now looking forward to 1 July, when those tax cuts will kick in, because everyone will now get a tax cut. These tax cuts are going to be appreciated by people particularly who are on modest wages, who were previously going to be missing out under the coalition. A full-time storeperson at Plantman Equipment in Bellevue on a $58,800 income will receive a tax cut of around $1,150. A warehouse supervisor at Ingham's Chicken in Hazelmere on $75,000 or $76,000 will receive a tax cut of around $1,600. A sales assistant at the WA farm shop in Middle Swan on $50,000 will receive a tax cut of around $900. A retail assistant at Good Sammy in Ellenbrook on around $41,000 will receive a tax cut of nearly $700.</para>
<para>I often speak to people in the unions who are active in this space, particularly the SDA, and I know there are those out there who are doing it tough. They will particularly notice and value these tax cuts because, unlike the coalition's old plans, these tax cuts are fair. Unlike the coalition, who want to make you work longer for less, under the Albanese Labor government we want you to earn more and keep more of what you earn. As a representative for Hasluck I'm glad we're delivering on that promise.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Simpson, Mr Bruce Priestley</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to note the loss of a true community champion. Bruce Simpson from Deniliquin passed away suddenly on 13 February. Educated in Melbourne, Bruce found his way to the Riverina, where he developed a skill and passion for agriculture and irrigation. As a farmer he was regarded as first class. He joined the Institute of Company Directors, graduated from the rural leadership program and began a long journey of local community involvement.</para>
<para>As an agribusiness consultant he gave invaluable oversight and advice to local irrigators and the dairy sector. He successfully argued the case for farmers to access government support during the millennium drought. As Chair of the Murray Group of Concerned Communities he was right at the centre of all of the implications relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He was a director of Murray Irrigation for six years.</para>
<para>More recently, his interest in youth education saw him elected committee chair to establish a local, country university centre. Bruce was director of Intereach, delivering support for thousands of people across southern New South Wales. He was inquiring, thoughtful, always well prepared, with a deep understanding of governance processes. More importantly, he was a good bloke with genuine warmth and interest, respect and concern for others. He was always giving back.</para>
<para>I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Shandra; his children, Charlie and Lucy; and their extended families. Anyone in his circle—colleagues and friends—was better off for knowing Bruce Priestley Simpson.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lingiari Electorate: Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing inflation and the cost-of-living pressures. We know that people are doing it tough, and no more so than in my electorate of Lingiari. This is a government that's committed to delivering and addressing the cost of living for everyone. It doesn't matter where they live.</para>
<para>I hold probably the second-largest seat in this federal parliament—1.1 million square kilometres in the Northern Territory—including regional towns like Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, 76 major Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal people living on 500 homelands throughout stations across the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>People need this relief. I'm proud to be a part of this government that is providing electricity bill relief and making medicines cheaper. It's not just about the eastern seaboard; this is about people in the Northern Territory and my constituents. We're making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor. There are many, many relief packages that this government has brought through. I'm certainly proud to be part of a government delivering for those constituents in the seat of Lingiari.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lee, Mr Kyle</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Congratulations to South West Academy of Sport alumnus Kyle Lee, our open water swimmer who recently qualified for the 2024 Paris Olympics by finishing in the top 10 in the world in the 10-kilometre event at the World Aquatics Championships in Doha. He's from Australind in my electorate. He's one of only two Australian men selected for Paris in open water swimming.</para>
<para>That's not all. What really showed Kyle's tenacity was his typical gritty finish and performance in anchoring the open-water relay team, which saw Kyle and our Aussie swimmers win what I understand was Australia's first ever open-water gold medal relay world title. Both events were heart-stoppers for Kyle's coach, family, friends and SWAS mates. Since coming home, Kyle has recorded the fastest ever time at the recent Busselton Jetty Swim, winning this race for a record fifth year in a row.</para>
<para>To Kyle's parents and loved ones: thank you for all your continuous efforts and dedication in supporting Kyle to achieve his dreams. You have gone over and above as well. Kyle also was inspiring other athletes recently at a South West Academy of Sport awards night held in Bunbury. He continues to give back to SWAS. Congratulations, Kyle. Paris is waiting for you, and we will all be cheering you on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the first priorities of this government was to make our workplaces fairer and ensure that Australians were better paid for the work they did. We are now working to ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn, while those opposite want Australians to work longer for less. We understand that family budgets are under pressure right now, and taking that pressure off family budgets is our No. 1 priority. In relation to tax cuts, Robin from Wanniassa wrote to me, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Definitely the right choice for our nation's future. This was true leadership by the Labor party. Thank you and keep up good work like this.</para></quote>
<para>In Bean, some 82,000 taxpayers, like Robin, will now be receiving an average tax cut of over $1,800 a year, with 63,000 taxpayers in my electorate now set to get a larger tax cut than under the previous arrangements. Whether you're a teacher, a nurse, a retail worker, a tradie or a public servant, under this Labor government you'll get a tax cut. These tax cuts come on top of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief that we're rolling out, including energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, Strengthening Medicare, higher income support payments, and the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years.</para>
<para>While the opposition were still playing politics with the tax cuts last night, I'm proud to be part of a government that's delivering real cost-of-living relief to families in my community and right across the country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I met Patrick and Linda Brennan from Deception Bay at the Moreton Downs State School year 6 graduation in 2023. I was deeply saddened to hear about the passing of their 12-year-old daughter, Jade, from an incurable brain cancer called diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG affects only 20 Australian children per year; it's an aggressive childhood cancer. All families around Australia affected by DIPG are doing what they can to raise more awareness about the disease, which isn't commonly known.</para>
<para>Jade had her whole life ahead of her, but on 31 January 2023 she was diagnosed with an inoperable and terminal brain tumour. Jade fought very hard until the end. Patrick, her father, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The pain and trauma that has affected my family, as with all families in the same situation, is ongoing and we will never forget our kids. At the same time, our kids never got the opportunity to grow up, finish school, get married, have kids, and make their own difference in this world. DIPG is cruel and unforgiving.</para></quote>
<para>Watching your child go through an incurable and cruel disease is something that no parent should ever have to do in this world. Patrick, Linda and their entire family all fought hard with Jade, with everything available to them, yet the outcome couldn't be changed, and on 18 August Jade passed away. To Jade's family and friends: I know Jade had a positive impact on your lives and will be forever missed. Rest in peace, Jade.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, 13.6 million Australians woke up today to find out that they will be receiving a bigger tax cut on 1 July because the Senate passed Labor's tax cuts last night. Eighty-four per cent of Australians woke up this morning to find out they will be receiving a bigger tax cut on 1 July because of the events of last night and because the Albanese Labor government wants them to earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is the case in my electorate of Spence as well, with 91 per cent, or around 67,000 people, receiving a bigger, better tax cut under Labor than they would under the Liberals. No matter where you are in Australia, 100 per cent of taxpayers will receive a tax cut under our plan. Under the former Liberal government's plan, if you earned less than $45,000 you wouldn't receive any tax cut at all. I guess those opposite thought Australians didn't deserve one if they earned below $45,000. Australians know that the Liberal and National party had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to support tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians doing it tough. We had to do that because we knew they would never stand up for Australians that need a government in their corner the most. All that the Liberal Party want to see is Australians work longer and earn less.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now, as we stand and sit in this House, there are many volunteers in Victoria fighting fires. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to all of those volunteers. To anyone listening at home: please listen to emergency services. What's amazing about our CFA volunteers in Victoria is that these fires are in western Victoria, hours and hours and hundreds of kilometres away from my community, but I know that many of the CFA volunteers from my community are fighting those fires to keep western Victoria safe. I want to pay tribute to all of them.</para>
<para>There are also many strike forces that are at their stations ready to go if they are needed today. Hopefully they are not needed. It's important we pay tribute to these volunteers. There is no direct benefit to the volunteers of Casey who are going to western Victoria, but they are there to help their fellow Victorians. They also know that, if we're in trouble in our electorate, people will come from all across Victoria and all across Australia to help us with our bushfire risk, if that comes and is required. That is the true Australian spirit—volunteers giving up their time to support their community and to support others. I pay tribute today to all the volunteers who are giving up so much for our community. Stay safe, protect what you can and please make sure you get home to your loved ones.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today's a good day. Today we stand here knowing that from 1 July every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut because late last night Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts passed the Senate. But I'll tell you what, it's been quite a spectacle by those opposite to get here, hasn't it? Let's never forget that at first the Liberals opposed Labor's tax cuts. They said they'd roll them back, then they called them Marxism, but yesterday they voted for them.</para>
<para>Let's not forget, too, the Liberals' new besties, their BFFs, the Greens political party. Just like the Liberals, the Greens had their speakers slamming Labor's tax cuts. But then, just like the Liberals, the Greens voted for Labor's tax cuts too. Just like the Liberals, the Greens are all about politics, whereas, on this side of the House, we're about progress. And despite their yelling and screaming, I'll tell you why the Liberals and Greens supported Labor's tax cuts. They supported Labor's tax cuts because 90 per cent of women will get a bigger tax cut, they supported Labor's tax cuts because 98 per cent of young people will get a better tax cut and they supported Labor's tax cuts because 81 per cent of Bennelong will get a bigger and fairer tax cut than under the Liberals. The Liberals want you to work longer for less, whereas Labor wants you to earn more and keep more of what you earn.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I look across there and I see so many people—ministers—who've let down country Australia. Regional Australians are feeling betrayed. We've got the infrastructure minister who put in a 90-day delay, which ended up being more than 200 days, and that stalled so much of the infrastructure in regional Australia. We've got the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and his new fuel efficiency standards. He's forgotten one critical point when he talks about the United States and the fact that pick-ups are still popular. They're largely exempt, Minister, from the Labor-style standards that America has in place.</para>
<para>Then we've got the water minister, who's just bought $205 million of productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. What that means is that all of that water goes out of those areas and goes flush down the mouth of the Murray and it's not used for growing food. What happens then? We have to import more food. What happens then? We've got less Australian home grown fresh produce, the best food anywhere. What that also means is that food prices go up. We've got a cost-of-living crisis, and Labor just wants to push the price of food up. Then we have the regional development minister yesterday talking about more mobile phone towers. That's fantastic if you're in a Labor electorate, but not all regional people live in a Labor electorate. Thank goodness!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation, Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After a decade left behind, young people are back at the centre of our government. We are focused on enabling young people to not just get by but get ahead. The negative nellies—and they're all on that side—want to pit one generation against the other, but that is not the answer. Of the 1.5 million 18- to 24-year-olds, 98 per cent will be getting an average tax cut on 1 July of just over $1,000. Many of these young people would have received—what?—absolutely nothing under the Liberals. There are many families in Higgins in which adults will be getting a little less, but their sons, daughters, nieces and nephews will pocket more. If that's not the intergenerational dividend, then I don't know what is.</para>
<para>But it's not enough to earn more. We want young people to keep more too. That's where plugging the leaks in job contracts kicks in. Strong workplace laws protect your take-home pay and your wellbeing. Young people are vulnerable to precarity but also to exploitation. That's why we've criminalised wage theft, made bargaining easy, banned wage secrecy and put a positive duty on workplaces to stamp out sexual harassment. That stuff is toxic, especially when you're young. From climate to skills, university reform and housing, we have young people front of mind to ensure they achieve financial security. The aspiration of every Australian is financial security; it is not the monopoly of a few.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Why was Bob Hawke's former business partner and friend, who pleaded guilty to poisoning people—no laughing matter—Mr Abdel-Hady, an Austrian citizen, released from immigration detention on a bridging visa E rather than a bridging visa R so he didn't have to wear an ankle bracelet or have a curfew placed on him?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question, and, of course, I remind him that the individual he refers to is not part of the NZYQ cohort. I say to him and to all members of the House that we continue to take every possible step to deport people who have no right to stay in this country. This is a matter, of course, which is currently before the court. I draw your attention, shadow minister and all members, to the comments of the judge in the most recent hearing, in which they said that there appears to be a very fixed view on the part of the minister to be rid of this man. He's right.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will Labor's new tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer benefit Australians and support aspiration?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. Indeed, as a result of the decision last night, every Australian taxpayer—all 13.6 million of them—will get a tax cut. As a result of the figures that came out recently, across the board we're also seeing real wages increase. That's why the direct result of that is what we are aiming for. We want Australians to earn more, and we want Australians to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want Australians to work longer for less. We know that that is the case. But we made sure that no-one was left behind, and no-one was held back.</para>
<para>No-one was left behind by ensuring that those workers who earn under $45,000 a year also got a tax cut. One of the things that will do is flow right through the tax scales, so that Treasury has estimated it will result in over 900,000 additional hours of work being worked each week. We're dealing with good economic policy to deal with the skills shortages which are there. But it also supports aspiration for all Australians. That's why we increased the $120,000 level up to $135,000. And that's why we increased as well the top marginal tax rate from $180,000 to $190,000—the first increase in the top marginal rate since 2008.</para>
<para>That's in contrast with what they did when they were in government, which was, without any notice at all, to introduce the levy on those high-income earners and increase their taxation rates rather than decreasing them. Australians are also, of course, benefiting from other measures that we have. But, whilst they voted for it last night over there in the Senate—every senator—they've continued to argue against it. Senator Hume said this morning that they were going to take to the election a tax package in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts. 'We will have to go back to the drawing board,' she said. They're starting again. Rollback is back. First they said they would argue against it, then they were going to fight it, then they were going to roll it back, then they wanted an election of the basis of it, then they voted against it. Then they voted for it! But, having argued against it, they can change the way they vote, but they can't change who they are.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Abdel-Hady, Mr Safwat</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Why was Mr Abdel-Hady released from detention if he wasn't part of the NZYQ cohort?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I do not need sound effects before I call the minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question. As he should be well aware and as I know the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, I can't comment on individual cases, but I'll say this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You just did!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Leader of the Opposition!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll say again that we continue to take every possible step to deport people who have no right to stay in this country. I say this: those opposite had five years to remove this individual and did nothing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts deliver for our defence personnel and members of the Department of Defence, and how does this compare to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I start, can I just acknowledge two-time Geelong premiership captain Tom Harley, who is currently on loan to the Sydney Swans as their CEO, and acknowledge Sydney captains Callum Mills and Chloe Molloy.</para>
<para>I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his long contribution as a leading paediatrician in south-west Sydney. Over decades, he has literally been responsible for the delivery of thousands of babies, and, as a result of what happened in the Senate last night, the vast bulk of them will now receive a tax cut. As a result of what happened in the Senate last night, every member of the Australian Defence Force, every public servant in the Department of Defence and every person working in Australia's defence industry will now receive a tax cut—from a civilian nurse working at Holsworthy Barracks near the member's electorate, who will receive a tax cut of almost $2,200, to an Air Force vehicle mechanic at RAAF Base East Sale, who will receive a tax cut of $1,463. For that person, that is twice the tax cut that they would have received under the tax plan of those opposite. Indeed, across the entirety of the ADF, 85 per cent of personnel will be better off as a result of Labor's tax plans. In terms of the Department of Defence, 95 per cent of public servants will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan compared to what was offered by those opposite. When you consider that, last year, members of the Defence Force received their largest pay increase in more than a decade, the combination now for women and men serving in our Defence Force means they are more than $5,000 better off.</para>
<para>Those opposite have completely given up on helping Australians with the cost of living. They literally come in here and will talk about anything else, or they will come in and just make stuff up. But what they will not do is come to this place with a plan to improve the lives of Australians, because they no longer have a tax policy. Indeed, the shadow finance minister said this morning that they would need to go back to the drawing board. Can I suggest that she give the shadow minister for defence a call, because I'm sure that he can lend her an overhead projector. What we are left with over there is a Liberal tax shambles. This government is committed to making a practical difference, fighting on behalf of working Australians and fighting on behalf of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Geoscience Australia, de Silva, Dr Harsha</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a couple of quick announcements. I'd like to welcome Geoscience Australia graduates joining us in the gallery at the invitation of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. These graduates have just completed the 2023 graduate program at Geoscience Australia.</para>
<para>I'd like to inform the House that we are joined in the gallery today by Dr Harsha de Silva, a member of parliament for the Colombo District of Sri Lanka.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Contribution Scheme</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Prime Minister, you are no doubt aware that working-class Australians are feeling the pain of rental costs, housing affordability and soaring costs for essentials such as food, electricity, gas, insurance and petrol, to name a few. When will your government act to freeze the compounding HECS indexation to alleviate debt pressures for our best and brightest young people, especially those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and in my Fowler community in Western Sydney?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will begin and then ask the Minister for Education to comment given the release just this week of the comprehensive plan that he has received on higher education. But I'll say this about the member for Fowler's electorate. They were big winners last night. Fowler does have a large cohort of low-socioeconomic recipient income levels. They will benefit substantially from—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>the fact that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I like to be very fair and reasonable, but if I have just called someone up for interjecting and the House is silent, it is a bit rich for the deputy leader to then interject. I'm just going to ask her to cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Out of respect for the member for Fowler and her question, it is important to recognise that, as a result of that decrease in that first rate from 19c to 16c, a whole lot of her electorate who were going to get not a single dollar will now get a tax cut. As a direct result as well of our tax cut plan passing the Senate, average workers, like teachers, nurses, community workers, people in aged care, people in child care and police officers, will all get double the tax cut that they were going to get previously. As a direct result of the government's intervention as well, aged-care workers, many of whom live in the member for Fowler's electorate, will have received a 15 per cent wage increase. What that has done is feed into, as we have seen throughout 2023, delivering a real wage increase.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Member for Hume! The Prime Minister is talking about the issues the member for Fowler asked about in her question regarding cost-of-living increases in housing and food. The Prime Minister has completed his answer.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! We are going to hear the questions in silence and hopefully the answers as well.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE and cost-of-living tax cuts helping people to skill up into better paid and secure jobs while keeping more of what they earn?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wills for his very strong and long advocacy for the VET sector in his electorate and beyond across this nation. The government inherited the worst skills shortage in this nation in 50 years. Whatever occupation, whatever profession, whatever trade, we have a significant challenge to supply the skills to our labour markets around our economy. It's why we convened the Jobs and Skills Summit. It's why we have made TAFE courses in skills-shortage areas fee free. That has enabled us to supply skills to areas of the economy—the care sector, the energy sector, the IT sector, traditional trades and many, many other parts of our economy.</para>
<para>I'm happy to inform the House that we've well and truly smashed our original target of 180,000 fee-free TAFE places for 2023, enabling 350,000 Australians to enrol in courses that will improve their employment prospects in this country. And there are an additional 300,000 places available for Australians to enrol this year.</para>
<para>As well as removing cost barriers to much-needed education and training, the Albanese government, with the passing of legislation last night, have ensured that all 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July and a staggering 84 per cent will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Liberal plan. By way of example, to appreciate policies working in tandem, a student training to be a nurse in Victoria will not have to find $15,000 to enrol in that course, so they can enrol in a course that is very much in demand in our labour market. It will ensure that that person qualified will, in the event of becoming a nurse on, for example, $75,000 per annum, receive double what they would have received under the Liberals' plan. The combination of these policies is providing opportunities for people to acquire skills and knowledge in areas of demand in our labour market and making sure that we provide opportunities for people where not only do they earn more but they keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>With real wages growing—I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for the work that he's done in this area in particular—and with tax cuts now enshrined in law, we are seeing working families in Dunkley and across the country earn more and keep more of what they earn. By way of contrast, if it were left to those opposite, there wouldn't be fee-free TAFE, there wouldn't be cheaper medicines, there wouldn't be cheaper child care and there wouldn't be tax cuts— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. What circumstances would cause the minister to release from immigration detention into the community an Austrian citizen who pleaded guilty to poisoning people?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That entire question was framed as a hypothetical. There's an explicit ruling against questions being hypothetical, and that question was nothing but.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Standing order 100(d)(vii) does indicate that questions should be ruled out of order with hypothetical matter, so I'm going to ask the member just to rephrase that question slightly to make sure that it is within the standing orders. That's not just repeating the same question with one word changed; it's just making sure that it's a directly responsible decision that the minister has responsibility for, not an expression of opinion or a hypothetical situation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the minister for immigration. In a previous answer, he's referred to releasing from detention an Austrian who had pleaded guilty to poisoning people. Under what circumstances would the minister release such a person from detention?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have already answered this question in respect of the first part. Let me be very clear: I don't accept the characterisation that was just put to the chamber. I say this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He did poison people. He did.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Opposition, I want to hear the minister's answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We continue to take every possible step to deport people who have no right to stay in the country, and this is a matter which is currently before the courts.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will Help to Buy support tens of thousands of Australians into homeownership? What is standing in the way of this support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Tangney for that question. Our great member for Tangney is, of course, from the great state of Western Australia. Western Australia has a successful bipartisan shared-equity scheme that has been running for more than 20 years. That is at capacity. Our Help to Buy shared-equity program will reduce the cost of a mortgage by up to 40 per cent for low- and middle-income earners. Eligible participants will only need a two per cent deposit, and the government will then support them with an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for O'Connor and the member for Deakin—and a few others—always continually interject when this minister and a range of other ministers are speaking. I'm not going to put up with these continual interjections and disrespect, particularly to this minister. We're going to hear what the minister has to say and limit the interjections because I want to hear what she's going to say. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, the government will support them with an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes. Help to Buy will be real support that will help lifelong renters become homeowners, including renters like Sandra from Melbourne. Sandra told me that she and her husband have 'never been able to save enough deposit to buy a home of our own and have always lived in rental accommodation'. She continued, 'We would do anything to have a secure home in which to live.'</para>
<para>When we talk about the Help to Buy Bill, we're talking about it being life changing for people like Sandra. It's highly targeted to help people without driving up property prices. It has the backing of experts, like the Grattan Institute, who has said that the proposed Help to Buy scheme 'would help level the playing field for first home buyers', and then, of course, the Australian Council of Social Service, who also supports Help to Buy and has said that it will:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… help balance the scales for some between those who have access to 'the bank of mum and dad' for their deposit and those who do not …</para></quote>
<para>Then the Master Builders, who also back the Help to Buy scheme and our broad housing agenda, described it as 'sensible housing policies that benefit both aspiring homeowners and encourage more housing supply'.</para>
<para>But apparently those opposite and their new friends in the Greens think that they know better than some of the experts, because the Liberals and the Greens are standing in the way—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The minister for social services and the minister for infrastructure will also cease interjecting while the minister is speaking. This back and forth across the chamber is not helpful for the chamber. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This life-changing support will help 40,000 Australians into homeownership, but they are standing against that. They're supposed to support Australians into homeownership, yet they don't when they are given the opportunity in this place. By voting against Help to Buy, they'll be denying those tens of thousands of Australians the great Australian dream of homeownership. They need to stop standing in the way. They need to change their position on this vital legislation. It's an election commitment that we took to the Australian people, and they should be supporting Australians into homeownership.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Last year, the minister showed off Australia's first EV ute, the LDV eT60. The managing director of drive.com describes the eT60 as having an effective range of only 150 kilometres for tradies, which doesn't work for people in rural areas on the urban fringe, people who tow or people who live on farms. Can the minister confirm that the eT60's price tag of $92,000 is nearly double the price of the diesel alternative?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left—on my right as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Swan is warned. Do not interject while a minister is approaching the dispatch box. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Hume for his question, and I note that a constituent of his living in Goulburn will travel 18,705 kilometres each year and, as a result, on average would save—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or the minister might as well start again because I can't hear a word he's saying. I can appreciate—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Hume has asked his question. I'm just going to ask the member for Fairfax to steady it, and I'm going to ask the minister to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume doesn't appear interested in the potential fuel savings of people who travel long distances in his electorate. On average, they travel 18,705 kilometres a year, which would save somebody buying a new car in 2028 $1,487 in his electorate. He doesn't appear to care. This was a point made by the member for Bradfield not that long ago.</para>
<para>One of the reasons I appreciate this line of questioning so much is that it underlines the negativity of this Leader of the Opposition. All he has got are scare campaigns. All he has got is negativity. The member for Cook may have left the building, but he left his anti-weekend scare campaigns behind for the Leader of the Opposition. Just a few weeks before the last election, the then Treasurer of Australia—the then member for Kooyong—was asked about fuel efficiency status. He said this: 'We have always been committed to getting fuel efficiency standards in place.' That was the former member for Kooyong. I'd hate to see it if they were opposed! They've had a funny way of showing it over the last week or so. This is an opposition so negative, as I've said before, that they oppose our policies—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They oppose the policies promoted by the former member for Kooyong and the member for Bradfield. I'm not sure if I've mentioned the member for Bradfield this week. I can't recall. To be fair to the member for Bradfield, he did propose fuel efficiency standards, but they were a little different to the ones preferred by the minister for transport and me, which we are consulting on at the moment. To be fair to him, they were much more aggressive than our standards—much more ambitious. The member for Bradfield had not one but three options that he consulted on.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>All of them for 2025 had more efficient vehicles on average than the ones the minister for transport and I are proposing. I'm trying to do the member for Bradfield a favour with his teal challenger showing that he's actually in favour of fuel efficiency standards. He just couldn't get it through. He could have got it through the parliament with the Labor Party's support, which we had provided. He just couldn't get it through his party room, because of the climate change-denying right wing. They vetoed the member for Bradfield, they vetoed the then member for Kooyong, and they are still running the Liberal Party today.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How is the Albanese Labor government's focus on women and gender equality helping women earn more and keep more of what they earn? How has this been received?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my friend the member for Calwell for the question. We came into the parliament together, and I know she and I are so incredibly proud of the work that this government is doing for gender equality. We are deeply focused on delivering for women on this side of the House. As the first federal government to be majority-women, gender equality runs deep in our veins. It's why our tax-cut plan will see tax cuts for every single woman who pays tax in this country. Our plan, in fact, will see a bigger tax cut for 90 per cent of Australian women taxpayers, who will receive an additional average tax cut of $707. That is 5.8 million Australian women.</para>
<para>Women work hard across every aspect of our economy, and we want to ensure that they are able to keep more of that hard-earned money to meet the daily challenges and cost-of-living pressures they face. On average, a woman working full-time in Australia now earns $135 a week more than when we came to office. That is a substantial increase that does not happen by accident. This wage growth means women are earning more, and our tax reforms mean that they get to keep more of what they earn. ABS data reported last week shows that the gender pay gap has dropped to a record low. It shows that Labor's efforts to support women's economic equality are working in a very real and very tangible way that is making a difference to Australian women across this country. Yesterday, we saw the results of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, publishing gender pay gaps for nearly 5,000 Australian private sector employers for the first time.</para>
<para>We're acting to make these changes because economic equality is a core principle of what we do. It's why we've reformed the industrial relations system to improve how it works for women, reforms that those opposite opposed. It's why we introduced reforms to fix the bargaining system, to get wages moving, particularly in those industries which largely employ women. We know that reforms to change the law to put gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission decision-making are making a substantial difference. Reforms that are making a difference to the lives of women right the way across the country don't happen by accident. It is a deliberate design feature of everything that we do to make sure women are able to earn more and get to keep more of that hard-earned money.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to the minister's last answer. Can the minister confirm that the ute owner would need to own the vehicle for 33 years to break even?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we should probably be grateful that the opposition now realises that such a thing as an electric ute exists, given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a ute denier not that long ago—a ute denier! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said there is no such thing as an electric ute not that long ago, and now they are saying they're expensive.</para>
<para>Yes, it is the case that different models have different costs. Of course that is the case, but it is also the case that rigorous analysis of our policies, released in the impact statement by the minister for transport and me, showed $140 billion in benefits to all Australians out to 2050, $12 billion in fuel savings for motorists by 2030, $108 billion dollars in fuel savings by 2050—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about the payback on the ute that the minister has been showcasing that can only go 150 kilometres.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has had a little while, but I'm going to ask him to get to the question. He can refer to his previous answer because that was in the question, but he needs to refine his remarks as it was quite a tight question. He has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member asked about cost and benefits of different models of cars, and I'm more than happy to engage. I know they don't love electric vehicles. We believe in choice for Australians to buy either an electric vehicle or a hybrid or a more fuel-efficient diesel or petrol car, which are available in the rest of the world but not in Australia and not in Russia because we're the only two major economies without fuel efficiency standards. The Leader of the Opposition says he wants to be with Russia—so be it. If you want to be with Russia, that's your approach. That's his big plan for Australia: to stay back in the past, not have efficiency standards and not give Australians choice between electric vehicles, diesel vehicles that are more efficient, petrol vehicles that are more efficient and hybrids.</para>
<para>That's why we are proposing a policy under which an average new car buyer in 2028 will cut their annual fuel costs by around $1,000. The member for Bradfield put it so eloquently in that op-ed in the<inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> jointly with the then member for Kooyong when he said, 'People in regional and rural areas will be the big winners from fuel efficiency standards.' He put it so well. And maybe that is why the RACQ, the peak body for motorists in Queensland, wrote, 'A well-designed standard'—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're very sensitive over there, Mr Speaker. They wrote, 'A well-designed standard that boosts efficient and safer vehicle supply will ultimately deliver a lower total cost of ownership for motorists.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There was far too much noise during that answer. I remind all ministers to stick to the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will Labor's new tax cuts benefit women, and is there any opposition to the government's work to put economic opportunity for women at the very heart of our agenda?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. Of course, as a result of the decision of the Senate last night, the government will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer—all 13.6 million of them. But 84 per cent of taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Liberal scheme. Importantly, 90 per cent of women will be better off under this proposal. Indeed, 98 per cent of young people will be better off as well. We are making sure that women are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. On average, a woman working full time in Australia now earns $135 dollars a week more than when we came to office, and they will get a tax cut of some $2,000 a year. Women's workforce participation is at a record high, and this has been helped by changes such as cheaper child care, expanding paid parental leave and more flexible working arrangements. We know that, when women with children are making decisions about how many hours they work, an increase in their take-home pay is a powerful incentive. We've introduced, of course, a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, the vast majority of whom are women. And the gender pay gap is at a record low. We are requiring companies to publish their gender pay gaps, because transparency and accountability are how we can close the pay gap.</para>
<para>I commented yesterday about Senator Canavan's statements, but last night he doubled down. He went on as part of a panel of four men discussing the gender pay gap in Paul Murray's man cave. I kid you not. He said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's a whole hill of nonsense … It is a completely useless report … There's just no real evidence here for a large gender pay gap in Western countries.</para></quote>
<para>Not only do they want to do nothing about it, they want to pretend it doesn't even exist. If you don't identify where there are problems with policy, no wonder you don't come up with any solutions. But Senator Canavan has been out there now day after day, and I give the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party credit, because the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has distanced herself from Senator Canavan's comments. But you know who we've heard crickets from? This bloke here. The Leader of the Opposition has had nothing to say about Senator Canavan—not a single word. He'll allow him to go out there, press those buttons and get in that man cave, but he has nothing to say to distance himself from those comments.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources. Right now, our country is burning, and fires fuelled by coal and gas are threatening lives and communities. As the climate crisis gets worse, why is Labor trying to fast track massive new gas projects with a bill that overrides environment laws? And why is one of Labor's first acts since the Voice referendum a bill that weakens First Nations power to oppose massive new climate bombs on their land and sea country?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for the question. Contrary to what you have just said, which is not true, the bill does not give me any—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; pardon me. What the member has said is not true. The bill before the House does not provide me powers to override any approvals whatsoever. It includes a technical amendment allowing the government to adopt future recommendations of an offshore environmental management review, which should come as no surprise to anyone in this House, including the Greens political party, or in other place. If a government undertakes a review, that government might seek to implement some recommendations of that review. No surprises there! This bill enables us to work and implement recommendations of the review—a review which is being undertaken as we speak. It might come as a surprise to the member to know that the Greens did put forward a bill to try and do something similar but not the same, but they're not any party of government, and they would have to make exactly the same changes to the existing offshore regulations to implement what they want to implement. In that respect, you'd be in the same boat as the government is, or any future government would be, to make any such changes to those regulations. So it might be worth having a bit of a look at that and getting some more knowledge in your own mind for your own sense of understanding of what the offshore regulations indeed are.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call anyone, I'm going to do an acknowledgement that I've been requested to do by the member for Gippsland. Joining us in the gallery today are members of the Gippsland Youth Space program, who are in Canberra today meeting with government and opposition members as part of a bushfire recovery program. A warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government helping people to earn more and keep more of what they earn in feminised industries such as early childhood education and care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Pearce—the best member for Pearce in this place since I've been here, that's for sure. She's my very dear friend and I thank her very much for her question. The 86,000 taxpayers in Pearce know that they have a truly strong voice for them here in parliament, somebody who fought for them to get their tax cuts.</para>
<para>Pearce residents will see an average of $1,618 back in their pockets because of Labor's tax cuts. That includes the wonderful educators at places like Goodstart Tapping and at the Lake Joondalup Early Learning Program, which the member for Pearce and I have visited now several times, up there in Wanneroo. Our tax cuts mean that those workers will keep more of their hard earned money. An early childhood educator earning $46,000 a year will get an $829 tax cut, and the average early childhood education teacher will receive $1,404 in tax cuts—money back in their pockets under this Labor government.</para>
<para>Eliza, who has a certificate III and is a qualified educator in Tasmania, is just starting out in her career, and she told me the timing of these cuts is ideal. She went on to say that, with rising costs, this additional money is going to have a real impact on her budget, and she says, 'It just takes the pressure off.' It just takes the pressure off. No matter if the person I'm talking to is someone who's been in the industry for 40 years, like Caro in Western Australia, or if they're just starting out, like Eliza in Tasmania, they always tell me just how important these tax cuts are for them. They mean food on the table, they mean petrol in the car, they mean they can pay their car insurance, they mean real cost-of-living relief—real money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians in feminised sectors like early childhood education.</para>
<para>In fact, as the Prime Minister said earlier, 90 per cent of women taxpayers will be better off under our tax plan. And we're getting wages moving again in low-paid female-dominated industries. I might add that those industries often employ high levels of migrant and culturally and linguistically diverse women. That's why the gender pay gap is at the lowest it's ever been. We supported two increases in modern awards, benefiting early childhood educators and carers.</para>
<para>When those opposite were last in government, keeping wages low was part of their architecture. There's no secret there. In contrast, we want Australians to earn more and keep more of their earnings, while those opposite want them to work harder for less. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Last year the minister showed off Australia's first EV ute, the LDV eT60, a ute that would cost struggling tradies an extra $46,000. Is it true that the maximum range of this ute is 300 kilometres, the distance from Melbourne to Hamilton, but only if it's empty? Is it also true that, if the back of the ute's fully loaded up, the maximum range drops to 150 kilometres, the distance from Melbourne to Bendigo but not back to Melbourne?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House is going to come to order before the minister speaks.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really do appreciate that question, mainly because, for all those watching at home, it reminds everyone that it hasn't quite reached the National Party that it's 2024! There are options available around the world for electric cars.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. That's far too much noise. The yelling is going to stop. Interjecting is one thing. Simply yelling and screaming is not what question time is about.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Leader of the Opposition, this is deja vu. I don't know how many times I have to say it. When I'm trying to bring the House to order and everyone is being quiet is not the time to interject. You're warned, and I'm going to ask you not to interject for the rest of question time. For the remainder of this answer, interjects, yes, but not the yelling or laughing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, whispering would be great. Thank you! The member has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to share with the House that I wasn't intending to comment on the price of any particular model, but the member has really tempted me, and I'm going to take up his offer. The honourable member asked me about the LDV eT60 electric ute. I'm going to refer him to an article in <inline font-style="italic">Drive</inline> newspaper with the headline 'LDV eT60 electric ute now cheaper than its diesel twin but only in New Zealand'. Why is it cheaper in New Zealand but not Australia? New Zealand has vehicle efficiency standards. Australia does not.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting —</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Reid will cease interjecting. The member for Barker, the member for Forrest. When the House comes to order, we will hear from the member for Lingiari.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How will workers protecting our environment—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). We were getting on so well but—</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Barker</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone needs to remind themselves when a member, no matter who it is, is asking a question respect has to be shown to that member. Out of respect for the member for Lingiari, she shall begin her question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How will workers protecting our environment benefit from the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lingiari is a proud Territorian. I've visited some very beautiful parts of her electorate with her. She's also absolutely committed to seeing the people in Lingiari get a tax cut. She wants to see them earn more and keep more of what they earn, whereas those opposite want to see them work longer for less. In fact, in Lingiari 43,000 taxpayers will benefit to an average of $1,621 a year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Longman is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In my portfolio, there are many passionate Australians fighting to protect the environment.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. She is less than one minute into her answer. She's being directly relevant to the question, so I hope this is not a point of order on relevance. You're entitled to take the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Spender</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order on standing order 75, which is relevance and tedious repetition. The point is I now know how the tax cuts are going to affect almost every constituency in this country and almost every sector of this community. I think these tax cuts are important, but there are many other issues facing this country at the moment, and I think that they deserve to have an airing as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member is entitled to raise a point of order, but, just as she is entitled to ask a question of her choice, any member of this parliament is able to ask a question of their choice. Out of respect for the member for Lingiari, she is entitled to ask the question of her choice.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I really thought the crossbench would be interested in what our hardworking environmental scientists are doing and how they're benefiting.</para>
<para>Australians love boating, camping and fishing. They love escaping into nature. We've got a government that will invest in nature and invest to support the people who are caring for nature. We've doubled funding for our national parks, and that means, in places like Kakadu, Indigenous rangers are able to do things like fix the missing croc-warning signs that those opposite didn't replace. That Indigenous ranger on $77,000 a year will get an extra $1,604 a year in their pocket because of our tax cuts. We doubled funding for the Australian Institute of Marine Science, saving 100 jobs in Townsville and growing another 100 jobs. For the scientists working there, every single one of those people will get a tax cut.</para>
<para>The ecologists that were looking after the handfish in Tasmania, taking them out of the Derwent River to protect them from warming waters and earning, say, $100,000 will receive a tax cut of $2,179. I'm very happy to report to the House that the handfish are doing really well after Christmas. A plumber working in Antarctica on expeditions down there, in one of the harshest environments in the world, will receive a tax cut of about $3,729 a year on their $156,000 salary.</para>
<para>You can count on Labor to invest in protecting the environment because we know that Australians who love their boating, camping and fishing want their national environment to be there for their kids and their grandkids. You can count on Labor to stand up for the people who are working to protect our environment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, others from the crossbench and I were briefed by the director of UNRWA in Gaza on the dire humanitarian situation there. He confirmed that, unless funds previously committed by countries like Australia were reinstated as a matter of urgency, UNRWA's entire humanitarian operation in Gaza would collapse by the end of March. This will be devastating for the region, ending medical and emergency accommodation services in Gaza as well as schooling for thousands of refugee children. Prime Minister, when will the government reinstate the additional $6 million for UNRWA?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. The government, when we came to office, doubled our funding for UNRWA, up to above $20 million. We have forwarded every single dollar of that doubling of support for people largely of Gaza but also the West Bank to provide that essential humanitarian support—food and the essentials of life. We are greatly concerned, as has been indicated by the joint statement that I released with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is why we have made a very clear statement about that issue.</para>
<para>We suspended the additional funding to UNRWA whilst allegations were being dealt with about where those dollars potentially were going, and we did so on the same basis of like minded countries, such as Canada, who have joined with us in calling for a humanitarian ceasefire and in calling for increased support for humanitarian assistance in Gaza. We did that because that is the principled and right thing to do.</para>
<para>I do note that, in the member's question, as well as other commentary that has been made publicly, it seems to be completely dismissed that we've delivered double the funding that the former government had.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it wasn't in the question at all, member for North Sydney. There's a lot of misinformation here that is going around. I am very concerned about social disharmony in this country as a result of disinformation that is being spread throughout the community. That does nothing to advance the interests of the people of Gaza, the people of the West Bank or the people of Israel. What my statement with the prime ministers of Canada and New Zealand made very clear was this government's support for a two-state solution and this government's support for peace and security in the region. We have had—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chandler-Mather</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When will you restore the funding?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me, Mr Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has concluded his answer, so you'll need to state the point of order. It's not a time to just get up and state your view. The member for North Sydney has the call and will state the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Tink</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order about disrespect. I don't—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian men and women earn more and keep more of what they earn after a decade of wage stagnation, and what has been the response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lalor for the question and for her commitment to getting wages moving in this country. Under the Albanese Labor government, women and men are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. If you look at the rate at which wages were growing in the decade where low wage growth was a deliberate design feature, the wage price index is now running at roughly double what it was previously.</para>
<para>There was a moment in the life of the previous government where there was a significant closing of the gender pay gap. It was not down to the levels we've got it to now, but there was one drop, where it came down from 14 per cent to 13.4 per cent. At the time, Senator Cash said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are proud to stand on our record of dramatically reducing the gender pay gap in Australia and of raising workplace standards for women in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>What Senator Cash didn't include in the release at that time was that the majority reason for the gender pay gap closing was that men's wages had collapsed during the lockdown period of 2020. What we have with the latest closing of the gender pay gap, down to the lowest level it has ever been, is a situation where men's wages have gone up, women's wages have gone up and the gender pay gap has closed, at the same time that inflation has been moderating. That's exactly what we have in this situation, with the latest data showing the gender pay gap is at its lowest level on record, at 12 per cent. I'm surprised there are angry interjections on that point—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No-one's interjecting!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given what Senator Canavan had to say. I do, as the Prime Minister said, single out the fact the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came out yesterday in a media conference saying, 'I reject all those comments.' Then this morning, in an interview with Patricia Karvelas, who asked, 'Why do you disagree?' he gave it straight and just said: 'Because they're wrong. I'm taking this issue seriously.' You would have thought, on an issue as important as the gender pay gap, it wouldn't only be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who was taking the issue seriously and calling out the comments of Senator Canavan, but there was not one word from the Leader of the Opposition in response to the extraordinary comments from Senator Canavan.</para>
<para>We have a situation where the gender pay gap is the lowest it has ever been. Unequivocally, this side of the House says, 'That is a good thing.' We have a situation where wages are now growing at roughly double the rate they did under those opposite, and, unequivocally, we say, 'That is a good thing.' We said we would get wages moving. We said we'd lower the gender pay gap. What we said would happen with wages is occurring, and that is a good thing.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Malaysia: Parliamentary Delegation</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of Malaysian MPs visiting Australia on the Australia-Malaysia institutional strengthening program as guests of the assistant foreign minister, including the head of the delegation, the member for Kota Melaka, Mr Khoo Poay Tiong, and the member for Jeli, Mr Zahari bin Kechik. On behalf of the House, I warmly welcome you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New Vehicle Efficiency Standard</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in question time yesterday regarding the new electric version of the RAV4, the Toyota bZ4X. Can the minister confirm, under this government's new tax on cars and utes, that this car is set to sell for $74,900, nearly $35,000 more than the base model of this vehicle sold in Australia today?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I can confirm is that Australians will have more choices with vehicle efficiency standards. That's what I can confirm.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Fairfax is warned. That means no more interjections.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to those members of the National Party and those rural and regional Liberals that perhaps they should listen to their constituents a little more. The minister for transport and I received a letter a little while ago. I'm going to share a few parts of it with the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Peter Stray. I'm a fifth generation beef and sheep farmer in the Golden Plains region of Victoria.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you for your promise to design and deliver fuel efficiency standards for Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't want to hear from Peter Stray?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The minister reading out a letter in response to questions about cost and the types of vehicles, I think, would be considered directly relevant in anyone's review. So let's just hope for the best. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is on relevance because it was an incredibly tight question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It also included the Prime Minister's answer from yesterday, so it wasn't tight. If you're referring to subject matter that's been raised in the parliament before, that's going to allow the minister, as I was explaining to the House, to read the letter. I don't know what's in this letter. I don't know who's written the letter besides Peter. But I want to listen to make sure that the letter is being relevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Peter Stray from She Oaks in the Golden Plains of Victoria wrote to the minister for transport and me and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am writing to urge you to make our standards strong and well designed. We need them to be competitive and effective so Australian farmers can get our hands on cleaner utes and cars that are cheaper to run.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Farming is getting harder.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals doesn't care about Peter Stray. Peter writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With an El Nino declared, we started destocking because I don't want to go through another season wondering if I can feed my animals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want cleaner, lower emissions farm operations—including our vehicles. But we can't make the business case stack up because the choice of electric and fuel efficient vehicles on the market in Australia is so limited. They're also far too expensive.</para></quote>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They really don't want to hear Peter. He writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are utes being made with ranges of around 800km now. If we can sort our fuel efficiency standards out, those utes will make it to Australia instead of just to the EU and US.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I already drive further and pay more for fuel than those in the city, so the cost of living impact is getting increasingly real.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is one of the only wealthy countries in the world without legislated national fuel efficiency standards. If we get our standards right, it'll be an incentive for manufacturers to send far more low and zero emissions new vehicles (including farm utes) to Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Farmers and regional Australians want stronger Fuel Efficiency Standards.</para></quote>
<para>That's from Peter Stray, a multigenerational farmer from Golden Plains in Victoria. Why don't you be more like Peter?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to respond to gender based violence in our universities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the sensational member for Chisholm for her question. It was a really important question. I ask members to imagine finishing high school, then moving away from home and going to university. You're living in student accommodation and, one night, you're assaulted by someone who lives on the same floor as you. You reach out for support from your university, and it doesn't come. For the last 10 years, Sharna Bremner has been fighting for the rights of students like this. That's what her organisation, End Rape on Campus, does, and she's not alone. Camille Schofield and the team at the STOP Campaign, and Renee Carr and the team at Fair Agenda do this too. They are supporting survivors and fighting for change on university campuses and in residential colleges. It's change that has been a long time coming. One in 20 students report having been sexually assaulted since they started uni, one in six report having been sexually harassed, and one in two students say they haven't been heard when it happens, and that the response hasn't been good enough.</para>
<para>This isn't just a problem in our universities. It exists in all workplaces. It exists here at Parliament House. But universities aren't just places where people study or where people work. They're also places where people live, where you could live in the same student accommodation as a person who assaulted you. The Universities Accord called this out in their interim report last year as an area where urgent work was needed, and a lot has happened since then.</para>
<para>A working group made up of Commonwealth, state and territory governments has come together and agreed to act, and last Friday I announced that we will establish an independent National Student Ombudsman. It will have the power to investigate complaints, the power to bring parties together to resolve issues and the power to make recommendations on what actions universities should take. If universities don't act, the power will be there to hold them to account. As minister, I will also be responsible to report to the parliament on the number and types of complaints and the actions that universities take.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Chisholm, who I know has argued for this. I thank the many members of the crossbench, both in this House and in the Senate, who have advocated for this. Most importantly, I thank Sharna, Renee, Camille, Dr Allison Henry and everyone that they represent, who have fought for this for years. On the weekend, Sharna said, 'After 50 years of student led advocacy, we've finally gotten reform.' It's coming now because of Sharna and people like her.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to commend the minister for the work that he's undertaken and pledge bipartisan support on this very important issue. We've spoken a lot in this place, over the years, about the occurrence of sexual assault in society. We have an absolutely zero tolerance for sexual assault of any person, but particularly in an environment where students are vulnerable because of their confined living arrangements, as the minister rightly pointed out. The fact that universities are engaged in a productive way is to their credit, but a lot of work has to happen, and quickly. The coalition will pledge our support, without condition, to the minister in his endeavours in this regard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—Firstly, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and for the bipartisan support that I'm sure will come from all members and senators in this house. I acknowledge the grassroots movement, as the minister did, for people who, from my time on campus, have been drawing attention to these issues for many, many decades. I congratulate the minister for acting on this report. It's something that he has brought up in other forums that we don't talk about that you'll find out about in 30 years. He has been very, very strong on this.</para>
<para>The advice is so clear that was has been happening up to now is a real disincentive for women to be able to freely move around our universities and our educational system. Of course, the victims can be impacted for the rest of their lives as well, so this is too late, frankly. We all should have done something before now, but those of us who are in a position to advocate important change will do so now as a result of this report. I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to the honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">nd Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement, as the Prime Minister has misrepresented me.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night, in an extraordinarily misleading speech, the Prime Minister misrepresented me three times. First, he said that I oppose investment in public housing. The Greens in fact secured investment in public housing and are calling for more. Secondly, the Prime Minister said the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Member for Melbourne told the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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's wrong to destroy these vibrant and diverse communities. The people there have a right to a home—a public home.</para></quote>
<para>The Prime Minister then misrepresented me and misled the House by going on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That sounds okay except that no-one is there because they're derelict.</para></quote>
<para>In fact, there are hundreds of people living in those towers, and the Victorian Labor government wants to demolish the homes of thousands of my constituents in public housing in North Melbourne and Carlton, with 33 Alfred Street in North Melbourne listed as the first to go.</para>
<para>Thirdly, in claiming that I was incorrect, the Prime Minister told the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What we're doing … is upgrading them into more homes for public housing …</para></quote>
<para>And he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… people who live in public housing should live in quality public housing—</para></quote>
<para>which he then said that I disagreed with. In fact, Labor has made no commitment to move these residents into public housing, just as I said. In fact, Victorian Labor has said they want non-government and private sector development on the land. In misrepresenting me, perhaps the Prime Minister made a new guarantee to Melbourne public housing residents that there'll be more public housing homes—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will come to the conclusion of his misrepresentation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got one final paragraph to read.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you've demonstrated the three instances where you allege the Prime Minister has misquoted you. There's no more scope for you to add additional—unless there are additional areas where you believe that you've been misrepresented.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll conclude that the Prime Minister is clearly not across his brief—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Just so that all members know—and the member has been here for quite some time—it is always a courtesy to let the Speaker know that there has been a misrepresentation. And that may have happened, and I'll check that. Members are always entitled to move an explanation if they've been misrepresented.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Grocery Prices</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's failure to rein in the power of the supermarket duopoly and the necessity for legislating the regulation of food retailing.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2001, Coles and Woolworths had 50.1 per cent of the market. That was monitored by an ANOP series, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics also had a series. By 2001, when we got to the 13th inquiry on Woolworths and Coles, one of those series indicated they had 68 per cent market control and the other one said 72 per cent. So, regardless of which one you wanted to choose, we're looking at two per cent growth a year. That was in 2001. Both series were discontinued. I asked the ANOP people, 'Why was it discontinued?' and he laughed and said, 'Why do you think?' So we can't even monitor; they've now cut up even our right to monitor how much they control, but no-one would question that their market share is up around 80, 85 or 90 per cent. No-one would question that.</para>
<para>This is the interesting part. In 2001, we took a basket of items—just a little tiny basket—like what people would eat every week, including potatoes, milk, sugar, eggs and bananas. The mark-up in 1991, when they had 50.1 per cent of the market, was 108 per cent. That is outrageous. My family had clothing stores. We also briefly had a couple of supermarkets. There's just no way in the world—my father said, 'People will kill you if you go over 30 per cent.'</para>
<para>In 1991, they were at 108 per cent. But when they get market share going over 70 per cent, the mark-up jumps to 179 per cent. The market was 108 per cent and now it's 179 per cent. People in this place are going to wait till they're making 300 per cent profit. You've never done anything. You realised there was a problem, because there have been 15 inquiries. You had two inquiries going at the same time, and, to quote the great Winston Churchill, 'When you absolutely must not do it, then you must, of course, have an inquiry and, the wider the breadth of the inquiry, the less likely it is to hit a target.' I mean, after 15 inquiries, not one single recommendation has been implemented in this place!</para>
<para>I don't know how much the Liberals are getting and the National Party are getting, but I do know that we paid an investigator to investigate it, and he said, 'They've really covered their tracks.' But we went along to a fundraiser, and he said, 'There were 13 people out of about 40 or 50 people who had their names down.' I don't know which retail outlet it was, but they were managers of either Woolworths or Coles shops. They'd gone along and made a donation not under the name Woolworths or Coles, but under their own personal name. For deceit, that'd take some beating I would think.</para>
<para>I've got nothing against the shoppers union—good on them—but they get site coverage, and I can assure you that they won't have site coverage if the Labor Party does what they should do for the people of Australia. People come into this place and they say 'affordability'. It's the latest buzzword, like 'climate change' has now been replaced by 'affordability'. What have you done on affordability? You just come in here and mouth buzzwords and, of course, you do absolutely nothing about it except hold an inquiry again and again.</para>
<para>I was in a state parliament, and we had a problem in places like the Gold Coast and Mission Beach because rich people went there, and suddenly the price of land shot through the roof, and, of course, poor old pensioners and retired railway workers couldn't pay the rates. So Russell Hinze, a much maligned minister, immediately moved to put A plus B divided by two. There's a problem there. He solved it. We had a trucking problem, and, within two weeks, he'd solved the problem.</para>
<para>When you see a problem like a 200 per cent mark-up on food and you come in here and have the hypocrisy to talk about affordability, how do you sleep with yourself at night? I hope you don't believe in Jesus and the hereafter, because you're going to go to a very hot place, I would think, with your cowardice.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Me?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Deputy Speaker, I reiterate again that, when they had 50.1 per cent of the market, they had the disgusting mark-up of 108 per cent. As their market share grew, so did the outrageous mark-up, to 179 per cent. Those figures are two or three years old and my colleague from South Australia behind me pointed out today that I was using potatoes as an example. I had $3.99, and she quoted a figure which was well in excess of that. Those figures that I was quoting were 12 months old. The supermarkets are having the world's greatest picnic.</para>
<para>Someone said, 'What about the employees of Woolworths and Coles?' There won't be any. You've all been down there, and if you're waiting at the check-out to be served you'll wait 20 minutes. If you go and serve yourself, you can go straight through. That's good, but what happens to the workers that have jobs there? Their jobs are vanishing at a rate of knots.</para>
<para>I'm not going to go into the farmers and how they are suffering, but I will say this: at the time of the deregulation of the milk industry by the National Party, on the Friday we were on 61c a litre; on the Monday, we were on 29c a litre—that happened in one day. And who did it? It was the National Party in this place, and I was a member. Shamefully, I have to admit I was a member of that party. That was the final straw for me, and I got out as I watched my poor old dairy farmers vanish. There were 258, but then it was only 58. At a meeting, the state member, Shane Knuth, a member of our party, said, 'Try 48,' and the lady behind him said, 'Try 38.' That area had the highest suicide rate in Australia. That is what you did to the farmers. To your shame, Liberal and National parties, they still vote for you. Doesn't it make your sin infinitely worse that those poor people still believe in you. Shame, shame.</para>
<para>There are the figures. There are people in this country going hungry now because no-one has the moral courage to stand up and act and do what should be done and is done in every other country in the world. When I looked last time, the worst country in the world was England, where the big six food retailers had 36 per cent of the market. Here we have the big two, with 85 to 90 per cent of the market. Every country has laws that say you can't have a monopoly, a duopoly or the centralisation of market power. We have those laws, but they are a joke. They are not being enforced and never will be enforced. Also, the laws themselves are grossly inadequate, and that is why we are introducing this bill. I will be very surprised if everybody on the crossbench doesn't vote for it. We got more than 33 per cent of the vote in the last election, whilst you mob got less than 33 per cent, and you mob got less than 33 per cent. So watch out, because it's growing and it will grow even further when people learn of the perfidious behaviour of this government and the last government in doing absolutely nothing and watching the farmers get destroyed.</para>
<para>I think something like 30 per cent now of our fresh fruit and vegetables is coming from overseas, where people work for slave labour wage levels. And that's the farmers and the retailers—how many times have I heard the word 'affordability' in this place. Here's food, the most important commodity, and the people who are selling it have got mark-ups of 200 per cent. And we accept it. This legislation will stop that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a great thing in this House to be discussing the important issue of competition, and for that I thank the member for Kennedy for bringing forward this matter of public importance.</para>
<para>If you're a sports fan in Australia you have plenty of choices. If you're an AFL fan you've got 18 teams to choose from. If you're a fan of the Women's Big Bash League you've got eight teams to choose from. If you're a fan of the Australian Ice Hockey League you have 10 teams to choose from including the Canberra Brave, the Central Coast Rhinos, the Melbourne Mustangs and the Sydney Ice Dogs. If you're an A-League fan you have 12 teams to choose from. The fact is that many of these leagues are also growing new teams, so we've had the GWS Giants and the Tasmanian JackJumpers.</para>
<para>However, in business you'd be lucky if you had not 18 choices, not eight choices but just a few, because too many Australian industries—from banking to baby food to beer—are dominated by just a couple of big firms. While we've seen our sporting codes growing new teams, the trend in corporate Australia over the last generation has been towards mergers. Over the past 30 years the number of corporate mergers has grown by a factor of six and the value of corporate mergers has grown by a factor of 11. If our sporting codes had gone the same way we'd all be barracking for the same few teams.</para>
<para>The result of these mergers has been that over the course of the last couple of decades we've had an increase in market concentration and we've seen an increase in mark-ups—the gap between prices and costs. We've seen a decline in the job switching rate, which matters because switching jobs is typically the best way of getting a pay rise in the career of a typical employer. If we look at the start-up rate focusing on employing small businesses, Australians are starting fewer firms now than in the past. The result of increasing market power is that consumers pay more, farmers earn less and small businesses are constrained. More competition, on the other hand, is good for consumers, good for workers and good for innovation.</para>
<para>We were talking during question time about the gender pay gap, and it turns out that more competitive sporting codes tend to have less discrimination. We've seen that in major league baseball because as it became more competitive, racial pay gaps narrowed. We've seen this with the gender pay gap in banking. To go back to the example of sport, vigorous competition can be a force for egalitarianism. Kenyan runners dominated the marathon because the world marathon made it a serious sport with serious prize money. They were then able to compete on that level playing field.</para>
<para>Conversely, a lack of competition most hurts the poor. The member for Kennedy has talked about the impact on farmers, but it's also true that we see a lack of competition having an adverse impact on low-income consumers. If you don't have a car you can't drive to a cheaper supermarket. If you don't have a good internet connection you can't connect up to get good online sales. It's no coincidence that payday lenders are going door to door in the poorest communities.</para>
<para>Competition keeps prices low and encourages firms to innovate. If consumers can choose, they're less likely to be gouged on price. If workers can choose they're more likely to get a fair return for their labour. We know competition is important for spurring economic growth. We saw this in the 1990s when the reforms of Fred Hilmer and Paul Keating kicked off one of the most productive decades in the postwar era, during which we had strong growth in labour productivity. At the end of that decade there was a permanent 2½ per cent increase in national income, which in today's dollars is equivalent to some $5,000 a household.</para>
<para>We have instead had a lousy period of productivity growth. Under the former government we had labour productivity growth at its slowest rate in the postwar era. We have a lot of stasis in the Australian economy. If you go back to the mid-1980s the biggest Australian firms in the stockmarket were Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, ANZ and BHP. Now they're Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, BHP and CSL. Don't worry too much about ANZ because it's sitting just behind the pack. Monopoly power transfers resources from consumers to shareholders, thereby worsening inequality. We are committed to the fair go on this side of the House, and you can't have a fair go without fair competition.</para>
<para>The member for Kennedy mentioned some of the history of supermarket aggregation but he did not go very far back. It is somewhat surprising, as the member for Kennedy has been a member of parliament since I was two years old—in 1974—taking only a year out between the Queensland and the national parliaments. Let me take him back a little further.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been 50 years.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is half a century ago, Member for Kennedy. As David Merrett notes in his book, Coles and Woolworths accounted for most of their competitors through a series of acquisitions. Six years after they entered the market, their share was 20 per cent. By the time the member for Kennedy first became a MP in 1974, it was nearly 40 per cent. Twenty years on and the two big supermarket operators had more than 60 per cent of the market.</para>
<para>We saw in the <inline font-style="italic">4</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Corners</inline> recent report that now for every $10 Australians pay for groceries, $6.50 is spent at Coles and Woolworths and just $1 at ALDI. That <inline font-style="italic">4</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Corners</inline> report had a story of a cherry farmer who sent 15 tonnes of cherries to Coles, an entire semitrailer load, expecting to receive $90,000. Instead, he was told it was not up to standard and got less than $6,000 on the seconds market. He said, 'So that is market power when you can simply reject something for no good reason.' Another supplier told the story of asking to be paid five per cent more and being told that request would only be approved if he paid Coles $25,000. We have seen accounts of farmers being asked to pay so-called rebate charges in order to have their invoices paid on time. Fruit Growers Victoria have said many members have had little choice but to agree to pay rebate charges sometimes as high as four per cent to get their invoice paid on time. The operations of the large supermarkets mean that they are now tending to buy direct. One report said that, in Queensland, 10 to 15 years ago some 80 per cent of fresh produce ran through the central market at Rocklea. Now 80 per cent is sold directly to supermarkets.</para>
<para>I want to draw particular attention of the House to a report, <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline><inline font-style="italic">food story: feeding the nation and beyond</inline>, from a committee ably chaired by the member for Paterson. That spoke of the challenges of the supermarket duopoly and quoted the National Farmers Federation about the lack of transparency in the supply chain. It called for a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, to consider whether it should be made mandatory. The government is doing just that, and I thank the member for Paterson for this important work on this important report. The government has charged former competition minister Craig Emerson with reviewing the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, and his consultation paper specifically goes to whether it should be made mandatory.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, the government have increased the penalties for anticompetitive conduct and we have banned unfair contract terms. We have set up a competition taskforce in Treasury which is actively considering issues such as reviewing Australia's merger laws and considering whether noncompete clauses that apply to one in five workers and are used by one in five firms ought to be reformed in order that workers can more easily have the freedom to go to a better job. We've tasked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with a review of the supermarkets that will report this year on the conduct of the supermarkets and any reforms that need to take place. And in order to deliver immediately for consumers, we are funding CHOICE to do quarterly price monitoring, ensuring that consumers know where the best deal is available.</para>
<para>I started with sport, let me finish with it. Sometimes collusion reminds me of a story that David Williamson told about making the movie <inline font-style="italic">Phar Lap</inline>. He said, 'We had to replicate the exact winning order of the horses in the 1930 Melbourne Cup, which Phar Lap won. I remember asking some of our jockeys whether it was possible to do this. They looked at each other and burst out laughing. Sure enough, the horses crossed the winning line in perfect order, and every one of the jockeys looked as if he was trying his heart out.' We don't want an Australian economy that looks like the movie depicted by David Williamson in that quote.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I rise to speak today, I am very aware that, all over Australia at this moment, there are people standing in one of the major supermarkets and looking down at their trolley with absolute anxiety. The mums, the dads, the retirees, the students from share houses—all of them are doing the sums and putting stuff back on the shelves because the prices are too much. More than ever I see items left behind at the self-check-out. Clearly, people have reached the top of their budget. Some of the prices that I see when I walk around the supermarkets literally take my breath away. Dairy products are actually the ones that really hit home. I come from a dairy farming family. I know those prices are not flowing through to the dairy farmers.</para>
<para>The cost of living has risen for so many for so many months and, while we're feeling it in our mortgages or rent rises, it's at the supermarket check-out where everyday Australians feel this literally every day. We know that Australia is going through a period of inflation; in fact, we learnt today that prices rose 3.4 per cent in the year to January. But many people will tell you the price increases we have seen at Coles and Woolies have been well above that, and the data backs that up too. We know that the latest half-yearly profit for Coles was more than half a billion dollars. At Woolies, it was $929 million, almost $1 billion profit, in just six months. Profits like that when so many are struggling to scrape by are pretty hard to stomach.</para>
<para>Part of the problem is Australia's highly concentrated supermarket sector. Woolworths and Coles have a combined market share of 65 per cent. Compare that to Britain, where the top two supermarkets have a combined market share of 43 per cent; and the United States, where the four largest supermarkets have a combined market share of 34 per cent. This concentration, as we have heard today, leads to a lack of competition. Without competition, we do not have the market forces that we need to keep prices fair and low.</para>
<para>That's why I'm so glad to speak today to this matter of public importance brought forward by the member for Kennedy. I want to thank the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark, who are so far ahead of the game on this one—irrespective of what they choose to wear to parliament!—that they introduced a private members' bill more than 10 years ago that sought to address this problem. Imagine if that had been taken up at the time. Like me, the member for Kennedy represents rural and regional communities, many of whom are farmers who provide produce to these supermarkets. Like the customers, the farmers are also being pushed to the brink by this supermarket duopoly. While the prices we pay at the check-out have gone up, the prices paid to farmers absolutely have not. And they can't just find someone else to sell to either; as I said earlier, Coles and Woolies are 65 per cent of the supermarket sector, so we all lose here.</para>
<para>I want to make it clear that I'm not criticising the employees at Coles and Woolies. The sector is one of the biggest employers in my electorate of Indi, and I've been welcomed into so many of their stores and met workers on shop floors. I commend them for their work and I thank them for putting back on the shelves those items that are left behind by struggling shoppers and doing so without shedding one bit of embarrassment on those shoppers. The current system isn't working for them either. It's not working for shoppers, it's not working for farmers and we need action.</para>
<para>It's not enough for politicians to simply have a go at the supermarkets. It may feel politically easy—we all like to have a crack at them—but it needs to be followed up by real action. I understand that many in the government will say, 'But we're doing something about this. We just heard about it,' and point at the review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct undertaken by Dr Craig Emerson, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's investigation of pricing and competition in the supermarket sector, a competition taskforce in Treasury and a Senate review into the cost of living, as well as other measures. We've got more reviews than we've got supermarket chains; that's for sure.</para>
<para>These reviews are important, and I commend the government for taking them on, but the rubber will really hit the road only if the government chooses to do something about the recommendations that come from them. I really encourage them to take up the mantle on this. It won't be easy when there will be lobbyists and donors from across the business world, not just the supermarkets, who will fight back against these recommendations. They'll fight back against any measure that we try to take to increase competition.</para>
<para>My message now to the government and to all of us here on opposition benches and on the crossbench is: stand up to them. Having a go at the supermarkets is the easy part. The hard part comes next. Let's have the courage to get behind some absolute change in this terrible system and do something for the people we represent.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an incredibly important issue, and I do give credit to the member for Kennedy for raising this. I want to start by making the observation that I think it's fair to say that all speakers in this debate would agree that market concentration in supermarkets is a problem. Also I would suggest that market concentration in a number of sectors in our economy is a problem. What we need to put in place in this building, in this chamber and the other chamber, over time, are a series of measures that deal with competition at both the economywide level and also the sector-specific level. I'm going to comment on both of those in the course of this contribution.</para>
<para>Can I also make the observation that I think everybody who is going to speak in this debate would have spoken to constituents and would have spoken to people in their everyday lives who are struggling with prices in supermarkets and also with prices in other areas of their lives. So this is clearly something which is touching people right throughout our community.</para>
<para>I speak on this issue as a member who shares their concerns and also as the chair of the House economics committee. I want to share with this chamber the fact that that committee will very soon complete an inquiry into competition, which has been conducted over more than a year. To follow-up on some of the points made by the minister earlier in this matter of public importance debate, the committee has received a significant amount of evidence about economywide issues with competition in retail and supermarkets and also more broadly. That includes the fact that market concentration is high in many sectors but also that over the last five, 10, 20 years in many sectors and on average across the economy it has worsened. That is something the member for Kennedy referred to in relation to supermarkets, and I just want to make the observation that this is something which is occurring across a number of sectors.</para>
<para>The other point I think is that mark-ups in a number of sectors are increasing, and also firm entry and exit is worsening—in particular, in a dynamic sense, the growth of small new-entrant firms relative to the growth of more established firms is worsening.</para>
<para>When a lot of empiricists, when a lot of people who look at competition both from an empirical or a data perspective and from a theoretical perspective look at this, they try and use all of these measures because no one single measure captures the level of competition or dynamism or consumer outcomes in a market. What my committee received evidence on was that on all of these measures across the economy as a whole and in a number of key sectors things are getting worse. I want to put that into this debate to reinforce the fact that this is an important issue in retail and more generally across our economy.</para>
<para>That's why I want to start with a couple of economywide measures that the government has undertaken, including increased penalties for anticompetitive conduct and banning unfair contract terms. That won't solve all of these issues. There are some deep systemic issues in our economy, but these are important steps. So some action has already been taken at that economywide level.</para>
<para>I also want to point to the fact that my committee received a significant amount of evidence in relation to mergers. The Treasurer's competition task force, which was set up six to nine months ago, has already issued a very significant options paper on mergers. So this is an area that is already receiving significant attention, after having not been looked at for well over a decade—probably two decades. Again, this is a systemic economywide issue that is already receiving significant attention.</para>
<para>We have already heard that Craig Emerson is looking at the food and grocery code, but I think it's also worth mentioning that before that there was already completed an inquiry into the food and grocery code of conduct dispute resolution processes, which of course are so important. The committee work that was completed by the House economics committee received evidence from agricultural producers, upstream producers, about a lot of the difficulties of negotiating with the supermarket sector given market power. The government has already accepted the recommendations arising from that.</para>
<para>There are important reviews underway by the ACCC, by CHOICE, by Craig Emerson, but there are also areas where action has been taken. These are systemic issues that can't be solved in a very short period of time. The government is very conscious of how important they are, and it will build on actions taken to date, with further actions over the course of this parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The cost-of-living crisis is very real for many Australians. Many people are feeling this with their power bills, with their insurance premiums and, of course, with their grocery bills at the supermarket. There is no doubt that we have a high concentration of market control in relation to supermarket chains, with Woolies taking 37 per cent of the market share and Coles 28 per cent.</para>
<para>Research from the Grattan Institute in 2017 concluded that 'a few large sectors, such as banking, have become more concentrated, while others, such as supermarkets, have become less concentrated' over a period of time, and they used in that case the example of the expansion of Aldi over two decades to a 10 per cent market share. Other measures of competitive pressure have not changed much, and the Grattan Institute concluded, 'The profitability of firms in Australia has not risen much since 2000 or become more dispersed.'</para>
<para>But competition in our retail industries is good for consumers, and what we have at the moment is really a situation with insufficient competition, so we must look at what the drivers are and what has brought us to that place. It is basic market economics: competition protects consumers from price gouging and colluding. Still, it's vital that the ACCC be empowered to do its job to ensure that there is no market collusion, anticompetitive conduct, price gouging or third-line forcing.</para>
<para>So here we are. Food prices have risen sharply in the last three years, fuelling cost-of-living pressures and food insecurity. Analysis by UBS in late 2023 found that food prices at Coles and Woolies increased by some 9.6 per cent over the previous 12 months. That is considerable. Some 3.7 million Australian households experienced food insecurity in 2023—10 per cent more than in 2022. It is quite outstanding to think that, in Australia—a developed nation and a wealthy nation, by most standards—so many households are feeling food insecurity.</para>
<para>The supermarket chains claim that such prices are due to factors beyond their control like inflation and higher wholesale prices—that is, the cost of a product from the manufacturer to the retailer. We have six inquiries running simultaneously right now to look at this. In particular, the ACCC inquiry is focusing on the assessment of competition and how items are priced and, importantly, is also reviewing the practice of specials, which are often misleading in how they induce consumers into thinking they are getting a deal when, in fact, are proposing a higher individual price.</para>
<para>The Competition Review by Treasury is also looking at several retail sectors, including the supermarkets, so we have a lot of inquiries going on. I know the Treasury is also looking at the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, with the key question being whether to make the code of conduct mandatory. I think that is an important aspect that the government must grapple with and be courageous enough, once we have all these inquiries, to actually take action on to ensure a much better Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Ultimately, it would result in the ACCC having stronger powers of enforcement and include financial penalties for noncompliance. That would go some way to addressing the power imbalance between producers and supermarkets and ensure producers are getting a competitive wholesale price for their stock and produce.</para>
<para>I welcome the announcements today that came from, I think, pressure from this debate and from the discussions with, for example, Woolies in relation to now reducing the price of over 400 items. But it begs the question: why has it taken so long, and is it the public pressure that is now forcing that? It's clear that accountability and visibility on this matters, and it's so important for the government to play its role and for the ACCC to play its role.</para>
<para>We have to look at where this is all heading: food prices, insurance costs and climate impacts. These are all disruptive, and we know they are only going to make the cost of living more and more expensive. We know of the impacts on food prices through bushfires, record-high temperatures and floods. A 2022 report by Farmers for Climate Action concluded that drought is becoming more frequent and production is affected by lower crop yields, livestock stress and higher operational costs. We know that there are many drivers that impact these products, so, whilst there is an argument that operational costs may have risen for the supermarket chains, there also must be analysis of recent record profits delivered by supermarket giants. So we know we must have that accountability and ability to be scrutable.</para>
<para>Competition works if there is a balance in companies returning a profit—it is a free market—but not at the expense of consumers being gouged due to lack of alternative options. So maintaining competition is vitally important, and I urge the government to act.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to extend my sincere gratitude and thanks to the member for Kennedy for raising this matter of public importance today. It is a matter of incredible public importance. It speaks to not only the duopoly in Australia in terms of groceries and food prices but something far broader than that, and that is food security within Australia. As the minister pointed out earlier in his contribution, the government started to take real action on this months ago now. I stand before the House as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and say that the committee produced a report called <inline font-style="italic">Australian food story: feeding the nation and beyond</inline>. That committee had excellent contributions from Ms Sharkie, members of the government and members of the opposition. We travelled the length and breadth of the country, talking to farmers, food producers and manufacturers, and food and grocery suppliers, Woolworths appeared before the committee, and I commend them for that. Coles did not. We talked to literally tens of dozens of organisations that represent thousands of people who feed millions of Australians every day about food security. It was a serious inquiry and I commend this report to you, Member for Kennedy. If you are truly interested in feeding Australia and reducing food insecurity here, please take the time to read it.</para>
<para>We have made some really great recommendations, including things like having a minister for food. We think food is so important we should have a minister for it. At the moment it falls in the gap between agriculture and industry. Let's face it: everyone eats. We want Australians to be able to afford to eat and eat well. That is why we have recommended a minister for food. We have gone so far as to say that we need a national food action plan. It's not good enough to just say, 'We need to whack Coles and Woolworths on the head.' It goes far deeper than them.</para>
<para>I'm happy the member raised dairy, because one of our key recommendations—in fact, the third recommendation of this report—is looking at the dairy industry and the seafood industry. So you are onto something here, Member for Kennedy. You know it's important and so do the government. We get this. That is why we have requested the ACCC look at this issue, and we have also asked Dr Craig Emerson, who is respected by every facet of political advantage in Australia, to have a good look at what is happening with our food and grocery suppliers.</para>
<para>I want to just read something from the report's foreword:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Despite Australia being one of the most food secure countries in the world, recent developments both at home and abroad have shown that food security presents real and growing challenges to the nation. Food security is already a challenge for many in our community—particularly those on lower incomes and in remote communities. COVID-19 and recent flood events both impacted the integrity of the food supply chain. The war in Ukraine has driven up grain prices and the cost of energy and fuel. Outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease and Lumpy Skin Disease in Indonesia have highlighted biosecurity risks to our food system—as has the arrival of Varroa mite on Australia's shores. Food security is not something that any of us can take for granted. It requires ongoing attention from industry, the community and governments.</para></quote>
<para>The formulation of a comprehensive national food plan is something I feel really passionate about, setting out measurable targets and regular updates so that we know Australians are able to afford really high-quality food, that Australian farmers can receive the prices that they deserve, not to be gouged by people that set prices, and also that we can have faith in our supply chains. That requires a lot of investment. It requires a lot of serious investigation. But I have never been prouder to be part of a government that is actually taking this seriously. It's the first time in two decades we've looked at this. In fact, the last time we looked at this seriously people said, 'We need to do something,' and that didn't happen. We are doing something and we are going to not only make Australia a food-secure nation but improve the plight of all Australians who eat and deserve the best food possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that, for the past few years, mortgage holders, renters and ordinary workers have been repeatedly punished by the inflation crisis caused by corporate price gouging. Every time the RBA rocked up to put up interest rates, mortgage rates went up and people had to pay more and more, forced to pay for an inflation crisis caused by corporate price gouging. This screwed over ordinary workers. What we always knew—and a lot of people in Australia knew this—was that it wasn't workers causing this inflation crisis; it was corporate price gouging. I can't think of a better example than the market duopoly of Coles and Woolworths driving up prices and screwing over ordinary workers.</para>
<para>In our economic and political system, every time the gas corporations jacked up their prices and every time Coles and Woolworths jacked up their prices, driving the inflation crisis, the people that were punished for it were the people with mortgages, who were also screwed over by the RBA's interest rate increases. It's hardly fair. Basically, the economic plan, from the perspective of the political establishment, was: 'Oh no! Coles and Woolworths are using their market power to jack up prices. We're going to fix this by forcing mortgage holders into financial stress by driving up mortgage rates and reducing their spending power.' In practical terms, that means pushing them into poverty.</para>
<para>Last year Coles made a $1.1 billion profit and Woolworths made a $1.62 billion profit. We know, from the evidence around the world, that those are the highest rates of profitability for supermarkets in the developed world, but we have a political and economic system that allows them to get away with that scot-free. At the same time, we have a political and economic system that punishes mortgage holders and renters by jacking up interest rates and pushing people into poverty. It's outrageous. No wonder so many people are fed up with politics.</para>
<para>For me, there are two stories which sum up just how broken the system is. While doorknocking over the weekend, I met two people. The first was a single mum in a one-bedroom place with one kid and another expected in a few months. She told me that her grocery bill at the supermarket kept going up and up, and then she got a rent increase. She started to realise that the only way she would be able to make ends meet, shopping at Coles or Woolworths, was to start skipping meals herself. She said to me, 'I need to do that because my baby needs the nappy rash cream.'</para>
<para>Coles and Woolworths regularly come out and say: 'We're going to crack down on shoplifting. We're going to spend all of this extra money on our self-serve checkouts, which we've used to cut workers at our businesses, to crack down on people shoplifting.' How is it that we have a political system that allows Coles and Woolworths to push these people into poverty—screw them over, jack up prices and make record profits—and then cracks down on people who have been forced into a such a desperate position that they have to shoplift so they can feed their kids the next day? That's the political and economic system that we have right now.</para>
<para>The second story was from a Woolworths worker—a young woman who earns about $27 an hour working in the bakery as a supervisor. She said to me, 'I sat down and worked out that, over the course of a few days, I make Woolworths about half a million dollars but I'm only on $27 an hour.' Her rent is going up, so she and her partner are having to move back in with their parents. They can't afford to live anywhere near where she works. Again, it is legal for Woolworths to jack up prices, make record profits and screw people over—and the way they make their record profits is by underpaying their workers and screwing them over—and for the people to get screwed.</para>
<para>The government is aware of the corporate price gouging. The government is aware of the fact that the inflation crisis is being driven by gas corporations, supermarkets and other big corporations—the banks, for instance, making a $10 billion profit off the back of mortgage holders paying more on their mortgages. They're aware that that's the cause of the inflation crisis, but, rather than crack down on it, they say, 'We'll look at it, but we're not really sure what we're going to do.' All of a sudden, when it's those big powerful corporations like Coles and Woolworths, the government is powerless, but whenever it's ordinary people, whenever it's people doing it tough, it's, 'We'll crack down on them.'</para>
<para>I think it is pretty clear, at a very basic level, that there are things we can do right now to crack down on Coles and Woolworths, but at a broader level we can start looking at corporate super profits. At the very least, why not introduce a corporate super profits tax?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At its heart, this matter of public importance is about cost-of-living pressures facing Australians. The Albanese government recognise that many in our communities are doing it tough, and we're doing everything we can to reduce the burden. We know that the cost of groceries is putting Australians under the pump, and we're continuing to take meaningful action to hold supermarkets to account, because we know the cost of groceries is rising and making it harder for families to put healthy food on the table.</para>
<para>People across my electorate are coming up to me at the cricket, in the supermarket and at local markets to tell me they aren't paying a fair price for their groceries. Meg from Torquay told me that something needs to be done. 'It's insane,' she said. 'Over the last five years, the price of my grocery basket has been going up and up.' For local, hardworking people like Meg, it's time for government to tackle this issue and take a proactive approach, and that's just what the Albanese government is doing.</para>
<para>I do acknowledge that, as a government, we don't control the market economy, but it is our job to use every lever to ensure the market best serves our communities with their consumer practices. Our Treasurer has pulled those levers to ensure supermarkets will be held to account, that their prices are fair and reasonable and that suppliers, including our farmers and local producers, are given a fair go. At the moment, I'm being told that this is not always the case. In response to rising community concern, the Treasurer has directed the ACCC to conduct a 12-month price inquiry into the supermarket industry. The ACCC will examine the competitiveness of retail prices for the groceries we buy every week. The recommendations of this inquiry will be provided to government in early 2025, and we will work with the ACCC to ensure shoppers and suppliers are getting a fair deal.</para>
<para>Our government is also providing $1.1 million funding to consumer organisation Choice to provide shoppers with a clear understanding of how supermarkets are performing on this score. That's because, across thousands of products, it can be hard for people to find the best deal. We're backing Choice, which is renowned for its commitment to consumer fairness, to provide clear and regular information on prices across a basket of goods. This will promote transparency, enhance competition and drive value.</para>
<para>It doesn't stop there. We've appointed Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. A consultation paper has been released, and I've been encouraging everyone across my electorate to make their submission. This is about making sure families and our farmers get a fair go, because, when farmers are selling their product for less, supermarkets should charge Australians less. For me, it's that simple. These actions send a clear message: our Albanese government is prepared to take action to ensure Australians are not paying one dollar more than they should for the things they need.</para>
<para>Moreover, these inquiries are all about taking more action on cost-of-living challenges and ensuring Australians have an economy that works for them. That's why, along with these inquiries, we're delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. In my electorate, more than 85 per cent of locals like Meg will be heading to the checkout with a bigger tax cut and more money in their pocket. This means more dollars in the pockets of all Australians across my electorate and across the nation—more than $1,500 for a local worker on an average wage.</para>
<para>In closing, we know that more competition is better for consumers, suppliers and our nation. Most importantly, we want more competition that is better for prices at the checkout, and we want to ensure that our hardworking Australians keep more of what they earn.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no denying that Australians are feeling the pinch right now. Whether putting a roof overhead, filling up the car with fuel or going to the doctor, the cost is being felt and felt hard. Nowhere is this pain being felt more regularly than on the trip to the supermarket for the most basic of things, like food to feed the family. Indeed, according to an article published earlier this month by the Conversation, food prices have risen sharply since 2021, with some 3.7 million Australian households experiencing food insecurity in 2023, 10 per cent more than the previous year. Moreover, in its submission to the Senate select committee's inquiry into the price-setting practices and market power of major supermarkets, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry noted food and non-alcoholic beverage prices were 4.5 per cent higher than the previous year. This, the department observed, showed food prices had risen faster than prices in the economy more broadly.</para>
<para>Of course, there are many factors contributing to the rising cost of food, including COVID; climate events, including floods and bushfires; and international conflicts. Events such as these often fall outside of our immediate control, but an area where the government can make a positive and immediate difference in reducing the cost of living is by reining in the supermarket duopoly that has dominated the food retail market for way too long. The undeniable fact is that, whereas other countries have multiple major retail food outlets increasing competition and therefore lowering prices, in Australia Coles and Woolworths dominate the Australian market. Indeed, the two major supermarkets control at least 65 per cent of Australia's grocery market, which, as reported in the recent, damning episode of <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline>, means that, on average, for every $10 Australians pay for groceries, more than $6.50 is spent at Coles and Woolworths.</para>
<para>It's no wonder, then, that the big two have reported record profits in recent years—for instance, $1.1 billion and $1.62 billion for Coles and Woolworths respectively in 2022-23. Moreover, Woolworths's latest report shows that its pretax profit last financial year rose from 5.3 to six per cent, worth an additional $318 million, at the same time that the cost of doing business was flat. So, while people are paying more and struggling desperately to put food on the table for their families and while producers and farmers are grappling to keep their doors open and earn a liveable income, Coles and Woolworths are raking in the big bucks, and that is simply unconscionable.</para>
<para>But it hasn't happened in a vacuum. Coles and Woolworths actually haven't been doing anything beyond what successive Australian governments have allowed them to do. In other words, ineffective regulations and enforcement mechanisms have got us to where we are now. For example, as former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims noted during the <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners </inline>episode, the grocery code of conduct is a disgrace. It's a code with no penalties. It's like having a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour but no penalty for someone who does 80. Moreover, our inadequate consumer laws do little to stop the duopoly engaging in practices such as unfair pricing, misleading conduct regarding 'specials' and undercutting producers and suppliers, with minimal consequences.</para>
<para>What makes it worse is that the ACCC isn't equipped with the power to respond. Indeed, as noted by former ACCC commissioner Allan Fels, the ACCC's powers to investigate overcharging by the major supermarket chains are limited unless requested by the government. Hence, it was welcome when the government announced last month that it would direct the commission to conduct an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector, including their pricing practices and the relationship between wholesale, farm-gate and retail pricing. This inquiry goes hand in hand with five separate inquiries into the sector. No wonder Woolworths announced just this morning a price drop on 400 items. That's after we appeared as pigs.</para>
<para>Also welcome—in fact, especially welcome—is the member for Kennedy's bill to reduce the market share of any supermarket to no more than 20 people cent via enforced and progressive divestiture over five years. I guess that might sound dramatic and unrealistic to some people, but I'm very happy to second the bill, our second go at it, because the reality is that it's way beyond time to stop fussing about and instead take a sledgehammer to the nut.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a poorly kept secret that I look forward to a call-up for the MPI. It is often a no-frills and no-holds-barred affair where we end up with government and opposition debating one of very few limited areas of discussion. It leaves very little to the imagination at times. They are more of a series than a feature film at times.</para>
<para>This is a little bit different from the norm, a description that can be used to describe the member for Kennedy—though I'm not sure if I'm relieved or somewhat disappointed to see the member now dressed substantially less eccentrically than he was earlier today, along with the member for Clark, from what I observed across a few media outlets. I can't blame him, nor them, for going the whole hog on this issue and I'm sure he was tickled pink with the coverage.</para>
<para>I must say that MPI debates can feel a little like rolling in the mud sometimes. However, when it comes to addressing abuses of market power within the food and grocery industry, I'm sure we all stand with the member for Kennedy and hope we can all bring home the bacon. It's an issue of great importance to myself and to my constituents of Spence. As recently as Monday of the previous sitting week, I was proud to have moved a motion in this place during private members' business that was, in broad terms, germane to the matter the member for Kennedy has raised here in this debate.</para>
<para>The impact of the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths in our food and grocery sector is one that transcends a singular cost-of-living issue. The sheer market power of these two companies—two companies that have a market share of 65 per cent of this multibillion-dollar market—affects everything caught in its orbit. As the member for Kennedy would be aware, the House Standing Committee on Agriculture tabled its inquiry report on food security titled <inline font-style="italic">Australian food story</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> feeding the nation and beyond</inline>. I know the member for Kennedy made a submission to the inquiry. On that note I am also pleased that my colleague the member for Paterson, who is the chair of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, has participated in this debate.</para>
<para>As part of this inquiry the impact of the supermarket duopoly on food security and our agriculture sector—our farmers—formed part of the committee's inquiry process. I could be said that many participants in the industry would still be too cautious to speak out despite the protections that are attached to the participation in a parliamentary inquiry. Despite what the member for Kennedy and others in the crossbench party room may believe, the Albanese Labor government is not a bystander in the fight against cost-of-living pressures—far from it.</para>
<para>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise the imbalance of power between Australia's supermarket giants and those that supply them and their consumers. The relationship between the supermarket giants and farmers has been described as being the price makers in this relationship. Many farmers feel as if they only have one legitimate choice in front of them if they are not to accept what Woolworths and Coles have set for them, and that is to leave the industry entirely. It is a sad reality to the number of businesses operating in the agriculture and horticultural industries—industries that employ roughly two per cent of my electorate's workforce. That may seem small by comparison to the size of the industry in Kennedy, which sits at 9.2 per cent, but I'm sure we can both agree that jobs in agriculture are precious as they are the ones that feed our nation. This has been a sad reality for many now former farmers, some whose families have worked the land for generations before them.</para>
<para>Australia's farmers of yesterday had to contend with a whole number of challenges in order to keep their farms and families going, but they could not have anticipated dealing with the likes of Coles and Woolworths existing as the two major customers of their produce, either directly or through a third party. =</para>
<para>This is not a uniquely Australian problem by any means, but the extent of the market concentration in the food and grocery market has Australia sitting above the US and the UK. The UK's market concentration has their big two only accounting for 42 per cent of the pie.</para>
<para>In closing, I've lived this experience. I watched my parents on our family farm back in the 90s really struggle with the ability to make ends meet. We were price takers, we weren't price setters, and I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to ensure that the profits being taken by the big two are shared more proportionately throughout the supply chain. That's not just our farmers. It's also our transport logistics teams, our front-of-house checkout teams and the whole supply chain within the food retail sector. I thank the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion is now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate on the Help to Buy legislation is governed by a resolution of the House which can be varied only on a resolution of the minister. I am conscious that the opposition, as they are entitled to, have been adding more speakers to the list, which means that we'll probably get to 5.30 pm without having a consideration in detail section. So the purpose of the resolution I'm about to move is simply to make sure the opposition can still have their speakers up to 5.30 pm—it's no reduction there—but after that there will be a consideration in detail stage that would go to 6.20 pm. So it's additional debating time, no reduction. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with paragraph (5) of the resolution agreed to by the House on 27 February 2024 relating to the consideration of the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the resolution be varied to insert a new sub-paragraph into paragraph (3), immediately following the existing sub-paragraph (a), which reads as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(aa) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with the bill being taken as a whole, and debate to continue until no later than 6.20 pm;"</para></quote>
<para>The effect of this for members will simply be that, if we run out of second reading speeches before 5.30 pm, we vote but that, if the number of speakers takes us all the way to 5.30 pm, we would have a second reading vote and then have a consideration in detail debate. That might finish before 6.20 pm, but, if it hasn't, we would then go through the remaining stages. At 6.30 pm, we should be well and truly through all the divisions.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Visit by the Join</inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Standing Committee on Treaties to India and Singapore 10</inline><inline font-style="italic"> to </inline><inline font-style="italic">16 December 2023</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—It was a privilege to lead the delegation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to India and Singapore in December last year and to have as a member of that delegation my good friend the member for Spence. Australian's engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, and certainly with those two nations, has grown substantially in recent years. They are relationships of great significance to Australia. Without doubt, a key theme of that growth has been the bilateral, regional and plurilateral treaties and agreements which Australia and Indo-Pacific nations have together forged.</para>
<para>The delegation's visit to India and Singapore allowed members of the committee to discuss and examine firsthand the impacts of the various treaties and agreements which are shaping our engagement and collaboration. Our visit was guided by special focus on several agreements which have recently entered into force, such as the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, the Australia-India Audiovisual Co-Production Agreement, the Australia-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement and the Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement.</para>
<para>In India, we visited Kolkata, where we met with a range of importers and retailers to discuss the benefits of the Australia-India economic cooperation agreement, including importers of Australian pulses, retailers selling a range of Australian products and the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. While businesses had clearly seen the benefits of tariff reductions which were front loaded under the agreement, it was clear that small and medium enterprises were not as aware of the benefits the agreement could create. There's nothing strange about that, and we note that awareness raising for this sector both in Australia and elsewhere should always be a priority.</para>
<para>During our time in Kolkata, we were able to visit members of the thriving Bengali film industry. Bengali is one of the largest language groups on the planet, and that industry is centred in the neighbourhood of Tollygunge and is known as Tollywood, as you might expect. We met with representatives of the local film industry, and we were able to see a surprisingly tram based tribute to Australian horror movies while taking part in discussions about how the 2023 Audiovisual Co-Production Agreement enables greater co-investment, creative collaboration and broader cultural exchange between our two countries.</para>
<para>Travelling to New Delhi, the delegation shifted focus to examine and discuss the significant tertiary education market opportunities that exist in India and the enormous potential growth in wine exports. As part of our time in Delhi, we very much valued meeting Mr Mahesh Jethmalani, a member of the Rajya Sabha—or upper house—of the Indian parliament. We were fortunate to attend the first official public address by Australia's High Commissioner, Mr Philip Green OAM, in which he spoke of maritime cooperation, two-way trade and investment in green energy transformation, as well as a range of focus areas for our burgeoning relationship with India.</para>
<para>Singapore and Australia have a deep and longstanding relationship which encompasses trade, education, arts, tourism, green energy, defence and security. Notably, last year marked 20 years since the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement entered into force. In that context it was very helpful to benefit from in-depth briefings with the High Commissioner, Allaster Cox, in relation to the next stages of Australia and Singapore's comprehensive partnership. The delegation also participated in a wide-ranging discussion with the Singapore ministry of trade on a range of economic and green energy measures, including ways to improve Singaporean investment into Australia. It was a special privilege for all of us to visit the Singaporean parliament and call on the Speaker of the Parliament, Mr Seah Kian Peng, who spoke warmly of the strong relationship between our countries. On one afternoon of heavy clouds, it was an honour for the delegation to attend, learn about and lay a wreath at Kranji War Cemetery, a sombre and beautiful place of commemoration for the Australian servicemen and women who lost their lives in the course of duty during World War II.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge the participation of my fellow delegation members, especially the member for Spence and also Senator Canavan from the other place. I thank them for their thoughtful, hardworking and collegiate participation in what was a packed and fast-moving program. We were provided with excellent support from DFAT, both in India and Singapore. In addition to High Commissioners Green and Cox, we appreciated the in-country assistance of Ms Rowan Ainsworth, the Consul-General in Kolkata; Mr Tom Overton-Smith in New Delhi; Mr Alistair Davis in Singapore; and Mr Ivan Caran from the Australian Federal Police. I also express our appreciation for the excellent planning and preparation undertaken by Renae Onitiri in the International Parliamentary Relations Office and, of course, the work of the JSCOT secretariat, especially our secretary, Pauline Cullen, who accompanied and supported the delegation. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7123" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7124" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. Many Australians dream of owning their own home; to establish themselves, put down roots and care for something that is theirs. A home provides security and stability; it's a place to raise kids and retire. Home ownership was once a reasonable aspiration, but today we are, sadly, seeing a different narrative play out. Families around Australia are hurting. Every day Bonner locals contact my office seeking assistance to combat the increasing cost-of-living pressures. Australians need relief. Unfortunately, in the midst of a housing crisis, the underwhelming Help to Buy scheme is too little too late.</para>
<para>Last week I hosted a mobile office at Carindale shopping centre. Locals shared with me the housing market situation and their financial security, that was causing disappointment and fear. One resident, a grandmother, said that she doubts that her grandchildren will ever be able to own their own home when everyone is struggling to pay for groceries.</para>
<para>As I continue to fight for financial literacy to be included in the national curriculum, I have spoken to many students, mums and dads about home ownership. Throughout Bonner, there is a resounding disappointment coming from residents who cannot foresee themselves owning a home. While 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home, younger Australians are beginning to lose any hope of actually purchasing their own home. A local university student told me that, as a young person, buying a home is just so far away. He said that home ownership is more of a pipedream.</para>
<para>Buying your first home is about accomplishment, responsibility and reward. Help to Buy is a small, niche program open to only 10,000 households each financial year, and it will cost the Commonwealth a disappointing $5.5 billion. Given that there are over 16,000 rental households in Bonner alone, this program does not serve the many more Aussies who want to buy.</para>
<para>Under the scheme, owners will be responsible for all the repairs and all the maintenance on their hard-earned new home. However, when it comes time to sell, the government will be able to take 40 per cent of profits. That's after years of appreciation on the property when you sell it. Furthermore, help-to-buy schemes already exist in many states. However, they are so unwanted by Aussies that there are still places remaining in many of the state based schemes. For example, New South Wales' shared-equity scheme is so unwanted that 94 per cent of its places are still available. Disappointingly, a similar scheme in the UK was found to inflate prices by more than its subsidy value in areas where it was needed the most.</para>
<para>We need policies that empower Australians to own their own home. We need policies that ensure families keep their hard-earned profits in their pockets and reward those who take the initiative. When elected, the Labor government promised that this policy would be in place by 1 January 2023. After waiting over 20 months for this legislation, we are only just having this policy put through the House. This policy is just one of the many examples of a broken promise where Australians are being left behind.</para>
<para>The only housing policies delivering support to first home buyers are the housing policies that Labor inherited from the former coalition government. Under the coalition, first home owners reached their highest levels in almost 15 years. It has been great to see that, over the last three years, the coalition housing policies have supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. Our home guarantee schemes have assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families to get into a home of their own with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Our HomeBuilder scheme protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications generating $120 billion of economic activity. Our First Home Super Saver Scheme delivered relief on the deposit hurdle by increasing the release amount to $50,000 from $30,000. This means the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they saved in a standard saving account. The message from Bonner locals is clear: they want to own their own homes. To quote a Rochedale resident who I spoke with before Christmas, 'This proposal is nothing to write home about!'</para>
<para>We need a government who will empower Aussies to confidently enter the housing market. The scheme is too little, too niche and too underwhelming. Those who want to buy a home want to own it themselves; they don't want the government owning a portion. We need to be empowering and supporting Australians as they aspire to accomplish homeownership, to reap the full reward and satisfaction of their hard work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this cognate debate concerning the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the bills that give the government a share in your home! This announcement was made during the 2022 election campaign. I remember, at the time, it sounded a bit nutty to me—so nutty I thought we might never actually see it in this place. But, almost two full years later, here it is—sort of. When he announced it, the Prime Minister promised it would start on 1 January 2023. That was 14 months ago. If we are lucky, maybe someone will co-own a home with Albo by the start of 2025.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Flinders, you do need to use correct titles when referring to members of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If we are lucky, maybe somebody will co-own a home with the government by the start of 2025. Until then, it will fall into the cupboard of all the Prime Minister's deferred and displaced election promises—for example, that energy bills will go down by $275, which I think we got promised 97 times, or that they will implement stage 3 tax cuts in full, which we got promised about 100 times. But, then again, if I must think a bit more about promises closer to home, there was also that promise to build Baxter Rail. I can't help but read that one out, because, with the Dunkley by-election on Saturday, where our wonderful candidate, Nathan Conroy, will seek the trust and support of the people of Dunkley, voters should remember that the Prime Minister has some form when it comes to breaking promises in our region. On 31 July 2018, the press release said Labor will deliver the Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Shorten Labor Government will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter Rail Upgrade, building on the significant investment the Andrews Labor Government has made in Frankston infrastructure.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Giles, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Giles</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is if the member could speak to the bills which are before the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Federal Labor is an advocate of the electrification and duplication of the Stony Point line to Baxter to improve train services for commuters across Dunkley and on the Mornington Peninsula.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are stretching the relevance, from what I hear. You do need to get quickly back to the Help to Buy bill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will. The press release also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Federal Labor Government will electrify and duplicate the track to Baxter, giving commuters better access to high quality public transport and park-and-ride options</para></quote>
<para>The press release goes on for a few more paragraphs, making wonderful promises to do better for the people of my region, to make good on a promise that was actually made by the wonderful dear friend to many of us in this place, the former member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, who concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Only a Federal Labor Government will make sure that the extension of the line to Baxter, benefiting residents in Frankston and the Peninsula, becomes a reality.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, the Albanese Labor government cancelled that rail project in their 90-day, revised to a 200-day, review of infrastructure last year, together with the much sought after overpass, a jetty road in Rosebud. So it should be no surprise that when you look at the detail of this particular bill that you find a bit of the old bait-and-switch built into the offer.</para>
<para>Firstly, only 10,000 households can be helped each year. It is limited to people who earn less than $90,000 a year or $120,000 for a couple, even though we know people need to earn infinitely more than that just to buy an entry-level home or apartment in my electorate. It is limited in terms of purchase price, for example, to $850,000 in metro Melbourne and $550,000 for the rest of the state of Victoria. And to ensure its availability, states actually need to opt in, even though we already know similar schemes in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are undersubscribed at the moment. So why would those states opt in unless attempting to simply cost shift while benefiting no new prospective homebuyers? More detail will come in time about the program direction, so we don't quite know yet whether the Commonwealth will cap its contribution, nor how they might treat, for example, the value of any improvements that other homeowners may make to the property.</para>
<para>But most important to me in this bill is that I can reasonably deduce that it will help precisely nobody in my electorate of Flinders. Why? In a nutshell, the median price of a home in my electorate today is $1.13 million and as we saw on the front page of <inline font-style="italic">The Age</inline> today, you need to earn $220,000 a year to be able to afford such a home—that is, I should point out, a 40 per cent rise on just four years ago. So what you need to earn to afford a house in my electorate of Flinders is quite daunting. For example, if you want a house in Bittern, the average price there is $861,000 and the income you require just to be in the game is $170,000. A house in Capel Sound for $734,000 to buy requires income of $144,000. In Crib Point, a house will cost you in the order of $770,000 and require an income of $151,000. In Hastings, a house will be around $700,000 and require you to earn around $140,000; Pearcedale, almost $1 million, $915,000, requiring an income of about $180,000 a year. And in Somerville, where my electorate office is, a house will set you back about $810,000, needing an income of almost $160,000.</para>
<para>It shouldn't be lost on anyone listening from my electorate at this time that these are exactly the people who were recently punished by the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. I listened to some of the government speeches on this bill yesterday in this chamber and I was floored to hear some of them mention the magical word 'aspiration'. Perhaps it was only to distinguish themselves from the next-level lecturing from the Australian Greens and their utter disdain for those who work hard and invest in property and, in doing so, create homes in the form of rental properties for others. But it is fair to say that talk of aspiration sits uncomfortably in the mouths of those sitting opposite after they abolished the most meaningful reform to personal income tax that has been attempted in the last decade, one which should have addressed racket creep and would not have cost Australian an additional $28 billion more in income tax over the next decade—that is, $28 billion more over the next decade.</para>
<para>It is perhaps no surprise then that the economic hero of the modern Labor Party, the man whose politics are the stuff of which today's Treasurer's doctorate is made, Paul Keating, in a marvellous and long interview with Michael Stutchbury, reflecting on his 80 years of life, was described as commenting as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While seeking to keep out of current tax policy controversies, he says the top personal income tax should be no higher than 39 per cent, compared with the current 45 per cent rate (plus the 2 per cent Medicare levy).</para></quote>
<para>And he quotes the mighty PJK:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"There's an issue that all societies should have of how much a person's conscientious efforts and wealth should be delivered to the state," he says.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Once you start getting the top rate over, in my opinion, 39 [per cent], it becomes confiscatory and when they become confiscatory you just lose all that impetus to make a dollar and do clever things."</para></quote>
<para>That's nicely said.</para>
<para>We know he's not the only one who gets it. Some clever work done by Sky News political editor, Andrew Clennell, dug up the old Kevin Rudd plan for tax reform, one which you might say can be classed in the category of aspiration of which those opposite were speaking yesterday. Andrew Clennell reminded us in the first week of February that, upon a time, the Rudd government aspired to install a new tax system, by 2013-14, in which there would only be three tax brackets. The 45c rate would drop to 40c, and the 40c rate would drop to 37c, on its way to 30c. Well, my, how the Labor Party has lost its way. Now it punishes those who earn more than $130,000—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Flinders will pause. The minister has the call on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Collins</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I bring the member back to the bill. She seems to be straying far from the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask that the member for Flinders remain relevant to the context of the bill at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Now the modern Labor Party punishes those who earn over $130,000, even though you need to earn $100,000 more than that to be able to buy a house in my electorate. They plan to punish those who want to buy a ute—the most popular cars in my electorate being the HiLux, Ranger and RAV4. They want to punish our industries. They even, I read in the paper this morning, want to punish recyclers with a new recycling tax—the first in the world, apparently—that charges those who want to recycle for sending waste overseas to be processed because it can't be processed here.</para>
<para>This Help to Buy scheme, like so many others, promises a myth, a hope, a dream in which the fine detail actually destroys and which, like so many other Labor white elephants we have seen legislated in this place, will miss its target and fail to fulfill the dreams of young and old would-be homeowners alike. This bill and the associated bills will drive up the cost of cheaper homes—that is, if you can find a house under $950,000 in Sydney or $650,000 in Brisbane. The competition at that level will be that much fiercer because the lucky few who will fit into the odd angles of this scheme and its rules will believe that they have a 30 to 40 per cent head start on all the others who do not.</para>
<para>It will also in time drive chaos in the real estate market. What happens when you sell the property? Does the government get the 30 or 40 per cent from the time the property was bought, or does it get the appreciated or even depreciated value? What happens if you've lived in the house for a while, things got really tough, you had to rent it out to make ends meet or to accommodate a growing family, or you move back in with mum and dad for a while or rent something larger on the outskirts of town? Does the government chip in on the capital gains tax when it's charged at the end? I doubt it. As with so much ALP policy in this place, it's too little too late. Its promise will in no way match up with the reality that it delivers.</para>
<para>We know that cost-of-living pressures are crushing Australian families and workers whilst the government is busy patting itself on the back for a 0.1 per cent real wage increase, even though those in small to medium businesses, which are the backbone of this country's economy, are seeing next to nothing of that. We have higher inflation than any major advanced economy, making it virtually impossible to get into the real estate market.</para>
<para>We've also seen food prices go up by nine per cent, electricity prices go up by 20 per cent and gas prices go up by 27 per cent. There have been 12 interest rate hikes, with the highest interest rates and rent rises in over a decade. Today, the average mortgage costs some $25,000 more than it did under the coalition. For most local families, rising costs and interest rates will dwarf anything that they might get from the government's tax cuts in July. While they're struggling to make ends meet, they will find that schemes like these will offer them nothing.</para>
<para>We do know how to address home affordability in this country, and the answer is supply. Rather than dress up harebrained and ineffectual schemes which give the government the back bedroom in your home, this government should be on the phone to the states and territories incentivising the release of land. It should be working with the building and construction industry rather than smashing them with draconian and out-of-date IR laws that will swamp them in red tape, lock them up for inadvertent missteps and give unions free rein over their worksites.</para>
<para>Above all, this government needs to stop making promises it cannot keep. This week, the Housing Industry Association confirmed that Labor's plan to build new homes will fall at least 200,000 homes short of its promise of 1.2 million new homes. At the same time, rents have increased by some 26 per cent, new home approvals remain at their lowest levels in a decade and lending for new homes is at a 20-year low. All the while, Labor plans to bring 1.6 million people to our shores in the next five years. I certainly hope that, when the good dwellers of Dunkley head to the polling booths on Saturday, they remember that you can't trust the Australian Labor Party with your home.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's good to contribute to this important debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. It's unfortunate that the debate on this bill has been delayed for so long. It was back on 1 May 2022 that the Prime Minister made what was billed at the time as a very important announcement about the so-called Help to Buy scheme. The scheme was going to come in in early 2023, and it was going to be a wonderful scheme. But what we actually find is that we're here in February 2024 and it is only now that the government is bringing on this debate on the bill. If it's such a crucial issue and such a centrepiece of the government's proposal, why has it taken so long for this bill to come forward?</para>
<para>It really goes to a general question of competence. Really, there's nothing more important than competence. If this is such a crucial matter as the Prime Minister said, why has it taken the minister so long? It's good that the minister's here to participate in the debate, but it's a very slow-moving area of policy under this government. We see lots of, frankly, very shallow headlines about housing and housing accords and all the things that the government is going to do in relation to housing, but what actually happens? The answer is: basically nothing. Virtually no homes have been built or contributed to by this government, and we see this extraordinary delay and drift.</para>
<para>I think it's really quite characteristic of the general delay and drift that we're seeing under this government. Of course, in 2023 so much of the government's energy was absorbed in the Voice debate, with the very substantial expense of more than $400 million that went into that Voice debate and a lot of distraction, unfortunately. What that meant was that on issues like housing policy, which I think we'd all acknowledge are very important—it's a very important issue in my electorate and right around the country—basically nothing has happened.</para>
<para>If the government can point to tangible things that have actually happened as opposed to broad, generic statements, press releases or self-congratulatory talking points, that is fine. But that's not the case. In recent times, we've heard the Premier of New South Wales say that the government's housing targets certainly won't be achieved in the largest state, or even get close to being achieved. We've seen that the government has made an announcement about how many homes it's going to build, which will require the states to do a lot of the heavy lifting, without the states making the same commitment. It's really a bit of a debacle, because so little is actually happening. I would really welcome the government pointing to something and saying, 'This has actually happened in housing policy,' because so little—virtually nothing, in fact—has happened. It is an indictment on this government.</para>
<para>An honourable member: They had a lot of roundtables.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a government that never saw a roundtable that it didn't like. They love roundtables, consultative processes and forums, but what about Australians who are struggling to get into the housing market? That's a lot of Australians. This is a really important area, and it requires a seriousness of purpose that we're just not seeing. We saw such an extraordinary lost opportunity through 2023, with so much time lost by this government.</para>
<para>The specifics of this scheme are very troubling. The first important point is that, even on the government's own calculations, this scheme would only be open to 10,000 households per year and would cost $5½ billion. That's a very substantial cost, and a very, very small number of people would benefit. Of course, that 10,000 is the number in the press release. What we know of this document is that, if they say a number, you're going to want to apply a discount to that number. It's probably not going to happen.</para>
<para>Of course, the most infamous example of that is the Prime Minister's statement some 97 times before the election that the cost of electricity would decline for the average family. That the cost of electricity would decline by some $275 is an important issue—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Collins</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would draw your attention to the fact that he strayed from the content of the bill.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Banks has until just now stuck to the content of the bill. I'd like to encourage him to continue to address the bill at hand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important to place the bill in the context of the government that puts it forward. Of course, no piece of legislation lives in isolation. This is legislation put forward by a government that promised on 97 occasions to reduce the price of electricity by $275, and that's very relevant, because it goes to competence, trustworthiness and integrity. That's very important for the parliament when considering legislation like this, because we know that, on 97 occasions before the election, the Prime Minister talked about electricity prices going down by $275, but after the election it's a lot less than that. It's not $92, $87 or $75; it's not even $12. It is $0, and it's remarkable that that one date of the election could have such a dramatic impact on the Prime Minister's willingness to talk about something. It's very interesting. It goes very much to integrity and competence, and it's reflected in the extraordinary drift and lack of action in this entire policy area under the government.</para>
<para>A small number of people would benefit, based on the government's own press release. It's very difficult for the government to argue that this will make a substantial difference, and the government isn't even actually saying that, to be frank. We know that what Australians aspire to is owning their own home. This is about Australians having a share in a home alongside Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, sitting there with them. Let's be frank: that is not what Australians aspire to. Australians don't aspire to sitting around the kitchen table discussing their finances with the Prime Minister as a co-investor in the home.</para>
<para>On the issue of competence, there are so many unanswered questions about this bill. Again, it's great that the minister is here, because I'd invite her to analytically go through these questions. It may be that the minister has the answers but for whatever reason hasn't provided them to the Australian people. I'd encourage the minister to address these questions if she is going to speak on the bill. What is the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home under this scheme? Will you have to send the government an invoice? Does the government participate in the cost of that renovation, or do you pay 100 per cent? It's a very reasonable question, because that will arise every day of the week. What happens if your income goes above the eligibility rate of $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? What will the government do in that case? Will the government force the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure that people don't go over those thresholds? One of the few things that the government has specified in relation to this legislation is the eligibility threshold: $90,000 for individuals and $120,000 for couples. What happens if you go over that? Again, I invite the minister to clearly articulate the answers to these questions—they are the sorts of very reasonable questions that Australians are asking.</para>
<para>What are the reporting obligations once somebody enters into one of these shared equity obligations? What happens if you're in this relationship with the government as a co-owner in your home and you fall behind on your mortgage payments? Unfortunately, that happens. There are a lot of people feeling the pressure of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and unfortunately some people are falling behind on their mortgage payments. That does happen; that's a fact of life. What happens in this scenario? Does the government force you to sell your home if you get behind in your mortgage payments or does the government step in and contribute more to help ensure that you and the collective group that own this home don't fall behind? It's not clear at all from the legislation. Again, it may be information that's available. It may be that the minister knows the answer to these questions—perhaps not; I don't know. But, if the minister does know the answer, I would very much encourage her to share that answer with the Australian people. As a society, how would people know whether they would want to participate in this system if they don't know the answers to these most fundamental questions?</para>
<para>How many of the places will be in each state and territory? Who will be participating in the scheme, because obviously you need lenders to lend the money in the first place? There are a lot of questions here. We've got a lot of delay, we've got a flimsy piece of legislation that doesn't say a lot, and we've got a long list of very reasonable questions which are entirely unanswered. That's not a good state of affairs.</para>
<para>We are seeing that so much from this government. We're seeing it in relation to the cost-of-living issues, where the average household is so much worse off than is was in May 2022—because, realistically, who in Australia would say that they are better off than when the Albanese government was elected? I don't think very many people would. Yet the Prime Minister said before the election—I think in relation to this very piece of legislation—that mortgages would be cheaper. Actually, interest rates have gone up on 12 occasions. He said, some 97 times, that electricity prices would be $275 less for a family. That hasn't happened, and he said a whole range of other things that haven't turned out to be true.</para>
<para>It is very difficult to have confidence in this legislation when you contrast it with the performance of the coalition government in this most important area of housing policies, where some 60,000 first home buyers were supported by the coalition through the Home Guarantee Scheme, the home loan deposit scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. These were really important policies that helped so many people into homes. And the crucial HomeBuilder program, during the depths of COVID, assisted when the building industry was in the gravest of situations. The coalition government developed the HomeBuilder policy, under which some 137,000 applications were made, generating $120 billion of economic activity. It was a hugely important piece of policy by the now shadow minister for housing, demonstrating his depth of expertise in this area. And it worked—it actually happened and it worked. What have we got from this government in housing policy? We've got round tables, consultation committees and press releases, but we don't have any substance, and ultimately what matters is substance.</para>
<para>Again, I invite the minister to address those very reasonable questions about how this policy will work. If the minister says that this is a substantive policy then address the questions. What happens if you make improvements to your home? How do the economics of that work, Minister? Will the government invest in home improvements, or will it only be the homeowner? How does that change the relativity of who owns what percentage of the home? What happens if you start to earn over and above the thresholds? Will the government audit you, and will you become ineligible? These are very, very sensible questions and if the government's answer is, 'Well, we're not going to talk about that,' how can Australians have confidence? These are very simple questions and they're the questions that Australians are asking. It's concerning that we see so much time has passed in this area and we then have a bill which comes forward which is very thin in nature, and it doesn't address these very sensible questions.</para>
<para>In that situation, how can this parliament support such a bill? It is reflective of an entirely failed policy area—housing—by the Albanese government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before World War II, homeownership in urban areas across Australia was at only 35 per cent—only 35 per cent! After World War II, there was a very big political battle, where the lines dividing the left and the right of Australian politics came to the fore around the issue of how to deal with a shortage of houses in Australia.</para>
<para>Since that very time, this issue has been a defining one between the coalition—the Liberals and Nationals—and Labor and the Greens. It goes to a difference in values and vision. The values from the left reflect a belief in big government—that government knows best; it's all about the big state and big government. The belief from those on the right is that it's about the individual—it's about the individual Australian. It's a vision for the future from the left—from Labor and the Greens—of a powerful central government that can control people's lives, a government that can be involved in everything you do. The vision of the nation from the coalition is where we unleash the potential of the individual and we back aspiration.</para>
<para>Robert Menzies spoke about this. Robert Menzies was the one who turned what was then a criticism from Labor about so-called 'little capitalists' around and said: 'I want to see little capitalists. I want to see Australians own their homes.' By 1966, that figure of homeownership in urban areas of Australia was no longer 35 per cent, it was 72 per cent. It went from 35 to 72 per cent because the values and the vision of Robert Menzies said that homeownership and aspiration are what counts. He talked about the importance of the home, that natural instinct of family, and that homeownership is an outward expression of self reliance and independence. But here we are today in 2024 with the same differences in values and vision defining the Albanese government and the Dutton led coalition.</para>
<para>In only our last term as a coalition government we delivered against our values. What we saw was a track record of homeownership. Over the last three years of the coalition government, we saw housing policies that supported more than 300,000 Australians to purchase a home. It is a track record, dare I say, that Robert Menzies would've been proud of and a recognition that Australians deserve to have their aspirations delivered upon. That is why the coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers. I've met some of those buyers, and they talk about the pride of getting a home when they found it so difficult to do so.</para>
<para>The speed at which the then minister was able to implement that scheme was quite extraordinary, and it differed enormously from the slow process of the Albanese government. Seriously—they promised that this scheme, which we debate today, was going to be introduced on 1 January last year. That's 2023. It's now 2024, and we're still debating it. You'd think that everybody out there has a home. Don't worry about it. We are in the midst of not just a cost-of-living crisis but a housing crisis in this country. Every single candidate of the Labor Party went to the last election looking Australians in the eye and guaranteeing them that this scheme would be up and running because they had the answers. But here we have a long delay, and we talk about it now.</para>
<para>Of course, when it comes to Labor's shared-equity scheme, as they have presented it, I ask you this question: do Australians want that level of government ownership in their homes? When you go home after a long day at work and you go to your fridge, you might get out a little drink. Maybe you sit down with your partner and play with the kids. Do you really want the Prime Minister sitting there at the kitchen bench? Do you want to know that, even though he may not be there in person, he owns so much of your place? What happens when, with your own hard effort and money, you pay for an upgrade of your property? You put in that new kitchen after sweating for months to earn enough cash to pay for a refurbishment. When you go to sell that house, which you can sell for a higher price, there the Prime Minister sits with his hand out saying: 'Cough it up. Give us some of that additional equity that you as the homeowner earnt.' How's that going to be reconciled? Why on earth does the Labor Party truly believe that the everyday Australian wants the Prime Minister owning so much of their own home? It is a disincentive to their aspiration and a disincentive for them to continue to invest.</para>
<para>There are questions that this minister continues to refuse to answer. It's become the modus operandi for this government to give one-page policies and have no idea how to answer some simple questions. What are the criteria to be eligible? They cannot answer that question. Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure they don't earn a cent over the required threshold? If you enter into one of these shared-equity arrangements, what are your reporting obligations? The government hasn't thought about that. What happens if housing prices fall, and you are behind on your mortgage payments? Will the government force you out of your house? Will you have to sell it for less than what you had paid for it? These are not minor footnotes of a contract. These go to the certainty a family have when they want to buy a home. If you do not know whether or not the government's going to take a piece of the action should the value of your home increase, how is this scheme good for you? If you do not know if you are going to be forced to sell your home if you fall back on payments, how is that good for you?</para>
<para>If the government had done its homework, it would have recognised that today, in a hyperinflationary environment, this is not the sort of scheme that is going to improve life for everyday Australians struggling to meet the cost of living. If only they had looked at a similar scheme in the United Kingdom they would have realised that that scheme inflated prices. Prices went up. At a time when those searching for a home are needing to see prices come down, this government fails to learn the lessons from our peer nations, lessons that would have told them that this scheme will only drive prices higher.</para>
<para>Clearly, too, the government has not learned from within Australia, from those jurisdictions that already offer a shared-equity scheme, jurisdictions that have seen the take-up of such schemes fall short of targets. Why? Because the scheme itself is so questionable. There are too many details here that put a big question mark over their so-called Help to Buy Bill. This is really just another big government bill. This is a government that refuses to acknowledge the importance of Middle Australians at a time when they are doing it tough. They are a government that went to the election and assured Australians life would be better under them and no Australian would be left behind.</para>
<para>Their promises across multiple portfolios have been broken. Australians are now paying mortgages well over $20,000 a year more than what they did before Labor got to government. Labor looked Australians in the eye and promised them cheaper electricity prices, with a $275 reduction in household power bills. In some parts of Australia, power bills have already gone up by $1,000. But the government assures Australians it knows best. If you can consolidate more power in Canberra, government will tell you what to do.</para>
<para>That is why they have introduced this new family car tax. They want to tell Australians what cars they need to buy. You will see some models increase prices by up to $25,000. 'But wait; there's more,' says the government. It says, 'We are now going to legislate to have a Help to Buy scheme, a shared-equity scheme, where government will take an inordinate degree of equity in your own home.' It comes back to the core values of the Labor Party versus the Liberal Party, the Left versus the Right. There has been no instance since this Albanese government has come to power where the government has sought to empower the individual, the family, the community or the small business. But anything big, whether it be the very big corporates, the big unions or big government, this Labor Party will back in. Time and time again—and we see it through this proposed legislation—Labor is blocking the aspiration of everyday Australians who want to get ahead.</para>
<para>It was only a few weeks ago that I had my last road trip around my own electorate of Fairfax, and I spoke to a young couple, both of whom were working full-time, rarely finding time to get together because they were working so hard to buy a property. When I put to them the general thrust of what Labor's proposing today, they initially got excited, until they realised that it might end up with the government owning such a large part of their home. The male in that relationship is a builder, and they intend to upgrade whatever property they buy. If they were to be recipients of the scheme put forward and they did upgrade such a home, who would be the recipient of the additional equity created in that property? Would it just be them, or would it also be government? It would also be government. This goes to the core values and visions of the two governing parties of this country, and this bill should be opposed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is definitely a bill that impassions the spirits of both sides of the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have heard from speaker after speaker in this place from the coalition about our enthusiasm for Australians to own their own homes. It is in our DNA. It is etched in the genesis of our political party, through Sir Robert Menzies himself. You've heard that time and time again from different speakers who have prosecuted their contributions here today.</para>
<para>So, rather than continue along the lines of previous speakers, I thought I would take a slightly different tack with this debate and talk about my own personal experience with entering the housing market. Then I want to talk, through the prism of Queensland, about some of the issues that we have up there and contrast the policies that we have as a coalition with those of the government. I will reiterate through this speech how our policies when we were in government helped no fewer than 300,000 homeowners into the market.</para>
<para>During this speech, I will touch on the fact that the Help to Buy policy, which we're debating now, is contingent on states approving and adopting a similar model in their own jurisdictions. This legislation is not autonomous throughout the country. It needs other legislative instruments to attach itself to, and that becomes problematic because, as you've heard from previous speakers, those legislative instruments that may be in different states are underutilised, so, if there are spaces available for participants and states to take up, they're not adopting them. They're not flavoursome. It is the equivalent of thinking that the way we're going to get record sales in a car yard is to promote the ugliest and most unroadworthy vehicle in the fleet and that that's somehow going to turn our sales fortunes around. This is what this speaks to.</para>
<para>My wife and I bought our first home in a small town called Blackwater in Central Queensland. It's not a big town, but do you know what? It's what we could afford. I think I was 22 or something when we bought it, and we paid $55,000 for it. It was a high-set three-bedroom HardiePlank, brick based, with a two-car double lock-up tilter garage door. It backed onto the golf course. It had polished floors, a basic kitchen and an internal stairwell. There was a rumpus room downstairs. It was a reasonable home. At that point in time, I had trouble raising the deposit for a $55,000 home.</para>
<para>As I continue on this story, I don't want people to take away from this that I'm saying the secret to homeownership is to head to the regional areas, but I do want to shine a light on those regional areas that would embrace families and that the median house prices in regional areas are often much lower than they are in our capital city CBDs, when you do your analysis. It's not as if you're asking Blackwater people to go and live in a community where the median wage is low. This is a mining town. There are three to four coal mines owned by multinationals and private companies in which the median wage is north of $150,000 for the entire township. When you've got two revenues coming into a house, a double-income household, you can save.</para>
<para>Before I came in to deliver this speech, I went on realestate.com.au and had a quick look at what price you could buy house in Blackwater for these days. For houses with a similar description to the house that I bought, you can still pick one up for $220,000, which would be the median. Some are higher, up to $300,000, but they're not overly expensive. Homeownership is within the grasp of people, but the equation of getting there has become—and the expectations. It's spoken about in RSLs and with Rotary and Lions community groups in my electorate, who say to me: 'The expectations on the next generations are much greater than what we had when we first bought our home. Our first home may not have had a concrete driveway, may not have had curtains and certainly may not have had carpets in it.' But the homes today, when we calculate the median home price, are often based on the assumption that they have four bedrooms, two bathrooms and double car lock-up, and are lowset brick, fully fenced, turfed and air-conditioned with every possible extra that generations before may have taken some time to get to.</para>
<para>In Queensland, we have a situation where we need 48,000 houses built a year. Currently the market is at full noise reaching 34,000. So we're 14,000 houses short at the moment, and what this debate on the Help to Buy bill allows us to do is address the demand and supply push. We'll be opposing this, and all the speakers on the coalition have made that point abundantly clear. We'll be opposing this bill because we just can't work out how it addresses the supply side of the argument. When I talk to builders, the ones that haven't gone broke recently—and Madam Speaker, as you would well know, if you turn the television on and watch the news cycle, it's with awkward regularity that we're seeing building companies collapse, under this government. It is with awkward regularity that we're seeing local builders go broke, under this government. It's just shameful that we're seeing this spike in builders leaving the industry since Labor came to power.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Going broke.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Going broke—as the member for Fisher would well know, being a former builder and a barrister in the industry. He knows only too well. But the point I was going to make about the supply side is that, when I talk to builders and developers, the first thing they talk to me about is the extraordinary costs that have increased over the years, sometimes three hundredfold, when it comes to developing land so that construction can happen on it. Construction costs as a result of Labor's inflation since they came to office have had unmitigable consequences in the building sector, particularly in situations where people sign up to contracts. Prices shift, the builder's locked into it and they go broke because there's no way they can deliver the product at the price that was agreed to. The landowner often loses their deposit. There are no winners in that situation.</para>
<para>As I said in my opening comments, I want to acknowledge what we have done and what the member for Deakin, the former minister, who choreographed some of the most amazing policies, has done, which is stick no less than 300,000 people into homes with the policies that he and our government helped choreograph. The coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the First Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, with deposits of as little as two per cent and five per cent. Those are real savings that help people get into homes. By all accounts, the Home Guarantee Scheme is now supporting one in three homebuyers in this country. The coalition needs to be acknowledged for that legacy that has been left behind. It's an amazing product.</para>
<para>We protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications that generated no less than $120 billion worth of economic activity. We provided $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. We unlocked just on 7,000 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, making housing supply more responsive to demand. We established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through their super. That was a great product as well.</para>
<para>Since 1 January 2020 the Home Guarantee Scheme, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, has assisted almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families get into their homes with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent. It was a 2019 election commitment that was delivered. Fifty-two per cent of the 60,000 guarantees have been taken up by women, which is great news. It's well above the market average, which was 41 per cent of women entering into homeownership. We provided an environment where, under that scheme, it was 52 per cent. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers—people who work on our front lines. Thirty-five per cent of them were nurses and 34 per cent were teachers. Eighty-five per cent of Family Home Guarantees were used by single mums. Our policies worked.</para>
<para>The First Home Super Saver Scheme addressed the deposit hurdles. It's the most challenging aspect of getting onto the property ladder, which is why first home buyers can accelerate their deposit savings through super with an increased release of up to $50,000, up from $30,000. This means that the average couple would be $20,838 better off under the coalition's First Home Super Saver Scheme than if they used a standard savings account. There are a number of different programs that we implemented that have had a profound difference.</para>
<para>Often you will hear people make comments that they can't tell the difference between the policies of Labor or the Greens or the coalition and that they're all the same. Can I point them to no less than this particular piece of legislation? There could not be a more stark contrast in our political DNA and in our political footprints. When you have a look at the Greens, particularly in Brisbane, there's not a building application in that area that they will not oppose. They walk into this place and they'll fight for projects like this, but quietly, in their electorates, they'll be running their social media campaigns opposing developments and opposing low-cost affordable housing in their electorates. It's absolute NIMBYism—nothing in my backyard. 'We don't want extra people putting pressure on our services and infrastructure.' It's a disgrace.</para>
<para>We commend Labor for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. You need to commend them for having a crack, but I just can't see how this legislation, without having those legislative instruments in the states, will have the bite that it's supposed to.</para>
<para>Our policies worked. Our policies are proven. Our policies have got no less than 300,000 homeowners into the Australian dream, and it's only our side in government, with prudent management, with proven leaders sitting in this chamber at the moment, that will lead our country to higher homeownership. Those on the other side of this chamber talk the talk, but I can guarantee you they can't walk the walk.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great privilege to talk on this bill, the Help to Buy Bill 2023, with the minister present and the shadow minister present as well. I think the minister and the shadow minister might disagree about a lot of things, but I'm sure the one thing they do agree on is this, and I certainly understand that. They have a big job because housing affordability is a massive issue in our country, as is rental affordability.</para>
<para>Just in my own family, actually, my eldest daughter couldn't afford the rent on her place, so she had to move back home. I was very happy about it, so was my wife, but I don't think my daughter was as happy. The point is she had to move back in with us, and we're delighted that she's there, but she moved back in simply because she couldn't afford the rent where she was. My son moved to Sydney and is furiously saving to try and save enough money for a deposit. It's almost like he can't catch up because the prices keep going up and up. It is a massive issue. I know the minister understands that and I know the shadow minister understands that.</para>
<para>I won't go into some of the failings of the particular model that Labor have proposed. That's been done very articulately by other speakers on this side. I'll just mention that I think the number of households and people that this will help is quite minuscule, and, obviously, the money's quite huge for the number of houses and the number of people that it will potentially or maybe help. So I think it's poorly designed.</para>
<para>But I want to focus a little bit more on supply. The previous speaker, the member for Wright, touched on it as well. For the Commonwealth government, this issue, with all due respect to the government, has got a lot worse in the last couple of years. This issue is all about supply. Housing affordability is getting worse and rental affordability is getting worse because we simply do not have enough of a supply of homes in this country, and that's the issue. We just need more supply on the market. I don't think that this particular bill or policy helps increase supply anyway, so that's not necessarily going to help many people either.</para>
<para>To flick it a bit, to absolve both sides of the chamber on this issue, supply often is in the hands of local government, and I encourage the minister to work at both the state government level and the local government level and put conditions on them to actually force councils, whether it be by tying it to grants or whatever, to increase supply—especially given that we have 1.5 million people arriving in this country over the next few years. This policy isn't going to get anywhere close to helping with that.</para>
<para>I'll give you one example. I have a housing development proposal in my electorate called the North Lismore Plateau. Do you know how many years that's been on the books? Have a guess, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou. How many years do you think the North Lismore Plateau has been on the books of the local government authority? Twenty-five. I don't think you were thinking it was 25, Deputy Speaker. You didn't speak out loud, but I reckon you were thinking it was less than 25 years. How can you sit on a housing proposal for 3,000 or 4,000 homes for families for 25 years? It's now going through some state government process; people are appealing it; people don't want it. I'll make an aspersion on the Greens here: most of the people who come to me to talk about the lack of housing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 February and amended earlier today, the debate is interrupted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:34] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>85</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>55</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 24, page 16 (line 14), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 24, page 16 (lines 17 to 19), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 24, page 16 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, section 42 of that Act (about disallowance) applies in relation to a direction given under subsection (1) of this section.</para></quote>
<para>Prior to the last election the Parliamentary Budget Office reviewed the Help to Buy policy. It estimated the scheme would involve equity contributions from the taxpayer of up to $22 billion over the medium term. While I support the intent of the scheme, I'm deeply uncomfortable providing any minister with this amount of public money with so little in the way of oversight and accountability.</para>
<para>If you look at the Help to Buy Bill 2023 you will not find any rules about who is eligible for the scheme, the number or value of the mortgages it will underwrite or how different jurisdictions will be treated. None of this is contained in the bill. Instead it is all within the power of the minister to determine by regulation, which is not subject to disallowance. Similarly, when it comes to the scheme's public reporting about how many Australians will benefit, how much support they're receiving and where those benefits are going, this is left out of the bill and put entirely in the minister's hands. In other words, the public will only know what the minister wants us to know about the scheme.</para>
<para>There are some restrictions on the minister's power. The minister must consult with the states on some matters. The minister may not intervene to support a specific borrower or property. The minister must undertake a review of the scheme after three years. For someone who believes in public integrity, I find the lack of restrictions deeply concerning, especially when we're talking about billions of dollars of public money. I'm not making any claims about the current minister, but this scheme will run for years, potentially decades, and ministers will come and go. We ought to legislate the integrity of the scheme right from the beginning.</para>
<para>My amendment would simply make the minister's directions a disallowable instrument. It will give the parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the minister's decisions about eligibility and reporting. Where the minister has tried to make directions that fall short of the community's expectations, parliament will have the power to veto those decisions. The minister's office have said that they do not support this amendment because the scheme needs certainty and because it would delay the commencement of the scheme. I appreciate the need for certainty with a scheme that involves our state and territory governments and a number of private lenders, but a disallowance only needs to stand for 15 sitting days before the directions become permanent and participants have complete certainty. Certainty is only created when there is some possibility of disallowance when the minister's directions are at odds with what the parliament is willing to support. If the parliament does not support what the minister intends to do or how she intends to use billions of dollars of public money, it is appropriate that that investment or expenditure does not proceed.</para>
<para>Letting this bill go through without adequate checks and balances is a dangerous precedent to set for future governments. I strongly support action to help people get into homeownership and I believe a shared-equity scheme is one of the right ways to go about it. But I was elected on a platform of integrity, as were so many of us here today, and integrity means that we cannot give a minister a blank cheque without adequate oversight or accountability, even if we support the underlying policy.</para>
<para>I commend my amendments to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the amendment moved by the member, firstly, I thank the member for her prior notice in relation to the amendment and the constructive discussions we had. We won't be supporting the amendment because, although it's well intentioned and we completely understand that the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a hollow bill with very little detail—the bill is here 20 months after the election and more than 12 months after this scheme should have commenced, on 1 January 2023. You'd expect there to be detail in the bill. I absolutely understand where the member is coming from, but, ultimately, this scheme cannot be recovered through any amendments, and therefore we won't be supporting it.</para>
<para>What we've witnessed in this debate is quite instructive of the concerns that many in the House quite rightly have about this scheme. Firstly, we saw the government pull their speakers on the bill. We can understand that the backbenchers in the government wouldn't have been particularly enthusiastic in speaking about a program that has received the sort of feedback that it has—the absolute inadequacy of the program. We saw the backbenchers being pulled from the speaking list. Now we have the debate being guillotined, which shows how ashamed the government is of this proposal.</para>
<para>We saw a correlation when coalition members started speaking about the fact that shared-equity schemes exist in a number of jurisdictions in this country already, be it New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania. I think we saw the government backbenchers being pulled off the list when they started speaking about the fact that 94 per cent of places in the New South Wales shared-equity scheme remain available. So we have a situation now, in the middle of a housing crisis, where the government is fiddling with a policy that has already been rejected by Australians throughout this country. Why? Because they don't want the Prime Minister sitting at their kitchen table. They don't want the scrutiny associated with it. They certainly haven't got answers from this government. So we can understand why the member is moving these amendments seeking more oversight over the minister because of these basic questions that cannot be answered.</para>
<para>The purchase of a home is the biggest single investment most people will make in their lives, and they need certainty when they make those investments. We have a situation where a thought bubble from the Prime Minister before the election has taken 20 months to arrive in this House. You would expect if somebody brought their homework 20 months late it would be an A+ effort. What has been brought to the chamber is a bill with scant detail and the concerns that most Australians would have not answered. For example, as speaker after speaker in this House has outlined, the government is going to own 40 per cent of your home and they are going to take 40 per cent, therefore, when you sell, but are they responsible for the repairs and maintenance throughout the life of that property? If you have a leaky roof and you have to go and spend a few thousand dollars to fix it, will you send an invoice off to the government for them to reimburse you for their 40 per cent or do you wear that cost even though at the end the government are going to take their 40 per cent and the growth in the scheme, thank you very much. These very basic questions need to be answered.</para>
<para>For example, has the government modelled under the income caps in place, a combined income of $120,000 or a single income of $90,000, how many suburbs in Sydney in which you can buy a home with an income of $90,000? That would be interesting answer. Has the government modelled that? The government says, 'We have set aside $5.5 billion for 10,000 places,' and yet there are shared-equity places available in every single territory that's currently got a shared-equity scheme. As I was saying to the member for Wentworth, it's like walking into a shop absolutely full of a certain product it can't sell and then the manager says, 'Bring another pallet in here of this product Australians don't want.' That's not the answer to the housing crisis. We want a serious response from this government. This is not a serious response. We understand the reservations, but we won't be supporting— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for the intent with which she has come into this place with these amendments. The government have made clear that we won't be supporting these amendments. Its typical for instruments like this to be exempt from disallowance, such as Housing Australia investment mandate, the housing bond aggregator and the Home Guarantee Scheme. This would work in the same way. I want to be clear that we intend to make the program details public. We will do that. Some of them are already available in terms of our election commitment that was made. We are relying on the lending institutions as well. We need to be really clear with them about what the parameters are of the program. I understand where the member's coming from with this, but we need certainty for lenders and we need certainty for borrowers. We don't want it to be at the whim of a parliament, which is why were not supporting these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I think my question really goes to the heart of this, which is in our discussions in your office we were told that you have those concerns but you're wanting certainty. My argument is that it's only 15 days that I'm asking for for disallowability. That could give people the certainty. It's not a long period of time that it would have to be open for. I see that that would be appropriate. It would give appropriate parliamentary oversight. Just because other instruments have been passed in the past without that parliamentary oversight, I don't think that is a justification, in this case, for no longer having that oversight.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:54]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>67</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 14), before "The object", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This includes assisting cohorts of individuals who have historically experienced disadvantage or exclusion when attempting to buy homes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An example of such a cohort is single women who are at or near retirement age.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 45, page 33 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the extent that the operation of the Help to Buy program has assisted the cohorts of individuals referred to in subsection 3(2) to buy homes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection 3(2) refers to cohorts of individuals who have historically experienced disadvantage or exclusion when attempting to buy homes.</para></quote>
<para>I appreciate the consideration the minister has given me in discussing this amendment. I and other crossbenchers have expressed our concerns that, apart from a general comment in the explanatory memorandum for this legislation about the increasing struggle that low- and middle-income earners confront in trying to own their own home, the bill itself is devoid of any mention of who exactly the government hopes will benefit.</para>
<para>At the last election I campaigned specifically, and have since, to improve women's equality and equity, and housing is just one of the areas where women are notably disadvantaged. ABS data shows that today just 55 per cent of the poorest 45- to 55-year-olds own their own home, down significantly from 71 per cent four decades ago. All the indications are that women are overrepresented in that cohort. The Grattan Institute, which proposed a shared-equity scheme very similar to this initiative taken by Labor to last election, says that it would be of specific benefit to women approaching retirement who would not otherwise qualify for a mortgage and would live their later years without the certainty of a roof over their heads or worse. This amendment would add a specific reference to women in the object of the legislation as well as other historically disadvantaged individuals to make sure that this program is geared to the people who most need it. It would also provide a prod to Housing Australia and those in the states and territories responsible for administering the program that they should be cognisant of historically disadvantaged groups among the low-income individuals that the legislation is designed to assist.</para>
<para>I understand the minister will not agree to the amendments, in large measure because of the complexity of negotiating agreements with eight state and territory governments to get the program off the ground. That said, I would ask then that reporting on the program is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to enable us to know for sure in a timely way that it is assisting the cohorts it aims to help, especially women.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it was a very good question asked by the member for Goldstein: What is the objective of the government? Why such little detail? Not only has the question of who the government are seeking to assist here been asked on multiple occasions but a succession of other questions have gone unanswered. Again, I reiterate the point that I think people would understand, if the government was particularly swift in bringing this legislation forward shortly after the election, that there could be some holes in the bill but here we are, now 20 months into the government.</para>
<para>This is more than 12 months later than when it should have started and there is a succession of questions that lead one, as the member for Goldstein has, to ask: What is the objective and expectation of the government under this scheme? The questions that have been asked by this side of the chamber that have gone unanswered include the following: What is the assumed return on equity over the medium term of this measure, particularly the way it has been budgeted for? Will the income thresholds be indexed? That will obviously be on the authority of the minister. What are the instances in which the government would force a sale? What are the instances in which a government would say to a homeowner, 'We require repayment of our 40 per cent of equity'? Will that occur when that person gets a pay rise of $1 over the threshold that was an eligibility requirement to begin with? Will it be when the person potentially goes into arrears on their loan? What are the circumstances in which the government will demand its equity back?</para>
<para>Because if the government is going to budget for this the way it has, it must be expecting a return on its investment. In order to obtain a return on its investment, there must be circumstances in which the government will essentially foreclose on a homeowner and say, 'We want our 40 per cent back now.' Will that occur at a time when a homeowner is in negative equity? Will it be in an instance when there is a downturn in the economy? When house prices reduce, where you have negative equity, will the government foreclose in those circumstances?</para>
<para>In the end, the way the government is budgeting for the measure, it will get a return on its investment, a return on the $5.5 billion of equity that it is borrowing. Mind you, what are the debt costs associated with that $5½ billion? We know the government will have to draw down $5½ billion for the 10,000 places per year. What is the government bond rate it will pay on that? How many hundreds of millions of dollars in debt servicing payments will be attached to that? And that gets us to the next question: If we have seen throughout the country that these schemes are chronically undersubscribed for all the reasons we have outlined—that people don't want the government forcing them to sell their home—what has the department modelled in relation to the uptake of this product? Because, again, the scheme in New South Wales has only been able to deploy six per cent of the available places.</para>
<para>Even though we've got a headline of 10,000 places being available, does the government promise that every single one of those 10,000 places will be taken up? For budgetary purposes, have they modelled that every one of those places will be taken up, or does their modelling reflect that it's very unlikely that anywhere near 10,000 places will be taken up? Again, to go back to my earlier questions, we need clarity about the responsibility of the Commonwealth, as a co-owner of the property, for repairs and maintenance or for improvements. What is the experience that we've seen from state based schemes? Whilst we're in the midst of a housing crisis—first home buyers at record lows, new home starts at record lows, approvals at record lows, rents rising at 26 per cent—the priority of this government needs to be much bigger than replicating programs that already exist at a state level in this country and that are already going unused.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for this amendment. I have had a good discussion with her about it. She knows that this scheme is specifically targeted at low- and middle-income Australians. I appreciate where she's coming from with this amendment. I think the amendments from the crossbenchers are well-intentioned, but, as I pointed out, we have to consult with every state and territory on amendments because of the way this scheme would work. The disadvantaged and low-income people that it would support are people that otherwise wouldn't get into homeownership, and we would expect that a large proportion of those would be women. Certainly, in our reporting, we intend to report on the types of cohorts being supported. I wanted to let the member know that in Western Australia's Keystart around 66 per cent of the shared-equity participants have indeed been women. We won't be supporting the amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the consideration-in-detail amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. I think it's really important we acknowledge that there is some merit in this program. I want to say to the minister: I know that there have been people across the sector calling on the federal government for a program exactly like this for a period of time. I also want to acknowledge that I do believe there are people who will benefit from this program. I think the issue here is that, as a parliament, we have no line of sight of who those people will be, except for some very limited commentary in an explanatory memorandum committing it to be targeted specifically to low- and middle-income families.</para>
<para>I understand that the federal government is working in the very complicated environment that is our federated system, but I can't help but think there is something slightly off kilter. We are entering into this saying we can't decide what we're going to do until we've consulted with the states and territories, but the first step in consultation should always be in this House. As the legislation stands, we're being asked, as a parliament, to basically trust that the government will make sure this is allocated in a way which would be in keeping with our expectations. Trust is a very valuable asset. It's something that's earned, not necessarily given straightaway. At the moment, the details are just not in this piece of legislation, and this amendment would go some way to tightening those details up.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together. In the past week, my fellow members and I have discussed the Help to Buy Bill widely. It is safe to say, as we've heard already, that we're all concerned by the current state of the bill. The bill was meant to bring a ray of hope to Australians dreaming of owning a home, with its name being the starting point. However, it is confusing. There are no certainties with trying to own a home in such trying times.</para>
<para>Good policy requires some degree of relatability to the public we seek to serve. I previously outlined in my speech on the second reading the shortcomings of the bill. We are in a housing conundrum involving supply and demand. The Help to Buy Bill only seeks to provide access to ownership. It doesn't address shortages of supply, which we all know is the critical issue, or the affordability of buying, which is out of reach for many working Australians.</para>
<para>A young constituent named Mario in my electorate of Fowler shared his concern that this bill is 'too vague on who it gives preference to' and that the 'applicant pool is too large relative to the number of available places'. My amendments seek to address the opaqueness of the bill by requiring that matters covered by ministerial directions under the Help to Buy program specifically include:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the number of residential properties in relation to which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements, taking into consideration the current demand and need for housing;</para></quote>
<para>Ten thousand places per year are not enough. There should also be direction as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the categories of individuals who will have priority under the Help to Buy Program, such as single parents, victims of domestic violence or individuals of a low socio-economic background.</para></quote>
<para>This also includes those of cultural background and in regional areas. This is important as we need to ensure that individuals who are disadvantaged and vulnerable are not left at the bottom of the barrel or left behind. The amendment also includes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the amount, or amounts, that Housing Australia may contribute under Help to Buy arrangements in order to enable individuals to obtain home loans with lenders;</para></quote>
<para>The current reality that we're living in is that buying a home is not an affordable feat even if the government is offering to chip in 30 to 40 per cent for a purchase price of approximately $950,000. Young constituent Mario, who is very passionate about this topic, gave me a graph of the median house prices in various suburbs of Fowler. He had deduced that the median house price was over $1 million. A significant number of my constituents do not have $90,000 or close enough to buy a million-dollar home. Even if they did earn $90,000, a local broker has shared that the individual can expect to borrow approximately $410,000. An individual's median income in Fowler is $521 per week, which they must spread thinly across raising the kids, bills, food, HECS debt and general expenses. When lenders are looking at the borrowing capacity for a home loan, as we all know, it's very challenging, but these individuals would be very lucky to get offered even $300,000, especially with the increasing interest rates. If the individual has been in credit card debt or finance vehicles, their chance of getting a sufficient loan becomes even more obscure.</para>
<para>My biggest concern still lies with young people being unable to obtain a loan as they have accumulated a HECS debt that is subject to indexation and rises with CPI. I've said it before and will say it again: we need to freeze indexation in order to give young people a push in life. It is concerning to me that we are not taking this seriously enough. Lenders will look at a young person's borrowing capacity together with their HECS debt and refuse to give them an adequate loan. Where is the equity there? We should try to close the gap of disadvantage and really help those in need.</para>
<para>In my view, Housing Australia, on behalf of the government, should do more than just give cash. Another amendment that I have proposed is that there be a statutory obligation on Housing Australia to cooperate with lenders to support an individual's eligibility for a loan and ability to obtain a loan relating to residential property. This could be in a form adjusting the contribution or a letter of support. Such help can go a long way. I therefore ask the government to consider the amendments holistically so that we can truly provide the help needed to Australians dreaming of owning a place that they can call their own home.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the member for Fowler for her considered amendments. I think her amendments highlight just how little thought has been put into this scheme brought to this House. The member for Fowler's remarks echo some of mine earlier which raised the question to the government that has not been answered. That is: in a city like Sydney in the member for Fowler's electorate or in my home town of Melbourne, has the government modelled how many suburbs and how many homes within those suburbs would be available using the income caps that have been proposed here? I'm sure there'll be many in the media who do this analysis. I suspect that in the member for Fowler's home state of New South Wales there will be very few places where someone on a $90,000 income, as the member for Fowler outlined, with a HECS debt and a car loan and whatever other liabilities they may have will ever be able to avail themselves of this program.</para>
<para>Again, I go back to the earlier point, that is there are an abundance of shared equity places around this country and an abundance of places available to people should they want one of these products. So why on earth in the middle of a housing crisis would the government devote its energies to something where products are already available? If somebody in New South Wales wants a shared equity opportunity they'll own it with the New South Wales state government. For most people, it will make no difference to them whether they jointly own a property with the New South Wales state government or the Commonwealth government. Yet only six per cent of places in the New South Wales scheme are being taken up, so 94 per cent of the places are still available. As well as in New South Wales, there are also places still available in the shared equity schemes in South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. So in the middle of a housing crisis, what's the government's big idea? Let's create more of these places that are already going unused around the country.</para>
<para>Notwithstanding the very excellent questions raised by the member for Fowler, similar to the remarks I made earlier, we won't be supporting the amendments because this pitiful effort from the government can't be repaired through amendments. It's been a wonderful effort from the crossbench to try and recover this bill as much as possible and to actually put some meat on the bones, but sadly it is so far away from being a fit-for-purpose effort that we won't be supporting the amendments.</para>
<para>As I've said, the member for Fowler rightly raised so many concerns with this bill. We don't often have a process where something like this is brought to the parliament seemingly without any consultation having occurred. The consultation seems to be promised at some point down the track. I suspect members in this place feel quite offended that we've got a bill here—a hollow bill—at a time when the government hasn't rushed this. And I say that with some experience as a former housing minister who established the Home Guarantee Scheme on 1 January 2020. In just a bit over six months we put together an entire complex policy—the Home Guarantee Scheme—that's now supporting one in three first home buyers.</para>
<para>The government has continued with this very proud coalition legacy and we're pleased it has seen fit to support that program now, after criticising it earlier in its inception. I've seen firsthand and I've delivered, as a minister, a policy within six months of an election. Here we've got it 20 months later and, quite rightly, crossbenchers are asking, 'Where on earth is the detail in this bill and how on earth am I going to be able to communicate to our constituents any possible benefits to this scheme?' Notwithstanding that, we won't be supporting the amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to indicate that the government only received these amendments a couple of hours ago. We haven't had time to consider them, but I would say that from first glance my comments in relation to the other amendments stand.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [18:23]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Le, D. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>62</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (proxy)</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a third time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7124" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 February, I put the question that the bill be now read a third time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7151" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is 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 the first opportunity the next sitting day.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7150" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill now be read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7111" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the former Government delivered major reforms to superannuation that supported better member outcomes, better performance, and transparent governance, and that were driven by the clear understanding that superannuation is Australians' money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised no changes to superannuation prior to the election and the Prime Minister promised 'no major changes' to superannuation in February 2023, but have since broken that promise by introducing a new superannuation tax on unrealised capital gains, which is a world first wealth tax that will hurt farmers and family businesses and force Australians to pay tax on money they have not earned; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the Government's failure to index their new superannuation tax means up to two million young Australians earning average wages today will face a wealth tax, according to analysis of Treasury modelling published in The Australian; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to abandon its broken promise on taxing superannuation".</para></quote>
<para>I rise to talk on the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023. Australia's ageing population and lower rates of homeownership sharpen the importance of our retirement income system to all Australians. Indeed, those of us on this side of this place are absolutely convinced of the huge importance of our retirement income system, a system that delivers to Australians throughout their retirement.</para>
<para>Right now we have $3½ trillion in funds under management—within the superannuation part of that system, at least. That's more than Australia's total GDP. Our superannuation system is embedded as a key institution, not just in our retirement system but right across our economy. With that enormous institutional weight comes an enormous responsibility, a responsibility to every single Australian who has invested in superannuation over time. Let's be clear: it is Australians who have invested in superannuation, not the government, not employers; it's Australians who have done this.</para>
<para>In his 1991-92 budget speech, John Kerin stressed that the super guarantee's purpose was 'to ensure that all Australians have a secure income in retirement'. When the legislation was introduced in April 1992, John Dawkins called the superannuation guarantee 'the foundation for income security and higher standards of living in retirement for future generations of retirees'. Dawkins stressed that the purpose of super was to build Australia's pool of savings and to take pressure off the budget, not supplement it. It was never envisaged that superannuation be used to plug revenue gaps, to extend fiscal policy or to deliver on other government policies, other than ensuring that people have access to a good retirement. I think it's fascinating to go back to those debates—debates that I remember looking at at the time. But, going back to those, we observe Labor backbenchers breaking from the government of the day and arguing that the super guarantee should be complemented by investment controls for national projects, investments and secure employment for union members.</para>
<para>Above all, this is interesting because it's clear from the contribution of those backbenchers that this was not the intended purpose of super at the time. It was very clear from the senior ministers who spoke on the issue that all of those purposes were not the intended purpose. It's also interesting to observe the likes of Kim Beazley crediting Robert Menzies for the idea of superannuation from his national insurance policy from 1950, just a year or so after he was elected as the first Liberal Prime Minister after the war.</para>
<para>This positions Australia's super regime in the scheme of its welfare debates. Superannuation contributions are the closest thing Australians have to a social security tax, but Australia made a conscious decision across the Fraser and Hawke governments to abolish specific social security taxes through the gradual dismantling of the National Welfare Fund.</para>
<para>The arrival at a compulsory contribution scheme came after 70 years of debate, started by the Cook Liberal government in 1913 and pursued unsuccessfully by the Lyons and Menzies governments. Menzies preferred a contributory scheme because it preserved self-respect, remained liquid and removed the need for means testing that forced Australians to 'prove their poverty'. He didn't want Australians to have to prove their poverty, and so a contributory scheme was a natural consequence of that. This historical context is important because it reminds us that the trade-off to compulsion must always be choice. If you're going to have compulsion—and we do in our contributory scheme—you must have choice. These are private savings, not public savings. Fundamentally, super is Australians' money, not the government's. This is essential to understanding the original purpose of super and the purpose it still has.</para>
<para>With the economic challenges here now, and I've outlined them many times in this place, it is more essential than ever that our superannuation scheme remains focused on the end user—the consumer, the members. I should point out that we've seen a collapse in disposable incomes for Australians in the last 18 months—8.6 per cent in 18 months. That's $8,000 that's disappeared from every Australian's standard of living. They're responding to this in a number of ways. They are responding by cutting back on both discretionary expenditure and, sadly, in some cases, essential expenditure. We see that in the people turning up at food banks who would have never had to turn up at food banks 18 months ago. We see it in them taking on extra work—extra hours. But we also see them digging into their savings. In fact, savings from disposable income have almost entirely disappeared. They are down to one per cent. It is completely unsustainable. Australians are essentially not saving any more. Finding a way to make sure that everyone in this place is doing everything they can to ensure that the investments Australians make are delivering the best possible returns—and are being managed for those investors, not for the government—is more crucial than it has ever been. Additional mandates, targets or missions for superannuation over and above the purposes of the investor, the individual, the Australian, miss the fundamental point of super spelt out in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> by members of the Keating government: 'The basic principles of superannuation are very simple. They are about providing for people, for Australians, in their retirement.' When the Treasurer argues that superannuation should be used for nation building, he doesn't just misunderstand that it's not his money; he fundamentally misunderstands how the economy works.</para>
<para>Arguments that super is not doing enough by delivering returns to members are Trojan horses for directing funding to areas that the government of the day determines are priorities. But it's a Trojan horse that we should not adhere to. This Treasurer, in his long, 6,000-word essay that he spent his first Christmas as Treasurer writing, decided that superannuation wasn't Australians' money; it was his money to be spent as he saw fit on the nation-building projects that he prioritised—no doubt, in consultation with his mates amongst the union officials. It was going to be his pick about where that money was to go. But it's Australians' money; it's not a piggy bank to be spent or a tax to fill budget holes. Labor does not have a mandate to tax and spend Australians' super.</para>
<para>Alongside that, we do see Labor taking the view that one way they can get at Australians' superannuation money is not just by directing how it's spent but by taxing it more. Labor's new superannuation tax is an absolute shocker. It's a doubling of taxation on many Australians' retirement savings. It's a regime that proposes a different approach for a farmer or small-business owner than for a public servant, judge or politician. It's extraordinary that we could be at a point where a public servant, judge and politician get different treatment for their superannuation than a farmer or small-business person would get, but that is exactly what this government has chosen to do. We know who they don't like; we know who they can't unionise—it's the small-business person or the farmer.</para>
<para>Those lucky enough to have a defined benefit scheme—and, of course, that includes the Prime Minister—will enjoy deferred payments and rates of tax set entirely by regulation, by the government. The government will be deciding how much the Prime Minister will be paying in tax. It won't be done by legislation. That's what is so extraordinary about the legislation proposed by this government. The Prime Minister will have a guaranteed income stream. I certainly hope the Prime Minister will exclude himself from the discussion about that regulation, but his income over the course of his life will be determined by that regulation to be decided by the government.</para>
<para>Everyone else faces an unindexed annual tax on unrealised capital gains. Now, unrealised capital gains are unrealised. It would seem, to me, to be self-evident that an unrealised capital gain is unrealised, but it is. The problem with having to pay tax on something that's unrealised is that you've got to realise it! If you're a small-business person or a farmer—and, let's face it, that's a very big proportion of the people who are in self-managed super funds—the asset that you've got to realise will often be a fundamental part of your business. I see what this government is saying: you're going to have to sell up part of your business to pay tax. But those opposite simply don't understand how small-business people and farmers work. Perhaps, even if they do understand, they don't like what these people do and they don't care.</para>
<para>What we have under Labor's division 296 tax is an unindexed wealth tax—it is a wealth tax. We're going down this pathway in this country, as far as Labor is concerned, and, according to Treasury's own case studies, this policy will double the taxes on the retirement savings of an average 21-year-old today. An average 21-year-old today is going to be subjected to this tax at exactly the time when we need Australians to be saving more. Of course, it's probably unreasonable to expect that, having seen their standard of living smashed so hard in the last 18 months, they will be able to save anything. But we desperately need Australians to be able to save.</para>
<para>This tax is also a tax on aspiration. It's the first of many policies that weren't taken to an election that are now standing as broken promises on taxation, flaunting well-established principles of tax reform that, when bundled across the economy, will make Australians worse off. We know it will primarily hurt people who utilise, as I say, self-managed super fund structures. Combined with other changes like those to the NALI provisions and with the response to the <inline font-style="italic">Quality of advice review</inline>, it's clear that it's part of a broader attack on self-managed superannuation. It's a regulatory approach that favours one form of superannuation fund, particularly—let's face it—industry funds run by the unions, over another. I have no problem with industry funds. I think they're an important part of the retirement income system. But what matters is that all the savings in these funds are treated without discrimination. Of course, that's not what we're seeing in what Labor is proposing.</para>
<para>As I said, superannuation is compulsory, but with that option should come choice. Australians can't opt out, even if it means they face lower take-home pay and higher non-compulsory payments than the OECD average. The trade-off must be choice about whether they use an industry fund or establish their own fund. There must be choice about the risk profile of their investment mix and whether they use their savings for a first home or for investment in bonds and equities. It's an extraordinary situation right now. In your superannuation fund, you can invest in anybody's home except your own. How did we get to that? We know the single best indicator of whether someone is going to have a great retirement is whether or not they own their own home. It's the single most important indicator.</para>
<para>The idea that you can consider what's right for the retirement system without thinking about the implications for homeownership is just plain wrong. We need to be able to make sure that Australians can have that balanced retirement system, which includes homeownership. That's why Peter Dutton is—and a Peter Dutton government would be—committed to allowing Australians to access their superannuation to secure a housing deposit. Under our policy, first-home owners and women over 55 will be eligible to draw down on their superannuation for a deposit while preserving the value on the sale of the home back into their superannuation funds. It's not sufficient for a compulsory retirement system to stay silent on an institution as iconic in Australia as homeownership. It's such an iconic institution for our retirement system.</para>
<para>It's certainly one of many policies that we're committed to that will improve outcomes for Australians from our retirement system. The policies also include implementing in full the <inline font-style="italic">Quality of advice review</inline> in a timely manner. We are waiting for the Assistant Treasurer to do that. He's getting started, but, I've got to say, he is certainly dragging the chain on implementing it in full in a timely manner. We are supporting sensible deregulation of our financial system to reduce complexity and red tape and improve customer outcomes, and we are driving a revitalisation of our financial advice industry to ensure that Australians can access the finance and also the advice they need. That advice is fundamental to them being able to make the right choices for their circumstances.</para>
<para>As we develop further policy, the first principles we will apply throughout are that superannuation is Australians' money—not the government's, Prime Minister's or Treasurer's money. As research has pointed out this week, when it comes to super, Australians trust themselves first, funds second and the government last. I'll repeat that, because it's incredibly important. Australians trust themselves first, funds second and the government last. That's why our superannuation system must put the individual, their choices and their control at the heart of the entire system. The government doesn't seem to get this yet, and certainly the Treasurer doesn't, as we saw in his 6,000-word essay. As I pointed out, the government should not only be cautious about raising taxes on Australians' super but also be cautious about watering down consumer protections on APRA regulated funds or trying to direct Australians' retirement savings to meet political goals rather than the goals of individuals.</para>
<para>Everything I'm saying here is part of a broader economic plan to be focused on Australians' aspirations, boosting productivity and growing the economy so that every Australian can benefit from a bigger pie. The way we deliver prosperity and aspiration to every Australian is not by dividing up the pie in new and different ways; it's by growing it. It's by having small-business people, farmers and others right throughout the economy making investments, taking risks and making choices that can realise their aspirations. But, in the process, when an Australian has a go—when they build a business, when they make investments and when they take risks—they don't just benefit their own families; they benefit others. They employ others, they support the community, they grow country towns and they grow the suburbs they live in. All of that flows from empowering people to make their own choices, to make their own investments, to take risks and to do the things they want to do in their lives. That means supporting small-business aspiration and entrepreneurship.</para>
<para>That's why we've said that we will bring back accelerated depreciation to the levels and thresholds it was at prior to COVID. Labor has scaled it back. As I've said, they're not big supporters of small business, but we will bring that back to those levels that we know had big impacts in our suburbs and regions. I know the member for Forrest saw it in her part of the world, and I certainly saw it in my part of the world. We will deliver an incentive-based tax system that returns bracket creep and supports lower, simpler, fairer taxes. We will focus on rewarding work, not welfare. That's why we've said that we'll support Australians who are on the pension to take on extra hours of work without being penalised. We will focus on containing the growth of government spending and overreach, not committing to the failed referendum we saw last year—$450 million.</para>
<para>We will not waste money on spin units. This doctor of spin we have as the Treasurer is not a doctor of economics. It's very important that everyone understands that he's a doctor of spin. His thesis was on Paul Keating. This Treasurer has decided that he's spending $40 million on a spin unit. He's setting it up. He could do with a few economists, I'd say, because his economics is very dodgy—voodoo economics most of the time. I think he would benefit greatly from having a stronger backbone in the economy. We're not seeing that. Instead, he's decided to spend $40 million on a spin unit.</para>
<para>Containing the growth of government and waste is enormously important, but getting the basics right is too: affordable, reliable energy; high-quality education; and well-targeted critical infrastructure. We'll continue to announce policies, as we have been, in those all-important areas.</para>
<para>As I said, Australians are facing a real challenge right now. Our retirement system is crucial to realising their longer term aspirations and dreams for their own retirements. The first port of call for this government should be realising that it is a system committed to the interests of the individual investor, the individual Australian who has invested in that system. That's where it should start, and that's where it should end. We will continue to hold the government to account on that all-important issue.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to support the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023, enshrining an objective of superannuation into legislation. This legislation defines the objective as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.</para></quote>
<para>Our government is moving to enshrine an objective of superannuation in legislation as part of our agenda to strengthen and maximise the benefits of the nation's superannuation system, a system that is a proud Labor legacy.</para>
<para>As the Treasurer has already indicated to the House, this simple and straightforward objective will serve as a guide for future governments, regulators, industry and the wider community. These changes will instil greater confidence in Australia's superannuation system.</para>
<para>With approximately 16 million Australians holding a superannuation account, and the total value of funds under management now $3.6 trillion, it represents the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings in the world. Currently 1.6 million people aged 65 or over receive income from a superannuation product. This will more than double over the next decade, as a further 2.5 million people are expected to retire with a superannuation account.</para>
<para>Our world-class superannuation system, introduced by a Labor government to give dignity and retirement to working people, is not surprisingly the envy of the world. The Superannuation (Objective) Bill will require members of parliament who introduced bills which propose changes to the superannuation system to provide a statement of compatibility. This statement will need to explain how the bill is compatible with the legislated objective of superannuation. It will also require makers of regulations related to superannuation publish a statement of compatibility which explains how the regulations are compatible with the legislated objective.</para>
<para>We know that, for the last decade, superannuation policy has, unfortunately, been costly, confused and chaotic, with the system being undermined by previous governments. Those opposite raided the superannuation system for their own purposes, with a devastating impact on the retirement savings of millions of Australians. Of particular concern are young adults in the 20 to 25 age bracket, who stand to have the equivalent of $75,000 to about $90,000 less in retirement than they otherwise would have had. And that is shameful.</para>
<para>Those opposite allowed for the draining of $36 billion in retirement savings across a matter of months—that money, gone. The short-sightedness of those opposite means that this will result in tens of billions of lost retirement income and earnings when we consider lost interest. These were savings that were meant to be preserved and invested so that they lasted a lifetime and provided for dignity retirement. Legislating an objective of superannuation will help prevent this sort of shortsightedness ever happening again. Subsequently, making sure the focus of superannuation is on the best interest of members, not those interested in ideological battles, is the intent of this legislation.</para>
<para>The objective will help ensure superannuation delivers on its foundational promise of providing a dignified retirement for more Australians. It will secure the future of superannuation by embedding its purpose into law and result in any further changes to superannuation in the future to be in accordance with the objective, not to undermine it. The requirement for ministers to produce a statement to parliament explaining how any proposed changes to superannuation are compatible with its legislated purpose form part of these important changes. Policymakers will be held to account when considering changes that affect Australians retirement savings.</para>
<para>It's important to highlight that this legislation also does not change the ability of members to gain early access to their superannuation on certain grounds or in cases of genuine financial hardship. There are over five million Australians at or approaching retirement age, and that is more than at any time in our nation's history. Delivering better retirement incomes has therefore never been more important. This bill is an important step towards a stronger superannuation system for a stronger economy, and it has been met with support from the superannuation industry.</para>
<para>Australia's retirement income system has traditionally been viewed as having three pillars: the social security means tested age pension, the compulsory superannuation contributions made under the superannuation guarantee regime and additional private savings. We also know that superannuation is a significant source of capital, contributing to the strength of our financial markets. There are also opportunities to leverage superannuation investment in areas of national economic priority where it aligns with the best financial interests of members. Having a clear, legislated objective of superannuation will help ensure these broader benefits of super can be maximised.</para>
<para>The superannuation guarantee was introduced in 1992. That Australia's superannuation balances are $3.6 trillion and the fourth-largest pool of retirement funds in the world is quite remarkable. Whilst at the time the legislation did not include a statement about the objective, the then Treasurer stated that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… by the beginning of the next century, virtually all employees will be accumulating substantial superannuation savings to help fund their retirement income.</para></quote>
<para>He added that this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will also enable future Commonwealth governments to improve the retirement conditions for those Australians who were unable to fund adequately their own retirement incomes.</para></quote>
<para>This is an important point because there is in this the seen and the unseen.</para>
<para>When those opposite allowed superannuation accounts to be raided to the tune of $36 billion, there was a significant cost that could be seen in the medium term with respect to lower retirement savings, particularly for those aged 20 to 25. What's not seen and not as easily measured goes the statement that the Treasurer of 1992 made about the Commonwealth's ability to improve the retirement conditions for those Australians unable to adequately fund their own retirement. That's namely the poor and the vulnerable, including people living with disability as well as those coming from entrenched disadvantage. Time will show that there will be an invisible cord that directly links the decisions of those opposite with the marginalised and vulnerable who are unable to fund their retirements adequately in the years to come because of the opportunities, investment and interest lost. That invisible cord was created when those opposite chose to raid the superannuation system due to their own ideology and to their own benefit. Rather than take responsibility for being good economic managers, they abdicated responsibility and allowed the previously quarantined retirement savings of Australians to be their de facto stimulus package, a package that we are still reaping the effects of through persistent and high inflation. That's precisely why they have their fingerprints all over the cost-of-living challenges we are continuing to navigate through now.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I really do wish that those opposite took more seriously the gift of government they had for a decade and the contributions that they made to the situation we find ourselves in now instead of laughing in the chamber.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we are not afraid to make the right decisions and ensure that the marginalised in our community are able to enjoy a dignified retirement. We have not just a short-term vision; we have a medium- and long-term vision. That is what superannuation represents. With this bill we are protecting the objective of superannuation. It was, after all, a Labor government that introduced the superannuation guarantee and it is only a Labor government that will ever care enough about it to protect it.</para>
<para>That's why establishing the Superannuation (Objective) Bill at this time is so important. We know that this will be a defining decade for our nation. This demands defining the role of superannuation to protect the gains that have been made and to pursue its greater potential in the interests of all Australian. The objective will help ensure superannuation delivers on its foundational promise of providing a dignified retirement for more Australians. In the future, any proposed changes to superannuation legislation will be judged against the objective. This will make policymakers more accountable when considering changes that affect Australians' retirement savings. This objective will not alter superannuation trustees' existing obligations or provisions around the early access to superannuation on compassionate grounds.</para>
<para>Superannuation is a significant source of capital. It contributes to the strength of our financial market, and there are opportunities to leverage superannuation investment in areas of national economic policy and priority where it aligns best with the financial interests of members. Having this clear, legislated objective of superannuation will help ensure these broader benefits can be maximised.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to protecting and strengthening the superannuation system that all Australians should be proud of, to ensuring that we continue to deliver a dignified retirement to more Australians and to helping to build a stronger and more resilient economy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indeed rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, and commend his contribution to the House as the lead speaker for the coalition on this. As he indicates, we won't be standing in the way of this bill passing through the House but are very much in favour of this going to a Senate inquiry process to look at some issues that were well canvassed by the member for Hume in his contribution.</para>
<para>I take the opportunity that his amendment provides in the question before the House to touch on two matters. The first is that, of course, we in the coalition very much support and are committed to a strong and robust superannuation scheme, and we absolutely want to support and encourage people to provide for their own retirement. They are doing the economy and the taxpayer a great service by providing for their own retirement. Equally, we completely support the proper, comprehensive social safety net that is in place for people who aren't in a position to finance their own retirement through the superannuation system. We thank those that can. Whenever we have legislation that comes through this parliament regarding superannuation, I always thank the great self-funded retirees who have done so much for this country through their careers and have also saved and provisioned for their retirement. They should be thanked for that, and we should support them in every way that we can.</para>
<para>When there are measures that come in here and do the opposite, on this side we bitterly oppose them. When people describe superannuation as a honey pot, lick their lips and start to think about how they can plunder it and get their grubby mitts on it, we in the coalition are very concerned. We will keep an eagle eye on a lot of proposals that come anywhere near the comments that were made by the Assistant Treasurer, describing super as a honey pot. Any proposals to increase the taxation burden on people who can't re-enter the workforce—they can't go back and say, 'Oh, now that I know about these new taxes, I would have saved some more, I would have worked a few more years or I would have made some different decisions,' because they made the mistake of taking the government at their word and, during an election campaign, not expecting that after it, having gone to the 2019 election and proposed all sorts of taxes and then having lost that election and ruling out ever doing anything like that again, they would say, 'We're now going to change the tax treatment on self-funded retirees,' who are completely stuck and stranded in the financial circumstance that they thought was enough to provision for their future.</para>
<para>As the shadow Treasurer points out, although we obviously bitterly oppose the fundamental position of ratcheting up taxes on superannuation, it is particularly appalling that we have a situation where tax treatment is going to change and not be indexed with inflation. One of the great concerns for us is bracket creep, which we've talked a lot about in this chamber with other legislation that has come through recently and is going to be dramatically affected by bracket creep. Bringing in a new tax rate on super and not having it indexed to inflation is another awful example of bracket creep that is going to affect a growing percentage of Australians. If you're a young Australian, you have a very high likelihood of ultimately being caught up in this higher taxation regime. As the shadow Treasurer points out in his amendment to the second reading, this is absolutely appalling and not something that anyone was asked to vote for or against. They'll get that opportunity at the next election. We have a very clear policy position in this regard. But we are very concerned about that and, in the process of inquiring into this bill through a Senate process that may or may not transpire, the impact of these things on younger Australians in particular will be an important thing to look at.</para>
<para>The other thing I want to touch on through the amendment to the second reading that the shadow Treasurer has moved is our positive plan to give people access to their own money to help them get into the housing market. That is our policy position that we took to the last election and that we are taking to the next election. We would allow people to access a portion of their superannuation to help them get into the housing market. What's the great dream for people, particularly when they reach retirement age? It's to have a healthy superannuation and to own your home. If you retire, own your home and have healthy superannuation, then you have a high degree of confidence in your economic independence going forward. Using superannuation to help people get into the housing market as early as possible—certainly earlier than they would have been able to if they didn't have access to super to support them doing that—helps provide for people's retirement and their savings for retirement.</para>
<para>We have a potential nightmare scenario as things stand, as people are getting into the housing market later and later, possibly in their 40s or what have you, and are reaching retirement without having paid off the mortgage on their first home. It's a perverse situation where, because we didn't let them access their super to help them get into the housing market, they're using the majority of their super when they retire to pay off the mortgage that they started so much later in life because it took them so long to build a deposit to get into the housing market in the first place. It's complete madness.</para>
<para>Now we even have the crazy situation where the superannuation companies are talking about building homes with our own money to rent to us. I put my money into superannuation, and I can't access it to help me buy my own home, but my super fund will buy a home using my money and rent it to me. In the coalition, we think our money is our money, and we absolutely believe in the importance of having a system where people save and provide for their retirement. Dare I say that some of the strongest supporters of the coalition are those exact people. Self-funded retirees are some of the strongest supporters of coalition governments, and we support super, but the proposal and policy position that we will take to the next election is about helping people leverage their super to get into the housing market earlier.</para>
<para>By getting into the housing market earlier, they will obviously have a much stronger equity position—hopefully a 100 per cent equity position—in their home much sooner. We also know that, through our policy, when you sell that home that you purchase with any support from your super fund, you have to put the money back into your super fund. We also know that the property market—and we hope this is the case fairly consistently into the future—is a very strong, safe, stable investment in Australia. In fact, it's almost too good in some circumstances, and that's part of the problem at the moment. The market is growing very strongly, and that along with high interest rates contributes to making it a much higher challenge for people to get into that market.</para>
<para>We have young people with a lot of money in superannuation, which is excellent, and that's their money. It's coming out of their pay packets and going into a fund to be held in trust for them, to provide for their future. There's absolutely nothing better for providing for your financial future than investing in your own home. We have a situation where people can't access that to help them get into the property market, and they're therefore getting in much later and bearing a much higher burden at one of the most difficult times for them financially. That's probably when they also have high costs around raising a family and meeting all the costs of that. They also, quite reasonably, want to have a degree of quality, enjoyable leisure time with that family. That includes things that might seem like luxuries but which are pretty reasonably part of the Australian dream, like going on nice holidays, spending time with the ones you love and enjoying yourself when you're with the ones you love. We don't think people should have the burden of disproportionate sacrifice because the ideological blinkers say, 'Super, which is our own money, can't be used to do anything like provide for your financial future by helping to get in the housing market sooner.' So I particularly look forward to talking to the young people in my electorate and to the—regrettably ever-growing—cohort of people in my electorate that are not yet in the housing market, about this policy position in the lead-up to the next election.</para>
<para>Housing and housing affordability will be one of the most significant deciding factors of the next election. I'm very proud that already we can say we have announced policies that we can communicate to people and explain how it is going to help them use their own money to get into the housing market. I have to say, it runs at about a 100 per cent success rate, when you talk to young people who say they can't get into the housing market and are struggling to save for a deposit. When you say, 'Wouldn't it be great if you could use part of your superannuation to help you buy a home?' No-one says, 'Are you kidding? I'd hate to do that. I'd rather scrimp and save and pay rent for another 10 years to get to the point where I have a deposit. Then, when I've paid all that dead rent money for 10 years, I'll be getting into the housing market 10 years late and find that, by the time I retire, the super I couldn't use to get into the housing market 10 years earlier I now have to use to pay off the mortgage that I haven't been repaying for the 10 years that I would have been if I'd got in 10 years earlier.' It's a threshold question as to whether we want to back people to make their own money to make their own decisions about their financial future, and provide for their retirement by using their retirement savings to ensure that, by the time they are drawing on those savings, the first thing they are doing with them isn't paying off debts because they got into the housing market so late.</para>
<para>This is the party of Robert Menzies, the party that prides itself on homeownership and supporting people to get that economic independence for them and their families of owning a home. This is an issue that is not only vitally important for us to prosecute at the next election; it's also vitally important if you believe in Australia and in the Australian dream that everyone should have a fair and reasonable ambition to own a home. It's heartbreaking that there are so many Australians who are just saying in growing numbers: 'We've essentially given up thinking that we will ever be able to buy a home. And we will be renting, essentially, for life.' We've failed in this place if we just throw our hands up and say, 'Well, so be it. That's just life.' If we're getting excited about super funds building homes to rent to people with their own money, there is something seriously perverse going on with the policy settings in housing and retirement savings.</para>
<para>So I look forward to prosecuting those arguments in the context of this bill and the shadow Treasurer 's second reading, which talks about the objectives of superannuation. There has never been a more important time for this debate. Superannuation is about provisioning for our future and saving for our future. One of the best things that it can be used to support is people saving through homeownership and owning their own home outright by the time they enter retirement. I commend the shadow Treasurer's amendment to the second reading to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do hope that, when the honourable member for Sturt is speaking to those young people in his electorate, he remembers to tell them that he has voted against Help to Buy, that he has voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund—indeed, that he's voted against all the housing measures this government is taking to get more young people—more lower and middle income people—into housing, to deal with the 10 years of failure that he and his colleagues left this country with.</para>
<para>God help Australia if the member for Hume was ever to become Treasurer. I had the misfortune of hearing some of the contribution from the member for Hume when he was moving his amendment. I will never get that time back. I'm getting old. The man who was perhaps Australia's worst energy minister—who never landed a cogent energy plan, who hid a wholesale energy price rise during an election—had the cheek to criticise the member the Rankin, the Treasurer in this Labor government. This is the Treasurer who inherited the rising inflation and rising interest rates from those opposite but whose work has seen those twin dragons moderate. This is the Treasurer who has delivered a surplus, something those opposite never delivered. This is the Treasurer who is putting billions of dollars of debt repayment onto a debt mountain that those opposite more than tripled over a decade. This is the Treasurer who is overseeing record employment growth, real wages rising after a decade of deliberate liberal wage suppression. And this is the Treasurer who has delivered tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer. So we'll take no lectures from the member for Hume. It takes more than a soundbite and a Hollywood glare into the parliamentary cameras to be up to doing the job of being Treasurer of this country.</para>
<para>We're here tonight to talk about the importance of superannuation. It is an absolute fact that the Australian superannuation system is the envy of the world. It's a seductive argument that the member for Sturt puts forward. However, it's so full of economic holes when they talk about accessing super for your mortgage, because if you raid your super at, say, year 5 or year 10 of having super, you're not just taking the money out, you're also killing the power of compound interest for the next 20 or 30 years of your working life. When you take money out early in super, you never recover that lost money and the lost power of the compounding interest, so you will retire with much less, not a little bit less. The more money you take out at the start, the much less you retire with, and you'll never have enough to live comfortably in retirement.</para>
<para>Superannuation is an integral part of Australia's retirement income system, where the three pillars of compulsory superannuation, the aged pension and private savings work together to ensure that Australians have a comfortable income in retirement. Superannuation is now a $3.5 trillion system, representing the fourth largest pool of retirement savings in the world. It's a significant vehicle for economic investment and continuing economic growth. It is the envy of the world. Overseas governments look to this example about how to do it right, yet those opposite always want to dismantle it.</para>
<para>Labor is proud to have built superannuation and we are going to protect it. Previously the preserve of the executive classes, it was the Hawke-Keating Labor government of the early 1990s who extended the benefits of superannuation to every Australian worker, with Treasurer John Dawkins, the then member for Fremantle, announced the superannuation guarantee in 1992. Like all great reforms that Labor has sought to introduce on behalf of everyday Australians, the Liberals opposed superannuation for wage earners—the sky would fall in! Just like with Medicare and everything we do to make life better for working people, the Liberals opposed it. The Liberals were quite comfortable with wealthy Australians—the businesspeople and the highly paid top classes of the public service—enjoying the benefits of tax breaks and compounded interest, but they twitched their nostrils at the idea that it should be extended to the commoners.</para>
<para>The Labor government endured the usual criticism from those opposite and their noisy barrackers, but we persevered. At the time, three per cent of a worker's earnings were set aside for compulsory super, with that percentage always set to grow over time. By now, in 2024, it was meant to be at 15 per cent for all workers. It's already there for Commonwealth public sector workers but it's not there for the rest of the community. Of course, a couple of decades of Liberal government between then and now resulted in the usual go-slows, delays and excuses, which has resulted in billions of dollars less going into the retirement incomes of Australian workers over that period.</para>
<para>The superannuation guarantee rate will increase to 12 per cent in July 2025. Along with voluntary contributions that can be added with tax concessions, encouraging people to save more money, it will ensure that more Australians can enjoy a higher standard of living in their retirement.</para>
<para>We all know why superannuation was created. We talk about it all the time. It's to provide a comfortable retirement income. But, incredibly, there's nothing in the legislation that formally states this objective. Given that those opposite take every opportunity they can to raid superannuation for other purposes—and we've seen from the contributions tonight that that continues—the Albanese Labor government is determined to ensure that the objectives of superannuation are clearly articulated in law.</para>
<para>The 2014 Financial System Inquiry, chaired by David Murray, found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An efficient superannuation system is critical to help Australia meet the economic and fiscal challenges of an ageing population.</para></quote>
<para>It recommended that the government seek an agreement that it be enshrined in legislation. Murray said the legislation should confirm the objective of superannuation and suggested it should be:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension.</para></quote>
<para>In 2016, in response to the 2014 review, the former government introduced a Superannuation (Objective) Bill that reflected the recommendations. Incredibly—everybody here will grasp in surprise—that bill lapsed in 2019 without ever being acted upon. The Retirement Income Review of 2020 also broadly agreed with the findings of the 2014 Financial System Inquiry, agreeing there should be a policy to help ensure the purpose of the system was understood.</para>
<para>Legislating an objective for superannuation, a Labor commitment at the last election, will give some peace of mind to Australian workers that we will do everything we can to safeguard their savings to deliver income in retirement, and it will give confidence to the superannuation sector. The Albanese government has introduced legislation to define the objective of superannuation as being 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way'. The bill will answer three key questions: (1) the purpose of superannuation, to provide clarity on its role to ensure that it is used for its purpose to preserve savings and deliver income at retirement age; (2) how superannuation delivers on its purpose, how it should operate in an equitable and sustainable way to have stability and deliver upon retirement; and (3) the place of superannuation as part of the retirement income system, how super works with the age pension and personal savings, and how it remains fiscally sustainable.</para>
<para>The Liberals opposed the creation of compulsory superannuation. They continue to believe in the destructive idea that taxes and social investment are inherently antibusiness. One could forgive and understand this tired, fundamentalist Thatcher-Reagan ideology, except for the fact that wherever it has been implemented it has caused immense economic and social damage. We've had more than 40 years of lived experience of that ideology in the United States, and there is now a wasteland of the once great American middle class. Promises of more efficient delivery of services from private sector providers have simply never eventuated. Instead, services get cut, quality gets slashed and, when it all falls apart, the providers come running to the government for bailouts, which inevitably happen because the services are so important and essential to provide.</para>
<para>The Liberals attack superannuation, claiming it keeps wages lower—that, if it didn't exist, somehow all the dollars that go into super would instead be going into wages. These are seductive but destructive arguments, because those opposite have never seen a wage rise they want to support. Here they are pretending that the 12 or 15 per cent extra that goes into super would magically just be in people's pay packets if super weren't there. I can guarantee that every wage rise would have been opposed by those opposite because it's unaffordable for business or because it's the wrong time or because wage rises would be nice but not right now. They are the party of deliberate wage suppression. They spent a decade deliberately keeping wages low. It had nothing to do with superannuation.</para>
<para>The fact is that the Liberals' plans, if implemented, will destroy retirement incomes for millions of Australians and remove trillions of dollars from long-term investment pools. The short-term benefits of a one-off wage rise would not last long and would leave workers entirely dependent on the age pension, which as Murray found out would be completely the wrong thing to do when we have an ageing population. We don't have more taxpayers coming into the system to support an ageing population; we have more people ageing and fewer workers to support them. For the Liberals to pretend that they support higher wages when, for 10 years in government, they deliberately kept them low makes me just shake my head. Seeking to tap into Australians' anxiety, the Liberals have also said that superannuation should be used by domestic violence sufferers and by homebuyers. Of little doubt, they'd be just as—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>104</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every time we get behind the wheel, we make choices—choices that can mean life or death. If you or your fellow motorists make the wrong choice, it can have a catastrophic impact. One thousand two hundred and seventy-three people died on our roads in 2023, up 7.9 per cent from 2022. The impact of crashes is felt by families, friends and communities, and this is why the work of the Australian Road Safety Foundation is so important.</para>
<para>The foundation works with all sectors of the community to find practical solutions to reduce the risk of road crashes and save lives. Road crashes are mostly preventable, and the foundation focuses on delivering awareness campaigns, education, research and advocacy to engage with the community and spread the message that we all have the power to be the change we want to see on our roads. Every year, the foundation delivers national campaigns like Fatality Free Friday, which is held in May, Rural Road Safety Month, which is held in September, and the Australian Road Safety Awards, which recognise road safety advocates for their important work.</para>
<para>Educating young people about their responsibility on the road is another important initiative from the foundation. In 2020 they launched RoadSet, a free interactive online education tool designed for year 9 students, which utilises engaging gaming animations to encourage good decision-making on the roads. Road trauma comes at an almost $30 billion annual price tag, but there is no way to quantify the life sentence of emotional suffering that is its legacy. I commend the foundation's work to keep Australia's roads safe.</para>
<para>The Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation was born of a tragedy. In 2014, Michelle and David McLaughlin took their three children on a beach holiday. Michelle and David were looking forward to spending long summer days with their family and making wonderful memories that would last a lifetime. Instead, in the blink of an eye, they experienced a tragedy which would change their lives. On a hot summer afternoon, four-year-old Tom was hit by a car and passed away on the side of the road in his mum's arms. As a father of three kids, I just can't fathom the grief and the pain that Michelle and David experienced and will continue to experience for a long time—forever. The loss of a child must be the most distressing event for any parent. Michelle and David have channelled their trauma into action by setting up the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation to honour Tom's memory and teach kids about road safety, especially at holiday time when it's in unfamiliar places.</para>
<para>In 2021 the foundation received a Commonwealth road safety initiative grant for a study into child road trauma. One of the key recommendations arising from that study was about how important it is to hold the hands of a child under 10 years of age around roads and around traffic. Hold them tight, as our children's lives are so precious and fragile. I asked my fellow MPs to be ambassadors for the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation and encourage local governments, schools, preschools and childcare centres to be involved with its holiday-time campaign and help make Tom's legacy a powerful one.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I talk to people in my electorate, as no doubt many others in this place do, and I ask them about their biggest concern, there's no doubt that the No. 1 issue that comes up time and again is the cost of living. I'm very proud to say that I do have answers for them. I'm proud to say that, thanks to this government, we can provide real answers and some solutions as well. I tell them that we know it's an issue, that everyone understands it's an issue, but we are working on it and we are delivering. Conversations like this in my electorate of Adelaide make me proud, because on this side of politics, in our government, we're not just talking; we're taking action.</para>
<para>We're delivering on things that ease the cost of living. We're delivering tax cuts, cheaper child care, affordable medicines, expanded paid parental leave and more accessible housing. All of these things will put more money in people's pockets. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, the biggest hike in three decades, or 30 years. And, of course, we're very proud that the base rates of JobSeeker and other payments have gone up under this Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>We've provided electricity bill rebates for over five million households and one million small businesses. Without the electricity rebates this government has put in place, people would be paying much more for electricity. We have supported over 11.6 million Australians to see a GP without out-of-pocket costs—11.6 million Australians who otherwise would have been out of pocket.</para>
<para>We understand the financial strains that Australians are feeling, and that's why we're working on more measures. We know the weight is felt particularly at the cash register—at supermarkets or when you're buying petrol—and when you're paying your electricity bill. On this side of the House the aim is simple: to make Australia fair, whether you're a consumer, a business owner or a farmer. To work towards addressing these issues, this government has initiated a thorough review, led by the ACCC, to examine supermarket pricing. This will be a 12-month inquiry, a significant effort. This isn't just paperwork; it's important. It hasn't been done since 2008. In other words, for the years the other side were in government there was no interest in it.</para>
<para>We're making sure that Australian working people's money goes a long way. Aussies deserve a fair go. That's why we're committed to delivering the ACCC's inquiry, which will cover various aspects of the supermarket sector. We've heard stories of price gouging on all sorts of products, and we want to get to the bottom of that. That's why the ACCC has been given the task of inquiring into it. The inquiry will examine the challenges faced by small retailers, especially in regional and remote areas, as well as factors affecting prices along the supply chain and potential obstacles to fair competition. Loyalty programs and third-party discounts will also be examined. We expect to have the ACCC's findings by early 2025.</para>
<para>We're committed to ensuring Australian shoppers get a fair deal, and our commitment doesn't stop with the ACCC inquiry. We're also independently reviewing the food and grocery code. This code aims to fix power imbalances and promote fairness in the industry. It aims to regulate business dealings among farmers, suppliers, wholesalers and supermarkets, addressing harmful practices in the grocery sector due to power imbalances. By shielding suppliers and ensuring fair practices, the code aims to prevent issues being passed on to Australian consumers through the supply chain. This review will assess whether the code contributes effectively to the food and grocery industry, as it was intended to do. We want to make sure the food and grocery code safeguards suppliers while contributing to industry growth. Ultimately, we want to make sure the systems we have in place are working, so that if they're not we can do something about it.</para>
<para>This government is also investing $1.1 million in CHOICE for quarterly price transparency reports, which may name and shame some of those wholesalers and retailers. It's all about a fair go and an equitable market. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Government Services</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under this government and the inept and incompetent conduct of the Minister for Government Services, the member for Maribyrnong, we see service delivery and digital transformation in a terrible state. At Services Australia there is a massive of backlog of claims. The <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> recently reported that Services Australia has a backlog of 1.5 million claims. Under this government, claim-processing waiting times have blown out massively compared to the times which applied under the coalition. The average time to process an application for a low-income card in 2021-22 was 16 days. What is it now under Labor, the worker's friend? It's 82.5 days! It's 82.5 days you have to wait when you apply for a low-income card. What about the age pension? Under the coalition it took 25 days for a claim to be processed, and now you are waiting 78 days.</para>
<para>Of course, there is one group of Australians who are having their applications for welfare payments dealt with very promptly, and that would be the 105 individuals in the NZYQ cohort. It's taking Services Australia a mere 14 days to process the applications for a special benefit payment compared to, if you apply for the disability support pension, waiting for 82 days. Those are the priorities of the member for Maribyrnong. If you are a criminal who has been released from immigration detention, your application for special benefits will be dealt with very promptly. But if you are somebody who is seeking the disability support pension you can expect to wait for 82 days.</para>
<para>What experience are we seeing of people who call up Services Australia with an inquiry? For the second half of the last calendar year, the average amount of time people had to wait when they called the disability, sickness and carers line was 48 minutes and 31 seconds. By comparison, under the coalition, in financial year 2021-22 it was 21 minutes. It's now more than double that. What was the big fix from the member for Maribyrnong to solve this problem? He told us proudly recently that they are employing another 3,000 new staff, but he forgot to mention a couple of things. The average staffing level was cut from 28,560 in 2022-23 to 26,692 in the 2023-24 budget, down by nearly 2,000. In mid-2022, shortly after coming to office, he rolled up his sleeves and cancelled a contract with specialist call centre provider Serco. At the stroke of a pen, 600 call centre jobs were gone.</para>
<para>What's happening when it comes to the future of delivering services digitally? Well, the member for Maribyrnong doesn't particularly like the delivery of digital services. We have learnt through Senate estimates that in March last year the government quietly paused automation processes for the processing of claims, and some of those processes remain paused. It's quite mystifying why, but we can see the results in the appalling blowout in the length of time people need to wait when they apply for a benefit. That pausing of automation is surely linked to this terrible performance.</para>
<para>But there is more terrible performance in every direction you look under the care of the member for Maribyrnong. There are now only two major information and communications technology projects on the books at Services Australia: the GovERP program and the Health Delivery Modernisation Program. Both were started by the coalition government. How are they tracking now under the member for Maribyrnong? As of December 2023, both were on the lowest health rating of red. They were red. Indeed, the performance of the Health Delivery Modernisation Program was so bad that the Digital Transformation Agency said this month that the project requires constant attention if it is to achieve its stated outcomes. I forgot to mention that one of the other great contributions of the member for Maribyrnong in late 2022 was to abolish over 1,000 specialist IT jobs at Services Australia. No wonder the performance is so dreadful. We knew that the member for Maribyrnong was absolutely hopeless at public administration. We have now seen powerful proof of it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Sydney Airport</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've long been a supporter of the Western Sydney airport. It's just off the northern boundary of my electorate of Macarthur, and it has been amazing to see the transformation of that area as the airport has been built. Thankfully, we're nearing the completion of this very lengthy project. We are expecting the first planes to land at the airport in two years time. Yet, unfortunately, it appears that the airport itself and the city around it, now called Bradfield, may well be white elephants unless transport links are approached appropriately, and this is not happening.</para>
<para>Instead we've seen pork barrelling by the previous coalition governments, both state and federal, in developing the rail link from the north, from St Marys, to Western Sydney airport without a link to the south, to my electorate of Macarthur and to Campbelltown, and then to Sydney itself and Kingsford Smith airport, the main Sydney airport. Unless this rail link is put in place, these two places—the airport and the city of Bradfield—are very likely to be white elephants, and it's due to mismanagement by previous coalition governments, state and federal. How this can happen is quite beyond me. Again, it shines a light on the very questionable planning and development decisions by previous New South Wales governments. I have long called for a royal commission into planning and development in New South Wales. The revelations about what's happening at Sydney Metro—with grave concerns about its contracts being awarded to people who don't even live in New South Wales and are involved with the Sydney Metro projects—are very concerning and reinforce my call for a royal commission into planning and development in New South Wales.</para>
<para>Businesses that will operate at the aerotropolis cannot operate without a link to Sydney airport and Sydney itself, and that requires a rail link from Western Sydney airport, through Bradfield and on to Macarthur, Campbelltown and Sydney. If this doesn't happen, the airport and the city are likely to not function properly and not provide the many jobs that I was very excited to see had been planned for that area. We've seen, with Sydney Metro, how poor planning and cost blowouts undermine the potential of much-needed infrastructure projects. The Rozelle interchange of course has continually been talked about in terms of what a disaster that has been. It's been a $4 billion planning disaster by the planning group of the New South Wales government. It's a real issue and it's an abuse of taxpayers' dollars and an abuse of our institutions.</para>
<para>I'm very concerned that, unless we get the rail link done properly, Western Sydney airport will not function the way I want it to function. I want it to be the best airport in the country, and we need to get the rail links right. We've already got the tunnel-boring machines to do the tunnels into Western Sydney airport from the south. It's really a false economy to not continue the line through Bradfield and on to Campbelltown. It is crazy. It's only a few kilometres and it's something that really has to be done if Bradfield and the airport are going to function properly and the airport is to be what it could be. It also will not deliver jobs or freight unless we get the rail links right. At present, there are no appropriate transport links from my electorate of Macarthur to, just a few kilometres away, Western Sydney airport and Bradfield. This is a huge planning issue and a huge issue for my constituents that is not being addressed by the present New South Wales government. I urge them to reconsider their plans and complete the few kilometres of rail link from Bradfield to Campbelltown so that my constituents and the many people coming from Sydney can get to Bradfield and get to Western Sydney airport.</para>
<para>I should also say that the actual name of the new aerotropolis city, Bradfield, is totally inappropriate. It was named after a white engineer who died many, many years ago. An Aboriginal name would have been appropriate, such as Wirraway, which is an Aboriginal name familiar to the area and also the name of a plane designed and built in Australia during the Second World War. If they don't want to choose Wirraway, they could use Dharawal, after the Dharawal people, who are the people of my electorate of Macarthur and the area of the Western Sydney airport. It would be a much more appropriate name. Unless the government does the right thing by the airport and by the aerotropolis city, we will not have the type of infrastructure that we deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barker Electorate: Environment</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In August 2023, Minister Bowen announced six proposed regions for offshore renewable infrastructure, including the Southern Ocean region off Portland in Victoria. Just to set the scene, I want to quote Minister Bowen's department, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. The consultation documents for this particular zone state:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Victorian Government's recently announced updated renewable energy targets are 65% by 2030 and 95% by 2035. It is also targeting at least 2GW of offshore wind energy generation by 2032, 4GW by 2035 and 9GW by 2040, with first power by 2028.</para></quote>
<para>They say: 'Offshore renewable energy projects within the Southern Ocean region can help the Victorian government meet these targets.'</para>
<para>Well, Minister, that's great, but the Southern Ocean region, which stretches over a vast area of 5,100 kilometres from Warrnambool in Victoria, also includes the community offshore of Port Macdonnell in South Australia. So what benefits does this proposal bring for South Australians, Minister—because I can tell you the community of Port Macdonnell will never be the same if this proposal goes ahead. Port Macdonnell is the southern rock lobster capital of Australia and the world. The southern rock lobster industry employs a thousand people and contributes $140 million in gross state product—not to mention the wider fishing and tourism industry.</para>
<para>The sustainable fishing industry and the stunning coastline that forms the basis of a thriving local tourism industry will be decimated by an offshore wind farm. In this region, the continental shelf is less than 30 kilometres from shore, creating an abundance of rare and temperamental fisheries akin to prime agricultural land. The very purpose of renewable energy, the minister would have us believe, is to reduce the environmental impact on vulnerable species and ecosystems. How does drilling and pouring concrete into these very fragile reefs to erect towers up to 250 metres above sea level fit that brief? So, while this proposal may help the Victorian government reach what I suggest to you is a ridiculous renewable target, it's destroying livelihoods and life styles, not to mention the fragile marine environment in South Australia.</para>
<para>I brought a delegation of concerned residents to Canberra in August last year to meet with the minister and explain their concerns about this proposal, because it's important that the minister, as the ultimate decision-maker, hears concerns firsthand, not just through the department's flawed consultation process. This meeting had to be held in Canberra because, although the minister may be keen to allow wind turbines along the coast of Port Macdonnell, he wasn't willing to travel to the region in person.</para>
<para>Since that meeting, the community has run a petition calling on the government to reject any proposal to declare an area suitable for offshore wind off the coast of Port Macdonnell in South Australia. The petition has garnered 4,649 signatures in just four weeks. People are concerned. While it has been presented to the parliament electronically, I rise in this place to ensure that the importance of these 4,649 signatures is recognised.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's ideological crusade to establish renewable energy projects across the country is being met by opposition from rural, regional and coastal communities across the country, including in my very own Limestone Coast. Helping Victoria to meet its ambitious targets may help Labor win inner-city Melbourne seats in the state and federal governments, but I want it on the record in this place that it will be doing so at the expense of small coastal communities who want to be heard.</para>
<para>Now, I've always prided myself on being Barker's voice in Canberra, not Canberra's voice in Barker, so, Minister, I want you to listen. Our communities do not want this proposal off their coast. They don't want to be excluded from the fertile fishing grounds in the Southern Ocean off Port Macdonnell. This proposal has no social licence. Minister, listen to the community. They've run a fantastic campaign, and on your head be it should you move ahead with this proposal which will decimate their lives and livelihoods.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Mother Language Day</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Wednesday, 21 February, was United Nations International Mother Language Day. This day is a very important day for promoting inclusion and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. International Mother Language Day is a really important day in my electorate. In Chisholm, more than 50 per cent of people speak a language other than English in their home. People in Chisholm speak 149 different languages, including Mandarin, Cantonese, Greek, Sinhalese, Hindi, Vietnamese, Tamil, Italian and Korean. We have many fabulous language schools in our community that work to enhance our linguistic diversity and pass on traditional knowledge, languages and culture.</para>
<para>I was recently honoured to visit the Bengali Language and Cultural School, where I joined in celebrations for International Mother Language Day. This is a very important day for this community, and I was so honoured to be included. I congratulate everyone involved for a terrific day that connected language, identity and culture and shared that with our community. In my electorate we have the Mang-Non Vietnamese Language School Association in Burwood East, the Greek Orthodox Community of Box Hill and Districts, and dozens of other language schools. Language schools in our community play a vital role in keeping mother languages alive and fostering the next generation of multicultural communities.</para>
<para>On the weekend I also had the honour of officially opening the brand-new facilities at Khalsa Punjabi School in Blackburn. Our government delivered $100,000 for upgrades to the school. The new facilities include two new portable classrooms, two new air conditioners and six interactive classroom smartboard bundles. There was also fresh paint in five classrooms, corridors, bathrooms, a foyer and a kitchen. These upgrades will accommodate an increase in student numbers at the Khalsa Punjabi School and will enhance learning, which will benefit young students in Blackburn and surrounding suburbs. These new facilities will assist in the delivery of culturally focused language skills and will also be used by local community groups. Thank you to the Khalsa Punjabi School community for your kindness and hospitality. I hope you enjoy your beautiful new classrooms.</para>
<para>I want to very sincerely thank the community leaders and language teachers who work so hard to pass on their language to young people in our community. I am so proud and privileged to represent our beautiful multilingual and multicultural community in Chisholm.</para>
<para>I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the terrific news received last night about our government's cost-of-living tax cuts passing the Senate. From 1 July this year, every single Australian taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them, will receive a tax cut. This side of the House wants Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, and our bigger tax cuts for more taxpayers will help make that happen. In my electorate of Chisholm, this means that, from 1 July, 81,000 people in my community will receive an average tax cut of $1,640. Sixty-six thousand more people in my electorate will receive a bigger tax cut than under the previous plan. I am pleased that 82 per cent of taxpayers in my electorate of Chisholm will receive a bigger tax cut than under the previous plan. I know this is going to make a significant difference to families right across my community.</para>
<para>Our government's No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures. We know a lot of people are doing it tough. Our 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. Already we have delivered electricity bill relief. We've made medicines cheaper. We've made it easier and cheaper to see a doctor. We've ensured that there is cheaper early childhood education and care and we've expanded parental leave. We're building more social and affordable homes and increasing rent assistance. We're delivering fee-free TAFE and we're seeing wages rising at the fastest rate in a decade, including for 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.</para>
<para>In my community of Chisholm I am so proud to represent a Labor government that will always put people first, and I'm especially proud to be part of a government that's delivering so much for the people I care about in my community.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Archer ) took the chair at 09:30.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 28 February 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>109</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Exports</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a map that I carry around everywhere. I hold it up and say, 'What's that?' They say, 'It's a map of Australia.' Yes, it most certainly looks like a map of Australia. But it's a map of Australia shorn of a narrow east coast, east of the Great Dividing Range. It has been taken off it. And we dropped off Victoria—but then who'd miss Victoria, seriously! I don't mean to be offensive. And there's a little dot around Perth. It looks like a map of Australia. It's 92 per cent of Australia. There are 1.2 million people living there. In an area the size of the United States, bigger than Europe, almost as big as Brazil or China, there's no-one living there. How much longer do you think that's going to go on for? We export iron ore, coal and gas. They come from the golden Australia, not where the people live. We export, if you like, on the next rung down, aluminium, gold, copper and beef. They all come from the golden Australia. In fact, 95 per cent of Australia's exports come from the golden Australia, which is empty. If you can't learn the lessons of history, then you are condemned to suffer them again, to quote Winston Churchill.</para>
<para>Now, 250 years ago, we Australians—I think I've got one of those original Australians in the family tree—said: 'We don't need to have a population. We don't need any sophisticated weaponry or machinery or anything like that. No, no, we don't need any of those things.' Well, I can't speak for the rest of Australia, but my part of Australia—North Queensland and western Northern Territory—would have been wiped out. As a people, we would have been wiped out. If it weren't for the Christian missionaries coming in at the last minute, we'd have been an annihilated.</para>
<para>It wasn't a good idea, and it's not a good idea now. It is a very, very bad idea indeed. Hughenden is a town right in the centre of Queensland. If you draw a demographic map of Queensland, right in the centre is Hughenden. The Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, has been there twice. Why? Because it is the site for five giant windfarms. But, even more importantly—infinitely more important still—it is the site of where it turns around. There are six local people there who are great heroes of Australia, and they say, 'No, we're going to put population back. We are going to have 120 farms here. We're going to put a dam in and catch a bit of the flood water.' The greenies and people in this place are crying and howling all the time about the planet coming to an end. They don't understand. We don't have a river; we have a flood. We just want a little bit of water— <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fraser Electorate: Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday, climate change minister Chris Bowen joined me on a visit to an apartment building in Sunshine, in my electorate. But it wasn't just any old building. Newly built, it is in a prime location, close to shopping and just a five-minute walk from the transport hub of Sunshine Station. It also has a bank of solar panels, precisely the type of development that a new initiative of the Albanese government and Allan Victorian government is encouraging. This is included in a $108 million cleaner, cheaper energy package for Victorians. It is $16 million for owners corporations to install panels on apartment buildings. I must say, when the minister and I looked across the vista of Sunshine, on almost every building, including the entire Sunshine Marketplace shopping centre, almost every rooftop was covered entirely in solar panels. It was quite a remarkable view. Last but not least, some key workers, such as teachers, nurses and healthcare and support and retail workers, now call this area home thanks to Uniting Housing, which bought 17 apartments in the building for affordable housing. The residents, who are mostly in their 20s and 30s and from culturally diverse backgrounds, pay just 75 per cent of market rent.</para>
<para>Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. It supports wellbeing and strengthens personal and community connections. It's why the Albanese government is making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade through its $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>Thank you to Uniting for all the other support that it provides in my community and right across Victoria, from employment, family and disability services through to emergency relief, crisis support, training, education and more.</para>
<para>Another organisation doing great work in Melbourne is Inner West Community Enterprises, the business behind Community Bank Seddon, an organisation that was recently accredited as a social enterprise. I was at the celebration of that in Melbourne's west, which was attended by many people from my electorate and beyond. This branch of Bendigo Bank is led by the indefatigable Andy Moutray-Read.</para>
<para>Andy came to Australia from England in 1989 to follow his heart. He ended up in Yarraville in 2000 and has never left the west. If you go to any event in the inner west—a festival, a fundraiser, a fair or a launch—the chances are that Andy will be there helping out. For the past eight years he has been the CEO of the IWCE, which supports numerous programs, clubs, schools and associations, financially and in kind. For example, there is the inner west Community Bike Hub, a collaboration with Rotary Club of Footscray, which provides bike services and a repairs workshop as well as safe riding and bike maintenance programs. The bike hub also has a partnership with Footscray High School, where bikes destined for landfill are fixed by year 9 students under the watchful eye of teacher and qualified mechanic Dominik Zylka . The repaired bikes are then donated to people in need. This is just one of the many projects Andy and Bendigo Bank support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bradfield Electorate: Urban Planning</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many of my constituents have contacted me to express their concerns about the New South Wales Labor government's proposed radical changes to planning rules, which would have a profound impact on my electorate of Bradfield, including the entire local government area of Ku-ring-gai and significant portions of Willoughby and Hornsby local government areas. Under the new transport oriented development rules, six-storey apartment buildings will be permitted within 400 metres of 31 train stations across the metropolitan area, including four in my electorate—Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon. These six-story apartment buildings will be permitted even if the areas today are zoned R2 for low-density residential.</para>
<para>As well as the new transport oriented development rules, there are very wide ranging changes to planning rules proposed. Within 400 metres of a train station or designated shopping centre, apartment buildings of up to 21 metres in height will be permitted in areas zoned as high-density residential, medium-density residential and general residential. Between 400 and 800 metres away from a train station or designated shopping centre, apartment buildings of up to 16 metres will be permitted. In areas between 400 and 800 metres away from a train station or shopping centre, on any block larger than 500 square metres in size the new rules will allow an existing freestanding home to be replaced with several terrace houses, each up to 9.5 metres in height, with multidwelling housing, or with so-called 'manor houses'—small two-storey apartment blocks. Duplexes can be built on any residential block as long as it's at least 450 metres in size.</para>
<para>There's been very poor consultation with affected communities by the New South Wales Labor government. It released two discussion papers in December last year. The transport oriented development discussion paper specifically says that residents are not invited to comment on the proposals, only councils, and that the changes will take effect from 1 April this year. The other paper only allowed comments to be received up until 23 February 2024. These are some of the most profound changes proposed to the planning system for many decades, but very little time has been allowed for their impact to be understood or for citizens to make comments on them.</para>
<para>There are serious questions about the process. How were the 31 stations chosen? Who made the choices? How were the stations allocated across the urban areas of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong? Why has there been no public process and no opportunity for citizens to make submissions? There's been no proactive attempt by the New South Wales government to inform residents of Bradfield of the nature or extent of the changes proposed. This falls far short of the normal standard expected in consulting with affected communities in relation to major infrastructure or planning changes. These changes would be far reaching. The amount of notice given to citizens is inadequate. The time frame for consultation is too short, and there are serious issues that need to be carefully considered. I have written to New South Wales Premier Minns, expressing my concerns about the impact of these changes on Bradfield.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a really important contribution to this parliament, because last night the parliament passed Labor's tax cut plans, which will provide relief for 13.6 million Australians. All taxpayers will be provided with tax cuts as a result of the Labor plan, and, from 1 July, in my electorate of Gorton, we'll see 78,000 taxpayers receiving cost-of-living relief through these tax cuts. It's important to note that 88 per cent of the taxpayers of Gorton will be better off than they would have been under the Liberal plan that was initially the matter considered by the parliament. Although the Liberal opposition supported the plan last night, we really don't think they had their heart in it, and we know that, if they were in government, there is no way this plan would have ever succeeded and ever been enacted by the parliament.</para>
<para>Now, for the people of the electorate of Gorton, it means there's an average of $1,426 a year for each taxpayer. For example, a nurse in Gorton earning $78,000 will get a tax cut of $1,579 a year. A truck driver in Gorton earning $77,000 will receive a tax cut of $1,604. A primary school teacher in Gorton earning $80,000 will get a tax cut of $1,679 a year. Labor's tax plans are about giving more help to Middle Australia to help with cost-of-living pressures, making sure that they keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>Gorton is a relatively young electorate, with about 40 per cent of the population under the age of 30. Over the last year and a half, I've engaged and spoken with many young people in my electorate about the broad range of issues that are of concern to them. In my role as Minister for Skills and Training, I've spent considerable time visiting TAFEs and businesses that hire apprentices and have spoken to countless young people. What many of them tell me is about how cost-of-living pressures are making their lives challenging, which is why I'm very proud of the fact that this government has introduced fee-free TAFE initiatives. With more than 350,000 Australians enrolling in fee-free TAFE and a further 300,000 courses starting from this year, there are more opportunities for young people across the nation.</para>
<para>Whether it be providing tax relief through Labor's tax cut plan or providing fee-free TAFE courses in areas of demand, the Albanese government will continue to provide support for people that are doing it tough too often, and we'll continue to do so as we go forward.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak of the impact of Labor's new vehicle standards on families, tradies and farmers in my electorate. The new carbon tax on popular SUVs, utes and four-wheel drives will push up the cost of new vehicles by up to $25,000 at purchase. It's a policy to push people into EVs whether they like them or not.</para>
<para>These are the types of vehicles that families, tradies and farmers are using in my electorate. The Ford Ranger, the Toyota HiLux and the Isuzu D-MAX are the top three selling cars in Australia. They are not for a run down to Pitt Street but to get kids into town for school, to take them camping, to get mum and dad to work, to get farmers out and about around their properties and to the sale yards or to get equipment in the back from the farm store. All of these occur over big distances. These are vehicles that people use in Australia to tow a caravan, a boat or horse floats. They're part and parcel of small businesses and family life in my electorate.</para>
<para>I've listened to the government's responses to questions asked by the opposition in question time about the impact on families of this policy. It is disappointing; the answers were absolutely not worth listening to. They're saying that you're going to save petrol money, maybe hundreds of dollars a year, when you're going to pay up to $25,000 more at purchase price for your vehicle. They don't get the practicalities of living in the bush or in rural coastal towns.</para>
<para>Last week I met with a number of car dealers and owners of businesses who have been operating for 40 and 50 years in my town together with my colleagues the member for Cowper and Senator Bridget McKenzie. These business operators are fair-minded and sensible people. They are not looking to score a quick political point, but the clarity they had on the impact of the new standards was very enlightening. They said the cost increases will be real and will be compounded by the challenges of living and working in regional Australia. The EV infrastructure in the regions isn't there, so it is simply not going to work. Early adopters have bought them, but most people have not. There is reasonable range anxiety. A trip around my electorate is 600 kilometres from top to bottom, and EVs wouldn't cut it. The batteries of EVs lose eight to 10 per cent a year. In five to six years an EV will only go half the difference. The cheapest petrol car is $18,300 and the cheapest EV is $46,000, and you will lose half the value of your car if you buy an EV because there is no second-hand market for EVs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kingston Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to listening to communities, supporting communities and partnering with communities and that is evident right around the country, particularly in my electorate of Kingston. I want to highlight a number of really important projects that are going along, funded in part by the federal Labor government.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge that work has begun on the Hub Gymnastics complex. The Hub Gymnastics complex is a community club that is offering hundreds of young people, particularly girls and women, the opportunity to participate in their passion of gymnastics. The government has committed to partnering with both the state government and local council to see that facility really fit for purpose, to ensure that my community gets the best facility possible, so seeing that work start has been really important.</para>
<para>My electorate has many, many kilometres of beach. I have Surf Life Saving clubs that patrol the beach and make sure that people are safe, so I'm so pleased that work is beginning for the Southport Surf Life Saving Club's extra training and storage place in Waring Street. That facility will also support the Onkaparinga Canoe Club, which, once again, is a partnership with local council, with the Surf Life Saving Club and with the federal government—a really important good investment.</para>
<para>We have seen the opening of the Yellow Gate domestic and family violence prevention hub in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, a project that was campaigned for by the local community. We are really pleased to be partnering with the South Australian government to make sure resources are available. This is a really important facility. It is at the Noarlunga shopping centre so that people have easy access to go and get advice, early intervention and, hopefully, prevention of family and domestic violence.</para>
<para>On the weekend, we are going to have the first sod turning of the Witton Bluff pathway at Port Noarlunga, joining Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga communities together. This is an incredibly important project. I have been campaigning for this for years. The community has been campaigning for this for years. There have been some stops and starts, but we are going to see that sod turn, and nothing will keep me away from that sod turn. It is an exciting project for our community, and I look forward to when our two communities of Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga are finally connected.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leichhardt Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to take the opportunity to recognise and celebrate this year's Australia Day Award recipients from around Leichardt. Starting with Cairns, Jacqui Backhouse has been awarded the Citizen of the Year, and Yazmin Rivette has been awarded the Young Citizen of the Year. Carol Wells has received Volunteer of the Year, and Maureen Cameron was recognised with the cultural award. Hirari Kurihara and Rhiannon Forbes have been awarded Sportsperson of the Year and Junior Sportsperson of the Year respectively. Kalan Gosper was highly commended with the Junior Sportsperson of the Year Award.</para>
<para>In Cairns, Joyce Swinton received the Lifetime Achievement Award for her philanthropic efforts which have improved health care in Far North Queensland. In Port Douglas, I would like to extend congratulations to Christine Lynch for being awarded Citizen of the Year. Caitlyn Butland and Rod Johnson were awarded junior and senior sports awards respectively, while Sid Murthy received the Environmental Achievement Award. Amber Yendle and Wendy 'Lu Lu' Cowan were recognised with the Young Citizen of the Year Award and the Senior Citizen of the Year Award respectively. Eliza Eggins received the Arts and Culture Award, while Walter Gray received the Volunteer of the Year Award for the work that he does with the RSL.</para>
<para>In Cooktown, you have Julie Oliver, who was awarded Citizen of the Year, and Lucas Giese received Young Citizen of the Year. John and Tanya Ahlers were both awarded Volunteer of the Year, while the Sports Award was awarded to Don Wood. The Arts and Culture Award was awarded to Jane Dennis, and the Environmental Award went to Denicka Danaher. In Weipa, father and son duo Reuben and Hunter Slingo were recognised with citizen and young citizen of the year awards respectively, while the Community Spirit Award had two winners this year, with Naty Linnehand and Scott Kootoofa.</para>
<para>Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge the achievements of individuals in the Torres Strait. Thomas Nomoa was awarded Citizen of the Year, and Roseanna Warrior received Young Citizen of the Year. Sonia Einersen, pastors Titom and Michelle Tamowoy, and Tricia Lehmann all received appreciation awards. Thomas Pedro received the Achievement Award, while Susan Baira and Hans AhWang both received cultural recognition awards. I'd also like to extend my congratulations to each and every one of these individuals, right across Leichhardt. They represent the very best of our Far North. Their achievements and contributions will no doubt leave a lasting legacy in their respective communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Women's Day</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 8 March, we will celebrate International Women's Day. This day is celebrated annually as a focus point for women's rights, with the movement giving focus to issues such as gender equality, reproductive rights and violence and abuse against women. It is a day of civil awareness for women and girls. This year the theme is 'Count her in: accelerating gender equality through economic empowerment'. This resonates profoundly, urging us to reflect on the strides we have made and the work that lies ahead in ensuring a more equitable world for all.</para>
<para>Economic empowerment is a critical pillar in the journey towards gender equality. When we talk about empowering women economically we are not merely talking about financial independence; we are talking about dismantling barriers, challenging stereotypes and creating an environment where women are not just included but thrive in every sector. We have certainly made progress over the years, with women excelling in fields once deemed exclusive to men.</para>
<para>However, gender disparities persist. As we work to eliminate the gender pay gap and underrepresentation in leadership positions, women overseas now face an assault on their reproductive rights, and in some countries young women and girls are barred from receiving an education or working. Economic empowerment serves as a catalyst for change. When women are economically empowered, they can make choices about their lives, their education, their health and their overall wellbeing. It is about more than earning a pay cheque; it is about having a seat at the table, influencing decisions and contributing to shaping a more inclusive society.</para>
<para>So today I wanted to give a shout-out to all the women and girls in my electorate of Pearce and all around the world. Whether they be at school, in tertiary education or serving an apprenticeship, I know they are pushing boundaries. To the women who are in part-time work or full-time work or serving on a board, please know that you are valued and your work counts. To those who are our strength at home—the caregivers, the retired or the service volunteers in our community—please know that your views count. Many of you have been at the forefront of changes that we have achieved to date, and this is a day we celebrate together. The women in my electorate of Pearce are amazing. They do not want to be just present; they want to thrive, and I'm always very happy to continue to encourage them. As we celebrate International Women's Day on 8 March let us remember those amazing women who came before us to break down barriers, and commit to counting every woman in—ensuring she has the tools, resources and opportunities to succeed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Groom Electorate: Housing</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Toowoomba, like the rest of Australia, has been facing a housing crisis. We've had one solution on the table now for over two years, but if we don't act on it we are at risk of losing that funding.</para>
<para>Toowoomba has similar problems to those we've seen elsewhere. We've got vacancy rates of 0.9 per cent. PRD reports that buyers are still having to offer well above the listed price just to get in. For this, and many other reasons, the Railway Parklands Project was chosen as a project to go in with the City Deal back in March 2022. I was very happy to have secured that funding, and I'm very happy to see that that funding and that project receives the continued support of the current Prime Minister. In fact, this project has almost universal support. Over 31 years ago, Peter Eldridge, who was on the then Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce, came up with this idea. He's been working feverishly ever since to try and push this idea forward. I was happy to stand beside him and Mayor Paul Antonio, in my first 18 months, and secure funding for this project.</para>
<para>The engineer in me could see the benefits of this project. This was about unlocking an area of Toowoomba that has not seen development and that is right in the heart of Toowoomba. It doesn't just provide solutions to housing but it gets more foot traffic into our existing CBD, making our city stronger and more vibrant. It provides a breadth of options: social housing, medium density and high-end inner city apartments. Todd Rohl, the Toowoomba Chamber CEO, said this would provide a huge confidence boost to CBD businesses. We have the TRC itself acknowledging that this will drive housing investment in our region, which is exactly what we need. The current Prime Minister says that he looks forward to advancing this important initiative, noting the housing spike that it will help unlock.</para>
<para>But absolutely nothing has happened in that two years—absolutely nothing! Every milestone required for Toowoomba Regional Council to hit, they have missed. I can't be any clearer on this: these funding envelopes do end. If we don't act on them, if we don't deliver against them, that funding is no longer made available. For us that end date is 2027. We've had five years; we're now down to three and there is no sign whatsoever that Toowoomba Regional Council is acting on this.</para>
<para>I cannot be more clear: this is not a political issue. This has support from every side of the political spectrum. Supply of housing is a good thing; inner-city supply ensures that vulnerable people are closer to the facilities and services they need. It provides social housing and it invigorates our beautiful inner city. These are all very, very good things. The Prime Minister could not be clearer that it is the Toowoomba Regional Council that is now responsible for the development of a business case that will serve as a catalyst for precinct regeneration, housing and investment. We've won the funding. The federal government continues to support it. The ball is in the council's court. We need new councillors to commit to this very important project.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I pay tribute to the Jewish community, who are teaching us what grace under fire looks like. In the aftermath of 7 October, an epochal event seared into their collective consciousness, I've witnessed a textbook example of solidarity and kinship. At the many gatherings I have attended in parks, at shuls, in community centres or on the street corner, I have never heard anything but empathy from Jewish Australians towards their Israeli brethren, and distress at the plight of the Palestinian people. Rather than march in the street, they choose to sing songs, say prayers, light candles or hold flags and photos of hostages like family, calling for their return and praying for security and peace.</para>
<para>They, like me, are horrified at the terrible human cost of this war. They, like me, feel that a political solution has never been more urgent. They, like me, struggle to reconcile that innocent Palestinians pay the heaviest price while the terrorists are ensconced in safety. It should be the other way around. They, like me, know that any residual terrorist threat will only emerge stronger to repeat this cycle of horror—raining poverty and bloodshed, and stealing the futures of future generations. Mutual security is the fertile ground for the green shoots of peace and prosperity to take root, but mutual security is also hard-won. I have seen a community emerge from crushing grief more resolved and focused on helping each other. But Jewish Australians, many born here, contributing and giving back, feel a profound hurt as the veneer of their own belonging in this country is laid bare. Facing the full brunt of antisemitism, a collective trauma is exacerbated by what now feels like a collective rejection. So the community has turned inwards, circling the wagons. For a forward-facing nation like Australia, this is retrograde; it is a slippage.</para>
<para>If we are serious about protecting our social cohesion, then we must walk the talk. It is un-Australian to walk past suffering, noting that this is not the first time the Jewish people have felt abandoned. When once we failed them, we will never do so again.</para>
<para>Words matter. They can harm or heal, divide or unite, inflame or soothe—choose them carefully. We now have a community marooned within a community. The drawbridges have been pulled up, and we have pulled up ours. So what is the remedy? I strongly believe—in fact, I know—that the silent majority of Australians are watching aghast. It is also my firm belief that they will be the bridge that connects and heals our nation. It is up to us, as a parliament, to erect the pillars upon which this bridge will stand. Civil society will then take over, breathing life into the structures that we as a parliament create. A collective trauma can only be healed— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7150" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>114</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are facing an increasing number of situations of international concern and heightened instability in the world. Given the importance of sanctions as a critical foreign policy tool, it's necessary to ensure that Australia's sanctions framework remains robust.</para>
<para>Since being elected in May 2022, as at 28 February 2024, this government has imposed over 500 sanctions in response to situations of international concern, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine and human rights violations in Iran.</para>
<para>The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 clarifies the operation of the Autonomous Sanctions Act to ensure that decisions made under the autonomous sanctions framework are robust. The bill also provides certainty and transparency to individuals and businesses so that they can effectively comply with sanctions laws. The bill amends the Autonomous Sanctions Act to confirm that sanctions based on past conduct or past status are valid. The bill also clarifies that, in circumstances where there is any perceived ambiguity in the operation of the act and the exercise of the minister's discretionary power, sanctions are valid. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill will confirm that the act and the sanctions framework operate as intended. This bill will ensure that sanctions remain an effective foreign policy tool to demonstrate that Australia will not tolerate egregious behaviour and is willing to impose consequences in response. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7151" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>114</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the measures proposed in the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, introduced by the honourable Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury. I do not support the amendment put forward by the member for Hume. The establishment of a 'super complaints' function was a key component of the better competition election commitment that we took to the Australian people in 2022. This bill is honouring the commitment by creating what we now call the designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Albanese Labor government is taking action to support consumers and small business to get a fair go. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 ensures the development and implementation of a designated complaints framework, meaning consumers and small businesses are not left behind or disadvantaged. Once again, the Albanese Labor government has the backs of consumers and, more importantly in this instance, the backs of small business. At a time when Australians are facing tough cost-of-living pressures, this is vital work. We have seen too many examples of consumers and small businesses not getting a fair go. You only have to look at airfares, the weekly grocery shop or the price of mobile phone plans.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are a continuation of the work the Albanese government has done to improve Australia's competition laws and policies. We're making things fairer for consumers and for small businesses. Why? Because small businesses are critical to our economy and to our communities. They're so much more than the services they provide or the goods they sell. They're deeply embedded in the community. They employ local staff. They support the local school fete. They promote a sense of community that brings people together. They support local sporting clubs. To small businesses, customers are not just numbers on a spreadsheet or some data to be given to the ASX; they're highly valued and at the core of their service. Contrast this with the big-name brands, who, at a time when Australians are feeling the pinch, continue to increase prices and profits—although I did notice that one of the big two has taken a bit of action now that the Senate has kicked off an inquiry. Enabling a fair go for consumers and small businesses ensures that all Australians benefit from increased competition, and it's why the Albanese Labor government has focused on these necessary improvements. We know that robust competition is a driver of economic growth and that competition fosters innovation, whereas uncompetitive markets stymie growth and fairness.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has already been hard at work to make things fairer for consumers and small businesses. There are now increased penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. We've made it harder for big companies to dominate the market using sneaky tactics. We have increased the penalty for anticompetitive behaviour from $10 million up to $50 million, deterring corporations from unscrupulous dealings. We've created a level playing field when it comes to negotiations between big companies and small businesses and consumers by strengthening protections against unfair contract terms. Businesses can now face large penalties for including unfair terms in contracts, as opposed to merely having the terms declared void.</para>
<para>To directly address cost-of-living pressures, we're scrutinising the supermarket sector. Former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson will lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to ensure that the supermarket sector is working as it should and that prices are fairer both for suppliers and at the checkout. Hopefully, they will do their bit to ensure that there's less waste in the supermarket sector. I'm convinced that some of the practices that the big companies take with their farmers mean that they're having to plough stuff in because they can't strike a bargain, and it's creating unnecessary waste in the agricultural sector.</para>
<para>Crucially, the Albanese government has directed the ACCC to investigate pricing and competition in the supermarket sector for the first time in a decade. Hardworking Aussie mums and dads feeling the squeeze need to be sure they're paying a fair price to put food on the table for their families every night. Labor has also granted ongoing funding for three years for the consumer group Choice to provide quarterly price transparency and comparison reports. These reports will provide cost comparisons, empowering consumers to make informed choices about the purchasing of essentials. Thank you, Choice, for the great work that you do. The government has established the Competition Taskforce to foster greater dynamism in the economy, with a focus on competition, innovation and wage growth. The taskforce will be examining merger laws and non-compete clauses, which can deter workers from moving to higher-paying employment. With this bill, we're building on this extensive work and delivering increased protections for consumers and small businesses.</para>
<para>The bill enables designated complainants to put forward evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the ACCC in a timely and transparent way. The development of the designated complaint function and prioritising complaint handling highlight just how important the issues of consumers and small businesses are to the ACCC. Designated complainants are approved by the minister. It may be a corporation, an individual or an unincorporated association and includes groups that represent the interests of consumers or small businesses. These advocate organisations have a key role in promoting emerging issues.</para>
<para>In 2021, the ACCC ordered Telstra to pay $50 million in penalties for breaking the law in its sales tactics with Indigenous customers. The issues were first raised with the ACCC by financial counselling groups and advocates such as the Bush Money Mob. Other successful ACCC enforcements have come about through advocacy from organisations such as Legal Aid New South Wales, the Consumer Action and Law Centre, and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. As the ACCC chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, said, 'A number of our successful compliance and enforcement outcomes have come about from referrals to us by consumers or small businesses and advocacy groups. This proposed measure will provide an official avenue for this information and hence cultivate research and advocacy.'</para>
<para>To fit the criteria for the new designated complaints function, the complaint must be related to a significant or system market issue affecting consumers or small businesses and it must be related to a breach of the Competition and Consumer Act or the ACCC's powers under the act. Once a complaint has been brought, the responsibilities of the ACCC include assessing the complaint at first rush, publicly providing a response and notifying of any action within 90 days. If action is pending, it must start in a timely way as soon as is practicable and definitely within six months. This will be an improvement on the current complaints process within the ACCC, where, due to the volume, complaints are categorised and actioned by the watchdog in order of urgency. The separate channel proposed by this bill will ensure designated complainants' issues are fast-tracked. The resulting action from the ACCC may include education, research, compliance and enforcement functions or a combination. As the assistant minister said, 'This is good for consumers and it is good for small businesses.'</para>
<para>Labor is committed to transparency and accountability. It is worth noting the minister and the ACCC will have to publish information on the Department of the Treasury and ACCC websites. At a time when public confidence in competition, consumer and fair trading issues has decreased, the establishment of a fast-tracked complaints process will reinforce confidence in the ACCC as a consumer watchdog with bite and will promote that great Australian idea of a fair go for all.</para>
<para>As my colleague the honourable member for Franklin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Small businesses work hard, and they deserve to be heard. We are fulfilling our commitment to give small businesses and their representatives better opportunities to have their concerns addressed quickly.</para></quote>
<para>It is also sustainable measure, as the minister may cap the number of the designated complainants and the number of complaints submitted in a specified period. This ensures the ACCC can undertake the work within the required time lines while maintaining all that crucial enforcement work. It will also encourage designated complainants to consider the type and quality of the complaint before making a submission.</para>
<para>This is all part of the Albanese government's broad efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on prices for Australians. Consumers need competition; it is the easiest way to reward Australians. Without it, prices are higher and, significantly, productivity is lower. A lack of competition also unfairly affects the vulnerable, with increased opportunities for monopolies to gouge these vulnerable customers. I'm proud that Labor will fight for consumers and fight for small businesses and the great work they do in communities. This bill has broad support from stakeholders, including industry bodies, organisations and consumer groups. It is expected the first designated complaint will be able to be lodged with the ACCC, all going well, from July this year. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 and to support this bill. This bill will require the Australian Competition Consumer Commission to respond to designated complaints lodged by designated complainants. A designated complainant may be approved to lodge the complaint on behalf of consumers and/or small businesses against another party they believe is acting systematically in a manner that causes detriment to consumers or small businesses.</para>
<para>So what does that mean? This opens up the way for consumer groups, such as CHOICE, and our own food growers or farmers to have better, faster mechanisms to access the ACCC's enforcement functions in case of significant or systemic market issues. If accepted by the minister, the ACCC must determine a designated complaint within 90 days and act on it as soon as possible or within six months. This seems to be a start to providing the ACCC with some teeth—I would say a badly needed set of molars—but this does not go far enough.</para>
<para>One concern is that no additional funding has been provided to the ACCC to implement this additional vital function, and that, I believe, is utterly crucial. We can't empower bodies such as the ACCC and then not put the funding in behind them that is required to ensure what we in the parliament and the consumers want: a robust ACCC that has the financial capacity to actually deal with complaints and deal with them thoroughly. Further, the minister can refuse to designate a complaint or decide to limit the number of designated complainants in a year without having to give reasons for that decision. I believe reasons should be given for that decision, and that is a transparency issue that just makes good sense.</para>
<para>Moreover, it's not just grocery retailers and the price that consumers are paying that are common knowledge and hot talking points in this place at the moment. But, aside from the fact that many people are spending $60 or $80 on just two bags of shopping, it's the fact that many famers are not getting a fair deal at the farm gate. I have a rural electorate. I have many farmers who are very reliant on having a relationship with one of the two major supermarket chains, and it is an incredibly imbalanced relationship. Once at the farm gate, the supermarket chains push prices paid to producers down, and we know that farmers are on the brink.</para>
<para>We also know that, when these supermarket giants decide that they're going to have specials, they don't wear the margin in between; they push that back to the producer as well. Consumers are also not benefiting from this, because consumers are paying massively higher margins on produce. Why are they doing that? Well, because we just don't have competition in this country. We are a country of duopolies, and I think there is no worse duopoly than that of the supermarkets.</para>
<para>This is not news. I've been talking about this in this place for years. Going back to 3 December, I mentioned a fantastic book called <inline font-style="italic">Supermarket Monsters</inline>, and I think every member in this place should read that book. It's by an author called Malcolm Knox. In fact, I think it's even available in the library, so we could all take turns and share it from the library. It goes into a really deep study on the practices of our major supermarkets and how they affect our growers and how they affect us as consumers—it goes right the way across. We're not just talking about horticulture, and we're not just talking about dairy. It even goes into viticulture. I have six wine regions in my electorate, and I think most consumers would be really surprised to know how many labels are actually owned by the supermarket chains.</para>
<para>We need to refresh the ACCC. We need to make sure that the ACCC has funding behind it, but I would also like to see it have divestiture powers to break up uncompetitive market-power-abusing monopolies and duopolies. I think that we could do this through the Federal Court. The Federal Court should be given the power to be able to break up bad-behaving duopolies.</para>
<para>In November 2022, I discussed the need for us to support producers, given the pronounced influential power of the supermarkets. This is particularly challenging for the horticultural industry because they can only sell products that are of a very specific size, and so much of their product can be turned away. They can sell to a supermarket and then be told that their product didn't meet a certain criteria and be downgraded. This is crushing and, when you're working on such tiny margins, it can mean many farmers going to the wall. The question we need to ask here is: do we want to have Australian-made produce? If we look at what brands are on our supermarket shelves now and what were on our supermarket shelves decades ago, it's a very limited number of brands. If you're a producer and one of the major two decide that they're no longer going to stock your product, or in the case—which might seem like a good contract to begin with—where one of the major two decides they want to have your product exclusively, you are actually then incredibly beholden to them. You've really put all of your eggs in one basket, as a producer.</para>
<para>As well as talking about this in relation to ACCC monitoring back in June 2023, just yesterday I talked about the overarching need to break up anticompetitive concentrations in our Australian supermarkets. I know that some have said, 'That's the kind of thing that happens in Russia.' Actually, it happens in America too. America has far greater protection laws for consumers and for producers. They have antitrust laws, and we need to have them here. This bill from the government is good. It's small; it's a start. I do support this legislation, but it really does need to have some financial backing behind it. If there's no extra money behind it, I think that it's really quite worthless, because we're asking the ACCC to do more with less when we know there are some serious issues.</para>
<para>As I said yesterday, it's not socialism to look at this. We actually need to look at the Sherman Antitrust Act in the United States. The US looked at this as an issue in 1890 and said that they needed to have free competition to ensure much less chance of monopolies and duopolies forming. Their Clayton Act of 1914 prohibits price discrimination. This is an act about selling the same product to different buyers and charging different prices based on who is purchasing the goods. The law prohibits such practices if they substantially lessen competition, as the practice may incidentally create a monopoly. These antitrust laws have been going in the United States for more than a century. We need to empower the Federal Court here and we need to make sure that we give the ACCC the money to investigate properly, and not just put legislation through this place with no money behind it.</para>
<para>There is an inherent power imbalance, and that power imbalance is between consumers and the duopoly supermarkets, and also between the duopoly supermarkets and the growers. As I said, this goes across everything that we can buy in the supermarket.</para>
<para>So, in closing, I do commend this bill, but I think the government could go much further. I would like to see the government look at what the rest of the word does. As I said, we can learn a lot about this from what many people consider to be the greatest nation on earth, with respect to commerce, the United States. We, as consumers, need to rise up, because the duopolies are hurting all of us. And this isn't just supermarkets; it's airlines and it's right the way across—there's the fact that we only have four big banks in this nation. We need to do better in this place to ensure that we're protecting the needs of consumers over these duopolies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, and I thank the previous member for her contribution; she had some very salient points in her speech. We have seen and heard far too many examples in Australia for many years of consumers not getting a fair go from big business. These include airlines, telecommunications companies and, of course, supermarkets. All, at various times, have been accused of price gouging while announcing big profits, and, all the while, everyday Australians struggle with the uncontrollable price increases that have been due to global interest rates. We have seen farmers and suppliers unfairly treated by the supermarkets, with prices rising on the shelves while remaining stagnant or indeed dropping at the farm gate. We have seen franchisees getting an unfair deal and small businesses' cash flows suffering due to slow payments.</para>
<para>In my own electorate, I'm aware of a small family business that waited more than 90 days for a $700 invoice to be paid by a multimillion dollar national company. Indeed, the former leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, and I were on a committee some years ago where we were talking to mining companies and small and medium-sized enterprises with big contracts with big mining companies, and they were pleading for action from the parliament to get these invoices under control, these 90-day invoices, which were crippling them for cash flow. There was an agreement made at the time that, if they didn't do it voluntarily, then the parliament would act to bring in legislation for 60-day payments. I should really catch up on where that is. My understanding is that there was some agreement made at the time, and I hope that that has come to pass. It was crippling those businesses. Family businesses of many decades standing were being driven to the wall by big business who were simply not paying their bills on time and all because of the market power that they had.</para>
<para>The amount of that $700 invoice for that small business in my electorate might be a drop in the ocean to a corporate giant. Indeed, it's an accounting error! But, for a small business, that cash flow is so vital, and it's not good enough for small businesses to be waiting so long for the money they are owed for the services they provide. It's just a fact that the duopolies, the big businesses and the multinationals dominate these markets, particularly in Australia. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, talk about how the United States, the home of capitalism itself, is aware of these issues and has in place laws to deal with the dominance and to prevent the overdominance of any one, two or three players in the market. It's no secret that Australia is one of the places in the world where the fewest big players exist, and that dominance unfortunately has been increasing. We need to address it, and our government is addressing it. The fact is that duopolies work together to keep smaller competition out. Prices get higher, and service expectations fall. It's unfair to consumers and to small businesses. We need complaint structures in place that protect people from the power that the large corporates have over them.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, the Albanese government has been hard at work examining Australia's competition law and policies, and we want to get the balance right. We don't want to stifle innovation, and we don't want to stifle business. But we want to protect consumers, and there is a balance to be played. We have increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. It is harder for small businesses to compete if larger companies use sneaky tactics to try to dominate the market. We've strengthened protections against unfair contract terms to help level the playing field in negotiations between big corporations and both small businesses and consumers. We have appointed former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to ensure that the supermarket sector is working as it should, and, if it's not, he'll find out why it's not and make recommendations about how to fix it. We have directed the ACCC to investigate pricing and competition in the supermarket sector to ensure that Australians are paying a fair price for their groceries. The ACCC will investigate the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector.</para>
<para>It's an important part of the government's broader efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on the price of essentials for Australians. We will fund the respected consumer group CHOICE to provide quarterly price transparency and comparison reports for three years. We've established a competition taskforce to foster greater dynamism in the economy, and one of the taskforce's first priorities is to look at Australia's merger laws. When big firms join forces, the resulting entity has better economies of scale, which gives it the potential to benefit consumers. But, if it wields significant market power, it can also drive up prices and reduce quality. At a time when many other countries are reviewing their merger codes, it's only sensible to consider whether Australia's laws need an update.</para>
<para>More competition should mean better prices, which is why Labor committed at the last election to establishing a designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 before the House today delivers on this commitment, with designated complainants being able to raise significant or systemic complaints with the ACCC from July this year.</para>
<para>Consumer and small-business advocates have expressed the need for a consumer complaints framework that allows certain designated entities to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the ACCC for consideration. This bill provides the framework to empower designated consumer and small-business advocates to bring forward evidence of significant or systemic market issues in a timely and transparent way.</para>
<para>Certain consumer and business advocacy groups will be approved by the minister to make designated complaints to the ACCC. There'll be nothing vexatious about this. There'll be nothing petty. There'll be no way for people with an axe to grind to get in on the act. This is serious business. Consumer and business advocacy group will be approved by the minister to make designated complaints. We are treating it seriously, and it deserves to be treated seriously. Complaints will need to meet certain criteria, including that they relate to a significant or systemic market issue affecting consumers or small businesses in Australia and that they relate to a breach of the Competition and Consumer Act or to the ACCC's powers or functions under the act.</para>
<para>A range of entities may apply to the minister to be approved as a designated complainant, including a corporation, an individual or an unincorporated association. I can think of a few off the top of my head that I imagine would seek approval to be a designated complainant. This provides an opportunity for entities that represent the interests of consumers or small businesses in Australia to become designated complainants regardless of the entity type.</para>
<para>Upon receiving a designated complaint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of any action it intends to take. If the ACCC proposes to act on a designated complaint, it must commence that action as soon as practicable and within six months. Any response by the ACCC will be based on its existing powers and functions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and may include education, research, compliance and enforcement functions, or a combination of any of this.</para>
<para>The ACCC has welcomed the introduction of this bill, with ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"The proposed new designated complaints function will reinforce the importance of key issues impacting consumers and small business to the ACCC's work, as well as the role of advocate organisations in detecting and highlighting emerging issues," …</para></quote>
<para>She continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"… it will reinforce public confidence in the responsiveness of the ACCC to the competition, consumer and fair trading issues significantly impacting the community," …</para></quote>
<para>The designated complaints function this bill brings will promote transparency and accountability, with the minister and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission being required to publish certain information on the Department of the Treasury or ACCC website. The bill will empower consumers and small businesses to fast-track complaints through the ACCC, who will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of the action it intends to take.</para>
<para>We can't control everything large corporations do. We're not that sort of society. We don't want to be that sort of society, where government has its finger in every single pie of what the private market says and does. But we can and should be able to give the powers to be able to hold those businesses to account, to protect consumers and small businesses from unfair and indeed perhaps illegal business practices.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to action on this. We have been since before the election. We've put in place a number of measures since the election. This is just one of a raft of measures that we are taking.</para>
<para>The fact is that Australian consumers should be able to go to the shops, and, when they go to the shops and see products on the shelves, they should be paying a fair price for those products, knowing that the farmer who has produced those products and the processor who has processed them have also been given a fair price down the line. It should not be the case in this country that farmers get ripped off at the start of the farm gate, that everybody gets ripped off along the line and that the shopper then gets ripped off at the check-out whilst, meanwhile, the supermarkets take the money and run. We've seen far too many incidents of that over the last year or so, where larger than required price increases have come through the check-out.</para>
<para>We all understand that, when inflation is higher than usual, prices go up and costs in the supply chain go up—we all understand those price pressures—but, if those supermarkets are increasing their profits in a higher than usual inflation environment, that means they are gouging customers and they are contributing to inflation being higher than it needs to be. That's where we need to focus our attention. Supermarkets should not be hiding in a higher than usual inflation environment. That's not when they should be looking to increase their profits, on the back of price increases that don't need to be as high as they should be in order to take account of supply chain pressures.</para>
<para>Our government is committed to justice for consumers. I don't think you'll see any Labor Party members wearing costumes, running around the halls of parliament, as we saw from a couple of Independent members—the member for Clark and the member for Kennedy. Good luck to them if that's what they need to do to get a headline and a photo in the paper. But the fact is that this is a serious issue. We're taking it seriously and we're taking action. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many members speak about how rewarding it is to help constituents who are struggling with some issue of government administration: managing an NDIS plan, resolving a dispute over Centrelink payments or ensuring that passports and visas are processed. It is deeply rewarding to be able to help people and solve a problem that is causing them stress and strain, but I find it also deeply frustrating. It is frustrating that our government has so many issues and so few opportunities for resolution that constituents have to come to their local MP to be the hero. It's frustrating that government agencies aren't responsive to these issues or accountable to their shortcomings, and it's frustrating when these agencies create special workarounds, like hotlines for MPs, rather than fixing the underlying problem so that every person who applies to them can get the answer that that they need in the time frame that is reasonable.</para>
<para>Good government isn't just about leaders being honest, public money being used soundly and donations being transparent. It's also about agencies. It's about the mechanisms of government being responsive to the people they serve and accountable when they fall short of expectations and about having a pursuit of excellence to make sure that Australians get the services they deserve.</para>
<para>The ACCC is a prime example. When it comes to competition complaints, they're supposed to complete an initial investigation within three months. Their performance target is to do that 60 per cent of the time, which seems a relatively low bar, but last financial year only 34 per cent of those investigations were completed on time. Their performance in the previous year wasn't much better. In-depth investigations are supposed to be completed in 12 months. Their target is to do that 70 per cent of the time, but they only managed to do that for 42 per cent of complaints. So we have a regulator with seemingly lenient targets who is nonetheless failing to meet this. If the targets are wrong, let's talk about this, but these are their own targets and they're consistently failing on them.</para>
<para>What is the government's response? As far as I can tell, there's no additional resourcing, there's no internal process change and there are no executives leaving for underperformance or, really, focused on this performance. Instead, I feel the government is taking the easy way out, by creating a workaround—a special pathway for certain consumer groups to make complaints that will supposedly be fast tracked. It's a pretty underwhelming response and one that I think lacks genuine accountability.</para>
<para>ACCC underperformance isn't just a passing frustration. These complaints are often made by small businesses who have experienced some sort of misconduct and don't have other practical forms of recourse. I talked earlier about the ACCC's performance guidelines, three months and 12 months being some of the guidelines. If you're a business and this issue of competition is fundamentally affecting your business's chance of survival, you don't have three months, six months or 12 months to get that sorted out and hope that you'll get a response, because the issue ahead of you might be absolutely fundamental. And what are your other recourses? You can go to the Federal Court, which is in itself expensive and slow. An example shared with me was a franchisor who was mistreated and sought to sue the franchisee. The franchisee then sought a court order that required the small business to show that it could pay $1 million worth of costs if it lost. The action was discontinued, justice was denied and the misconduct lives on. Frankly, I don't think this piece of legislation does anything to address this and I don't think there's an agenda to address these fundamental issues.</para>
<para>There are 1½ million people who own a small business in Australia. Many experience misconduct, but the majority don't take it to the ACCC because they don't have the confidence it will lead to a useful resolution. This is one reason why small businesses feel disconnected from and not supported by this government—and by previous governments. I do believe that many businesses welcomed the change of government, particularly in relation to climate action and having a stronger and more stable investment framework for climate action. They were hoping for reforms. But at this stage I don't think the government has a proper agenda to make this place the best place in the world to grow and start a business. And if it doesn't have that agenda, then it isn't looking after the long-term prosperity of this nation. This is a government that in various instances has piled on additional regulation but hasn't done the other side of the work, which would be to ease the regulatory burden—or at least to make sure that government services are there to support businesses when they need support.</para>
<para>Let's look at industrial relations. Businesses were working; they turned up to the Jobs and Skills Summit to try and work with government, unions another players to come up with priorities that would fit needs across the community and to provide a pathway to higher pay for workers; more security and opportunities for casuals; and to better support those experiencing domestic violence. But I don't think the government came to the other side by engaging with business to find solutions that worked for them. Instead, the government proposed sweeping reforms that were going to be costly to implement, difficult to administer and wouldn't provide long-term growth in wages or conditions. Frankly, if you talk to small business owners about the conditions in the legislation they're just not across them, because they're complex and it's not their day job. But, again, the government doesn't have the perspective on how to make this workable in the real world.</para>
<para>I don't think the government has offered trade-offs, or said: 'We'll ask you to do something and it will be difficult on this side. But let us give you something that's actually going to make a real difference on the other side.' I'd say that awards are a prime example of this, and I've had this conversation time and time again with the minister for industrial relations. The awards are complex, unworkable instruments that create confusion and division. A young person can't pick up the retail award, which I think goes to over 70 pages, to work out how much they should be paid. Why not? It should be a fundamental requirement that it's understandable for someone who isn't an employment lawyer. But that doesn't happen. Award simplification could make a huge difference, enabling productivity gains, wage gains and job creation. It could help avoid the wage theft issues which have plagued so many businesses across the country. And while we're absolutely appalled by those people who seek to deliberately underpay their workers, it's absolutely ironic to see government agencies—or agencies under government, such as universities, the ABC and the government's own Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—being caught underpaying their own wages because of the complexity of the awards. It is written in black and white and it is a problem, but the government isn't doing this because it doesn't have an agenda for how to make it easier for businesses to run and build businesses in this country.</para>
<para>The government does talk a big talk when it comes to growth, business investment and productivity, but in many areas the walk just doesn't match the talk. I want to call the government out. There are some areas where I feel the government has moved forward, including some of the migration reform to make it simpler. Some of the work they're doing in trade is also important, as is investment in education. Those are really important in driving productivity, and I want to give credit where credit's due. There is also the work on competition. All those things can help drive productivity, but they are not enough, and the government is missing in action on some of the most important drivers of productivity, including tax reform and industrial relations reform, through a productivity lens but also just in the fundamentals of how to make it easier to start and grow a business in Australia. I don't think the government is making enough effort for the thousands of businesses struggling with interest rate rises, surging input costs and the labour shortage.</para>
<para>In fairness to the government, I don't think the previous government was doing a much better job. I feel there's a movement across this place to have a go at business and to take pot shots. I, like anybody in this country, believe that business needs to behave in an ethical manner and look after its customers, its suppliers and its people. But I think there's this rhetoric at the moment where it's easy to blame business but government is not on side in terms of actually making a difference to make it easier for business.</para>
<para>I have two questions and two challenges that I want to put to the government of the day but also to the whole parliament. I think we need two different visions in this country to the ones that we have. Firstly, we need a vision for what it takes for Australia to be the best place to build and grow a business, because, if we don't have that, our prosperity is not assured. Secondly, I want a vision of a government which is genuinely there to serve the community and has an attitude of accountability for its service.</para>
<para>Let me start with the first point. We talk a lot about productivity in this place. Why do we talk about it? Because productivity growth is the only sustainable source of wage growth that we have, so, if we're not growing productivity, we will not grow real wages. Many people in this place, I think, treat business as if it is constantly doing the wrong thing. If we do not have a business sector that is growing and thriving, we cannot pay for any of the public services that people are passionate about. Australia's prosperity—and we are an incredibly prosperous country—is built on the success of our businesses, but that prosperity is not assured into the future. I am concerned about our falling foreign investment rates. I am concerned about our productivity lagging. I am concerned about the fact that we're not investing in research and development as we should be to stay on the curve. I'm concerned when I talk to small and growing businesses in this country who tell me that government is the hardest customer to deal with and that they do not get backing even at the procurement end. At the same time, government is constantly imposing barriers and obligations on them without having an agenda to make their lives easier. So the vision I am seeking is that this country be the best place to start and grow businesses and the most attractive place for other countries to invest, because we should be trying to attract foreign capital. If we do this well, we have the greatest opportunity to provide wonderful jobs, growth and prosperity of the kinds that underline this country and have built the success of this country to date.</para>
<para>The second vision I am seeking from this government and have sought from previous governments and that I believe this House should be focused on is how to make government truly accountable, truly serving the community and adopting an attitude of service—one that is engaged with those it serves and responsive to their concerns and challenges. When I look across the country and say, 'Where do we have this?' I see this in Service NSW, which is one of the best government agencies in the country if not the world, because it is run with the customer, who is the citizen, in mind. It has identified what the customer, who is the citizen, is looking for from government services, and it does its best. It adapts the best from the private sector and from around the world to provide excellence in service. It is accountable to its performance metrics, and that is absolutely critical. Its mission is to provide excellent service and quality at optimal cost. Anyone who has dealt with Service NSW will know that it truly delivers on its mission and understand why it is so highly regarded.</para>
<para>I was speaking yesterday to Richard White, who is the founder of WiseTech, one of the great Australian tech stories and an incredibly successful company. We were talking about government services, and he said, 'Service NSW have been transformational.' So we know we can do it. We know that we can provide government services that truly exceed expectations, but we do not pursue it across enough areas. The ACCC is one of those areas. I feel like we need to make sure that the ACCC knows that its job is to be responsive to the citizens and small businesses that rely on its work, to make sure that they get justice in terms of the issues that affect them.</para>
<para>I believe that good government is about genuinely dealing with the problems that people and businesses are facing. It's about being accountable and responsive. I am supporting this bill, not because I particularly love this workaround—and I see this particularly as a workaround; I'm supporting this bill because it will help consumers and businesses. But I think that this is actually a symptom of the problems in government and the lack of accountability, rather than anything that should be applauded. We need to rethink this so that everybody who has an issue with the ACCC can get justice and at least a response, rather than just those people who get a fast-tracked workaround to the problems the agency has.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024. The purpose of this bill, as evidenced by its name, is simple: it's about ensuring that Australians, whether they are consumers or small-business owners, are treated fairly in the market. Buying an airline ticket for a holiday, finding a better phone or internet plan, shopping for groceries, a small-business owner signing a contract with a large corporation—all of these activities should be underpinned by the simple principle of competition.</para>
<para>It's simple: competition between firms lowers prices and provides Australians with the best possible prices and services. However, this is not the reality that Australians have been experiencing, especially over the last few years. Every day they are feeling the effects of anticompetitive behaviour. Both consumers and small businesses are feeling it. Unfortunately, that feeling is justified. There are too many examples of anticompetitive behaviour by large firms, and there's been a marked decline in competition over the past few decades.</para>
<para>This rise in anticompetitive behaviour has coincided with an increase in the concentration of market power across Australia. In October 2022, the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Round</inline><inline font-style="italic"> U</inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline> article 'Competition in Australia and its impact on productivity growth' highlighted the declining competition in the economy. In 2001-02, the largest four firms in each industry made up a total of 41 per cent of the average industry sales. In 2018-19, that had increased by two per cent to 42 per cent.</para>
<para>Another metric that confirms the rise of market power is the concentration of incumbency. Incumbency is the percentage of the four largest firms in an industry that have maintained their market share after two years. This metric also increased, with approximately 75 per cent of those four largest firms in each industry still leading in 2018-19 when compared to 2016-17. The two-year comparison rate increased from 2001 to levels of around 71 per cent, and the four-year incumbency rate also increased over a similar period.</para>
<para>Another measure of market concentration is one that will sound incredibly familiar to most Australians: mark-ups—that is, the difference between the price of a product and a corporation's production cost. This increased by six per cent between 2003-04 and 2016-17. This all points to an increase in market concentration, which in turn affects competition, drives inequality, hurting the vast majority of Australians.</para>
<para>The 2016 paper on the subject by the now Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, and Adam Triggs noted that over half of Australia's industries are concentrated markets. It stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Concentrated markets are not solely responsible for rising inequality, but it seems likely that they have played a part in the steady rise in inequality over the course of the past generation.</para></quote>
<para>Government has a responsibility to ensure the rules and regulations that govern markets create competition for the benefit of all Australians. Since the 2022 election, we've been working to ensure that Australia's competition laws and policies create that environment. We've increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer laws, so that fines are not just seen as a cost of doing business but are a legitimate deterrent; established a competition task force to foster greater dynamism in the economy; and strengthened protections against unfair contract terms, to help small businesses and consumers when they negotiate with big businesses.</para>
<para>Recently, the Albanese government has commenced several inquiries into the supermarket sector. We appointed the former competition minister, Dr Craig Emerson, to lead the review into the food and grocery code of conduct, to ensure that the supermarket sector is working the way that it should. We have directed the ACCC to monitor and investigate pricing and competition in the sector. The Albanese government has been clear: Australians should not have to pay any more than they should for their groceries, especially when supermarkets are getting cheaper prices from farmers. The government has also taken further measures to increase transparency, not only in the supermarket sector but across the economy, by funding consumer group CHOICE to provide quarterly price transparency and comparison reports for three years.</para>
<para>The bill being debated today will add to the list of measures that our government has taken to strengthen the framework of Australian competition laws. Currently, anyone can make a complaint to the ACCC, and each year the ACCC receives a large number of complaints which require it to prioritise and be selective in what matters it investigates. That process is reviewed each year to ensure the ACCC is functioning effectively. However, advocates have long called for a system that allowed designated complainants to bring matters to the attention of the ACCC.</para>
<para>In the last election the Albanese government promised to establish such a function, as part of our commitment to improve competition. This bill delivers on that promise and establishes a designated complaints function within the ACCC. The bill will empower the minister to designate entities as designated complainants. They can be individuals, corporations or incorporated associations, allowing for a broad range of entities and an opportunity to advocate for and represent the interests of consumers and small businesses. There will be requirements that applicants must meet to become a designated complainant, and there are certain compulsory criteria that the minister must take into consideration, ensuring that only those that will genuinely represent the interests of consumers and small businesses and those that will act with integrity are approved.</para>
<para>The minister may also prescribe additional discretionary approval criteria to ensure flexibility and high standards when determining an entity's application. Once approved, designated complainants can bring to the attention of the ACCC evidence of significant or systematic market issues that will require the ACCC to issue a public response. The ACCC will be required to respond to the designated complainant within 90 days and inform the designated complainant if they will or won't take any action. If the ACCC issue a further notice, they must endeavour to commence action within a maximum of six months. Any actions taken by the ACCC will be based on their existing powers and may include education, research, compliance, enforcement action or a combination of all of them.</para>
<para>Importantly, this bill will include several transparency and accountability measures around the designated complaint mechanism. Both the minister and the ACCC will be required to publish information on either the department or the ACCC's website. That includes the minister's determination of an entity's application to become a designated complainant, a revocation of an application, publication of an action or no further action notices, and details of the proposed action in relation to the complaint.</para>
<para>Since the early 2000s, Australia has had a growing crisis. Throughout the economy, there have been increases in market concentration, increases inequality and a decrease in competition. The Albanese government are committed to reversing these trends and we are committed to ensuring that we have a more dynamic economy, one that allows for new entrants into the market, allows for competition, and one that benefits all Australians. This designated complaints mechanism detailed in this bill is another step in fixing the issues of our competition laws and policies. It will help the ACCC and the government identify significant and systematic issues within the economy so that action can be taken and the market operates as it should. I acknowledge the work of the assistant minister in this area. He has written extensively on the issues of competition in Australia and has worked tirelessly on policy solutions to fix these issues. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024. Consumer choice is incredibly important—essential, I would say. Markets work best when there is competition and choice. Markets also work best when everyone plays by the same rule. This is especially true for small business.</para>
<para>Small businesses make up 97.5 per cent of businesses in Australia. They are facing, at the moment, a perfect storm of ongoing high interest rates, high energy prices, staff shortages and a downturn in consumer confidence due to successive Reserve Bank interest rate rises. I know, from talking to many small businesses in Warringah, that, right now, many business owners wonder what the government is actually doing for them. The government needs to proactively support small businesses in adapting, innovating and maintaining productivity to survive these ongoing pressures and headwinds. The government need to support small businesses as they do large businesses and multinationals.</para>
<para>The figures are stark. Only 43 per cent of small businesses are breaking even. On this front, the government has been slow to give small businesses as much support as they could, given the current economic headwinds. For example, the instant asset write-off and decarbonisation grants legislation for small businesses was first debated in this place in October last year, but is yet to pass the other place and so has not become law. Yet the provisions in that legislation end in this current financial year. I have moved amendments and sought for the government to extend it—that is the stupidity of the situation. I urge the government, again, to consider extending those provisions. We only have three months to go in the current financial year.</para>
<para>I call on the government to think about its approach to small business. The policy process has been all over the place and, really, a bit piecemeal. The industrial relations reforms have added more uncertainty and complexity for business owners, and this includes amendments put in the legislation, such as the right to disconnect. I repeat that this is not how we want to make good, sober public policy.</para>
<para>The problem before the government is this: there are currently extensive delays in considering and resolving complaints made by consumers to the ACCC. The ACCC's latest annual report notes that it's not hitting its own targets for initial competition investigations to be completed within three months and for in-depth competition investigations to be completed within 12 months. It's failing on its own metrics, which begs the question: why is the government not looking at providing greater resources to the ACCC or auditing to ensure efficiencies as to why we are not meeting those metrics for investigating and resolving complaints? To me, ensuring there is sufficient resources to the ACCC—if that is where the problem is, in relation to dealing with the case load—would be logical. But, instead, the government is choosing a fairly different path to improving the complaints resolution process, essentially creating a priority triage process for complaints.</para>
<para>What this bill before us does is set out a complaints framework that allows designated entities and consumer and small business advocates to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for consideration. Then, the ACCC, in accordance with its own rules, must respond within a certain time frame to these designated entities. The bill establishes a designated complaints function, and the designated complainants will be organisations approved by the minister. The minister may limit the number of designated complainants in a time period, and, in turn, the ACCC must reply to the designated complainant's complaint within 90 days, with notice of the action, if any, they intend to take.</para>
<para>If we really part through the detail, we're getting a minister with a high level of discretion to designate who these designated complainants will be. Whilst the ACCC must reply within 90 days, they don't have to investigate; they just have to reply. So it still isn't really progressing the problem of complaints actually getting resolved and investigated automatically. Of course anyone, any other consumer or entity, can still make general complaints to the ACCC.</para>
<para>Really, if we can boil this down to simple language, the government is proposing a triage and prioritisation process, open to some in a designated complaint organisation. The ACCC may assess general complaints and decide whether to publish details of any actions it has taken in response to those. My concern is this is not automatically going to address the backlog or case load concerns from consumers and their complaints and how that is processed. I think what we will see is an allocation of resources internally to these designated complainants.</para>
<para>The designated complainant can be a corporation, a person holding a particular position, such as a statutory officer, or an unincorporated association. My understanding is that small business and consumer advocacy organisations are what the minister really has in mind and is looking at as being potential designated complainants. Whilst in principle that may well work—I think of organisations like Choice or COSBOA, which represents a number of small businesses—I am concerned about the criteria for those designated complainants and how that then sidesteps the idea that all complaints and all small businesses and customers have that opportunity for an equal process and avenue to the ACCC.</para>
<para>The bill details approval criteria to ensure designated complainants genuinely represent the interests of consumers and small businesses. That will be a little subjective, I think. I am concerned that where organisations are fee-for-membership organisations, you are essentially providing an added reason for joining an organisation, because consumers and small businesses may well feel they then have access to a higher likelihood of a complaint being considered by the ACCC and being resolved. So there's a little bit of a picking of favourites in this triage and prioritisation process. I have raised with the minister my concerns about how this is shifting the opportunity to have complaints considered by the ACCC.</para>
<para>We don't want to supersede the ACCC's central role, which is responding to complaints by consumers. I accept that often consumer complaints will come in bulk, if there are repeated behaviours that are coming to light, and organisations like Choice may well be the right body to bring forward that bulk of complaints by consumers. But that's not always the case, and the question of threshold and willingness to address certain consumer complaints is I think one of the challenges for the ACCC.</para>
<para>I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this bill, in the hope that this will provide a better pathway to the resolution of consumer complaints, but I will be moving an amendment to ensure we have a review clause in the legislation to ensure that it is working properly. We don't want a situation with the result that in a couple of years time we have essentially the ACCC triage and prioritisation process where they are favouring the complaint process through these designated complainants but ignoring complaints from consumers and customers. I think it's important that we keep an eye on that, and this place is where we need to be able to do that process of review, because we are ultimately talking about a handful of empowered organisations to whom this legislation will clearly be giving an advantage.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that the UK has a similar complaints framework known as a super-complaints process. It was first established in 2003, expanding into other areas such as the financial market, the police and cybersecurity in subsequent decades. It's been shown to be effective at raising complaints not just concerning individual businesses but also regarding systemic issues impacting consumers. An example of that is from 2018, when Citizens Advice UK submitted a super-complaint regarding conduct of companies in various markets where long-term and existing customers were being penalised and paying more for goods and services. It was like a loyalty penalty. As a result of the complaint, an investigation was launched which uncovered additional conduct, including stealth price rises, costly exit fees, restrictions on switching contracts and unfair autorenewal processes. This led to enforcement action against the companies involved, pricing interventions and a package of reforms, including recommendations to other UK regulators.</para>
<para>I accept that there are concerns that this may be happening in some sectors, so it's likely the proposed ACCC designated complaints function could result in similar broad enforcement and regulatory outcomes. But it also just shows the value of a review amendment being included in the bill to ensure that this new framework is working as intended. There are some issues that still require greater clarity, including the following questions: are we sure that the designated organisations will not capitalise commercially to increase their membership because of the added right they gain? And what's preventing designated entities only serving their own membership, rather than taking on board broader consumer concerns and complaints that may not come from their membership base?</para>
<para>Finally, I think we need to look at what the problem is that we're trying to solve. If it's a backlog of caseloads for the ACCC, it begs the broader question: is the ACCC sufficiently resourced to play the role that is necessary for it to play to ensure competition in our consumer markets? It also begs the question: shouldn't every complaint get a response from the ACCC? What is its resourcing issue and what is the process? The UK model shows that there can be positive outcomes from a framework and a triage process, but I do feel the government could provide greater clarity in its thinking and answers to some of the pertinent questions around the problems it's trying to solve. What other solutions or options have been looked at and what are the prospects or anticipated outcomes here?</para>
<para>I should say that we have a matter of public importance to be debated today around the current price gouging occurring in supermarkets and the duopoly we have when it comes to large supermarket chains and pricing in relation to food in Australia. Consumer and customer choice is incredibly pertinent in the conversation and the debate at the moment. The role the ACCC plays in that respect is incredibly important, and so we must make sure that it's sufficiently resourced to look out for consumers and customers, and to ensure complaints are truly investigated.</para>
<para>In that regard, I'd like to raise the concern of scams, because that's where consumers and customers are very frequently targeted. There's yet to be a mechanism that really protects consumers and customers from scams. Again, whether the ACCC has sufficient resources to properly investigate what's happening in that space is a really broad question—and where the responsibility lies. I know that many individuals who have been the victims of scams find very little assistance and recourse from the systems and the processes. They are often let down by the financial institutions, who wipe their hands of any responsibility, and by the lack of access to data—getting any kind of investigation into those issues is incredibly difficult. I would urge the government to do more in relation to protecting consumers and customers in relation to scams.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, including the members for Mayo, Moreton, Wentworth, Werriwa, Warringah, Lyons and Hume.</para>
<para>Competition policy has been front and centre in the public debate over recent months. The Albanese government has been concerned to ensure that our competition settings are fit for purpose. Competition reform is vital to boosting productivity. In the early 1990s, reforms kicked off by Prime Minister Paul Keating and competition expert Fred Hilmer led to cooperation with the states and territories which ultimately boosted living standards, producing a permanent 2½ per cent lift in GDP. That translates to something in the order of $5,000 for the typical Australian household in today's terms. So competition reform is a big deal. Getting competition right is good for consumers, it's good for employees and it's good for innovation.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, we've increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct and we've banned unfair contract terms. We've set up a competition taskforce in Treasury, not aimed at producing a doorstopper report in years to come but at producing actionable reforms straightaway. The Treasurer has tasked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with looking at issues in the supermarket sector. We've brought in Craig Emerson, one of the great policy economists in Australia, to review the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, looking at questions such as whether that code should be made mandatory. These are all part of our ambitious competition reform agenda, as is the bill before the House today.</para>
<para>This bill has been welcomed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who said in her statement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A number of our successful compliance and enforcement outcomes have come about from referrals to us by consumer or small business advocacy groups, so we welcome this proposed measure that will provide an official avenue for this information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We consider it will reinforce public confidence in the responsiveness of the ACCC to the competition, consumer and fair trading issues significantly impacting the community.</para></quote>
<para>The bill establishes a designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bill will give the minister the ability to appoint consumer and small business advocates as designated complainants and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess and respond to complaints raised by these advocacy groups which relate to significant or systemic market issues. As the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission noted in their statement, a similar mechanism already applies in Britain and Canada. If the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposes to act on a designated complaint, it must commence that action as soon as practical and within six months. Any response by the competition watchdog will be based on their existing powers and functions under the act, and may include education, research, or compliance and enforcement functions. If this bill is passed, the government will proceed to identifying suitable consumer and small business groups to act as designated complainants.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to thank my staff, particularly Tori Barker; officials in the Department of the Treasury, particularly the consumer policy and Law Division teams; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their hard work on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>126</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review of amendments made by this Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act (including their effect on consumers and small businesses).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must start no later than 2 years after this section commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 is simple. It simply inserts a review clause to assess how the legislation is working within two years. This is good process. This is good governance to ensure that this fast-track priority triage process is not leading, ultimately, to a change of purpose of the ACCC, whereby these designated complainants are getting an undue priority over ordinary consumer and customer complaints, or from other small businesses. It will also enable a review by the government to ensure that these designated complainants are not unfairly taking advantage of the position it puts them in to be able to get priority in complaint consideration and review. As I said previously, these bodies are often fee-for-membership organisations, and there is nothing currently that really protects consumers and customers to still have the opportunity for their complaints to be considered and fast-tracked if they choose not to be within these organisations.</para>
<para>I appreciate the benefit for government or for the ACCC to try and create this triage and priority process, but, ultimately, the purpose of the ACCC is to ensure customer choice and a complaints review mechanism when it comes to consumers, and I think it is very important that that remains the case. Many who submitted in the consultation process have expressed similar concerns. It is worth highlighting the concerns of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA. They did note several concerns such as the possible restriction on the number of designated complaints being relatively small, and I note the number of complainants will appear in the forthcoming instrument.</para>
<para>I urge the government to maintain an open mind on this further consultation and on the time line of the ACCC responding to a designated complaint—and whether or not it will actually pursue the complaint and investigate it—and notifying the complainant of its decision regarding that complaint within 90 days. Such complaints may need more urgent action, marking such a time line as too broad. So there are legitimate concerns as to how this may well operate and those concerns can be very sensibly addressed by having a legislated review period of two years so that we can actually flesh out and see whether or not the legislation is working as intended in terms of assisting with dealing with the case load and a more timely consideration of consumer and customer complaints.</para>
<para>Reviewing legislation is a good thing; it is what we are in this place to do. I support the bill but I am also mindful that review to ensure it is working as intended is incredibly important. I note the assistant minister is here, so I would ask the assistant minister not only whether the government will support the amendment but also why not have a review period to ensure that we are protecting this consumer and customer complaints investigation and consideration process?</para>
<para>Small businesses, as he just told this place, are the backbone of our economy. There is more the government could be doing to support small businesses. So, again I say, support this amendment to ensure there is a review, to ensure that this process is back on the agenda for the government within two years and ensure it doesn't slip through the cracks.</para>
<para>We are reviewing whether or not our customer and consumer complaints measure is working through the ACCC to ensure choice, to ensure their rights are protected. The question of duopolies and the lack of competition in certain markets, from airlines to supermarkets, we know, are very much in the news at the moment, so it is incredibly important that we have an ACCC that is fit for purpose. I ask the minister and I urge the government to improve the bill with the amendment to ensure a review period.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am grateful to be working with all members of the parliament, particularly the member for Warringah, to shape the program and to ensure that the designated complaints measure works as well as intended. The government will not be supporting the amendment, and I will take a couple of minutes of the House's time to explain why. We do believe strongly in effective evaluation and, indeed, the establishment of the Australian Centre for Evaluation is a marker of the Albanese government's commitment to improving the quality of evaluation. New reviews of frameworks are important, and settling the appropriate timing of those frameworks can be a matter for judgment to ensure that the review takes sufficient account of the way in which the program has rolled out. So there will be a review that takes place in due course.</para>
<para>The member also made a number of comments in her speech, which I think went to important issues as to how the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission responds to complaints from the public. I thought it might assist the House to address some of those questions.</para>
<para>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission receives over 400,000 complaints or contacts from the public each year. They go through an extensive triage process, which, according to the most recent data from the ACCC, involved 225 assessments completed, 132 initial investigations completed, 70 in-depth investigations completed and 32 enforcement interventions.</para>
<para>It is worth noting that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cannot pursue all matters that come to their attention and that in administering the Australian competition law the ACCC works closely with state and territory consumer affairs agencies. It's those consumer affairs agencies that are responsible for enforcing the Australian consumer law, and therefore the role of the ACCC is in determining the appropriate compliance and enforcement actions to be taken. In general, the ACCC looks at its intelligence to inform identification of serious and systemic breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act and the Australian consumer law.</para>
<para>I'm happy to expand on the ACCC's complaints handling mechanisms, if that's useful to honourable members, as the consideration in detail debate unfolds.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>128</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>O'Donoghue, Dr Lowitja, AC, CBE, DSG</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to reflect on the passing of one of Australia's most revered and influential Aboriginal leaders, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. Lowitja O'Donoghue was a proud Yankunytjatjara woman of great intellect, great courage and great dignity. She dedicated her life to improving the health and lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and her fearlessness to enact change has left an indelible mark on the pages of Australian history.</para>
<para>From fighting racism to becoming Australia's first Aboriginal nurse, from campaigning for constitutional reform to fully count First Nations Australians in Australia's population to negotiating the development of native title post the Mabo High Court decision while the first chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Lowitja O'Donoghue was a formidable woman, whose legacy will continue on.</para>
<para>More than just a leader for the Indigenous community, she was perhaps one of Australia's greatest leaders, with the vision of creating a more united and reconciled Australia.</para>
<para>Through her impressive negotiations, conducted with a fierce grace, she worked across all sides of politics to address Indigenous human rights issues, including health, housing, community development and land rights.</para>
<para>Her life was shaped by the racism she faced and a traumatic childhood separated from her family, community, culture and country.</para>
<para>Born in August 1932, in the north-west of South Australia, Lowitja O'Donoghue was the daughter of an Aboriginal woman, Lily, and an Irish father, Tom O'Donoghue. At two years of age she was taken from her family and brought up by missionaries in a training institution set up for so-called 'half caste' Aboriginal children to be assimilated into white Australia away from 'the sounds of the corroboree', as described by the missionaries.</para>
<para>Her name was changed to Lois, and she was no longer allowed to speak her native language, in which she was fluent, even at that young age. She was not allowed to ask questions about her origins or even about her parents. It wasn't until 33 years later that she was reunited with her mother. Lowitja didn't have a birth certificate, but the term 'half-caste' was applied to her government file—a term that Lowitja found offensive, and she worked to change the language of quantum being used to describe being of Aboriginal descent. As the child of a white father, she was encouraged by the Chief Protector of Aborigines to become exempt, which was a process where you signed a document to renounce your Aboriginality and declare yourself a white person so you were eligible to do things only afforded to white people at the time, including getting married and drinking in pubs. She rejected this advice and instead took the more challenging path. She not only refused to deny her Aboriginal roots but it strengthened her resolve to dedicate her life to improving the lives of our First Nations people.</para>
<para>While she never felt a strong connection to her European heritage, she has said she felt a kinship with the Irish people. On St Patrick's Day in 2016 in this place, I mentioned Lowitja O'Donoghue in the context of the influence of the Irish upon modern Australia. Lowitja herself described the Aboriginal-Irish connection as 'dynamic', remarking that there are many Aboriginal people who have an Irish background. She expressed in her 1994 biography and elsewhere an affinity between the two backgrounds, borne through:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the combination of the Aboriginal, you know, fight for justice and, you know, what we know of the Irish and their fight.</para></quote>
<para>Another of those First Nations Australians with Irish heritage is, of course, Pat Dodson, the former Labor senator known as the Father of Reconciliation—a great friend and mentor to many. He described Lowitja O'Donoghue as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… an extraordinary person of great courage and strength. Her leadership in the battle for justice was legendary. Hers was a strong voice, and her intelligent navigation for our rightful place in a resistant society resulted in many of the privileges we enjoy today.</para></quote>
<para>Another great Indigenous leader and advocate for Indigenous Australians' rights to land, Noel Pearson, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">She was our greatest leader of the modern era, …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… she was full of grace and fortitude. She was the definition of courage and never lapsed in her principles. Her love and loyalty to our people across the country was boundless.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We owed her an unpayable debt for the sacrifices she made while she lived. Her memory will never be forgotten and her legacy will endure.</para></quote>
<para>While Lowitja's life was full of many achievements, too many to list here, I will remember her best for her work with the former prime minister Paul Keating as the lead negotiator on the Native Title Act after the 1992 Mabo decision. As the inaugural chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, she brought together a group of Aboriginal leaders for an eight-month consultation on the design of the Native Title Act. At that time it was the first and only time the Aboriginal community of Australia was brought into the Commonwealth cabinet room. And Paul Keating, the former prime minister, in his 2001 Lowitja O'Donoghue Oration said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I like to think that together, she and I were able to lead our respective political forces towards an historic outcome for a race of people dispossessed and decimated by the process of settlement.</para></quote>
<para>Keating described her as:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A leader whose unfailing instinct for enlargement marks her out as unique.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Without any position of mandated authority from her people, she caused their mobilisation in what was, the first time, that Aboriginal people were brought fully and in an equal way to the centre of national executive power. In the 204-year history of the formerly colonised Australia, this had never happened. Never before had the Commonwealth government of Australia and its Cabinet nor any earlier colonial government laid out a basis of consultation and negotiation offering full participation to the country's indigenous representatives; and certainly not around such a matter as the country's common law where something as significant as native title rights could arise from a collection of laws which had themselves developed from European custom and tradition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She knew that in the dismal history of indigenous relations with European Australia, this was an illuminated breakout, a comet of light in an otherwise darkened landscape.</para></quote>
<para>Lowitja later turned down Paul Keating's offer of the governor-generalship. Such was her integrity and forthrightness that she told him, 'I'm a republican, and so are you.' I want to acknowledge the impacts and the immeasurable legacy she leaves behind and pass on condolences to her family and the broader First Nations community as they mourn the loss of Aunty Lowitja.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with a heavy heart that I rise to also make a contribution on this condolence motion marking the passing of an extraordinary woman, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. I add my voice to the outpouring of grief and the beautiful tributes to Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue AC, CBE, DSG, a trailblazing Aboriginal leader, who died on Kaurna country surrounded by her loved ones not so long ago. I think all of those distinguished letters at the end of Dr O'Donoghue's title give you some insight not just into how profoundly influential she was in First Nations communities in Australia but into how indebted Australia—and, indeed she had an impact on an international scale as well—is to her leadership. Her passing will be felt right across Australia.</para>
<para>Lowitja lived an extraordinary life. I spoke recently about her courage, her leadership and her determination when I rose in this House to speak on the national apology to the stolen generations on an important anniversary we just had. Dr O'Donoghue was born near Indulkana in the far north of South Australia in 1932. Lowitja's mother, Lily, was a Yankunytjatjara woman and her father, Tom O'Donoghue, was first-generation Irish Australian. The Coniston massacre, which was the last documented massacre of First Nations people in Australia, had occurred in the Northern Territory just a few years earlier. That's the historical context of her life.</para>
<para>At age two, she was taken from her mother and placed in a mission home in South Australia, like so many other First Nations people of her time. Her name was Anglicised. She was prohibited from speaking her own language and, along with her name and language, her family and identity were stolen from her. The mission—and this was the United Aborigines Mission, an order that I'm very familiar with through my own work in Fitzroy Crossing many years ago, as it was the UAM that also missionised and worked in the Kimberley region—was, for Lowitja, a very harsh experience. It was a very harsh disciplinary regime, without love and with frequent incidents of abuse, and I don't think we should ever sugarcoat that or gloss over that. She witnessed so many incidents of abuse that, of course, many, many decades later we would finally call to account through the royal commission into child sexual abuse in institutions in Australia. Many of these institutions were faith based religious organisations, the very institutions that people were asked to trust. That trust was profoundly betrayed. We know that now through the many volumes that the royal commission has left. So it was a pretty traumatic life for her and, of course, for her family and all of those kinship networks that are impacted when kids are ripped and forcibly removed from families. She was, like so many, without a birth certificate. The white missionaries gave her the birthdate of 1 August. Of course, we know that as the horse's birthday in Australia. I know, from my time as a young anthropologist working through many of the historical records that were held by the Aboriginal protection agencies across Australia, that literally thousands of Aboriginal kids were given this birthdate of 1 August, because they didn't have a birth certificate and that was as far as our imagination was able to stretch in those days, it would seem. It's a pretty heartbreaking thing for a lot of Aboriginal people to find out later on in life—why their birthday was 1 August. So even her birthday was stolen from her.</para>
<para>At age 16, Lowitja was sent to Victor Harbor as a servant for a very large family, a job which she did for two years until she fought ferociously to become a nurse. When the matron at the Royal Adelaide Hospital refused her because she was Aboriginal, she took her battle to the state Premier and anyone else in government who would listen to her case. Gosh, how thankful are we today for her determination and tenacity. She went on to become the first Aboriginal nurse in Australia.</para>
<para>She said in 1994:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I'd resolved that one of the fights was to actually open the door for Aboriginal women to take up the nursing profession, and also for those young men to get into apprenticeships.</para></quote>
<para>These were two really stark barriers and examples of discrimination that she had experienced and seen, and she was determined to rip those barriers away. That was, for her, the impetus for a lifelong dedication to activism and not just calling out discrimination but doing the really hard work of reform. For that, we are deeply indebted to Lowitja O'Donoghue.</para>
<para>When she left us, she had a very long list of amazing achievements and outstanding accomplishments, and I'm going to go through just some of those. She was Australian of the Year in 1984, in recognition of her work and her personal contribution to bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. She was named a national living treasure in 1998 and appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia—that's the AC component of her title—the following year. She was also made an honorary fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, in 1998, and the Royal College of Nursing, Australia. That was, I'm sure, a really proud moment for a woman who had originally been refused entry. She holds multiple honorary doctorates and fellowships, and was patron of the Lowitja Institute, which of course will continue to do extraordinary work to ensure her legacy continues. In 1990, she became the founding chairperson of ATSIC, which was an extremely memorable moment. She had, indeed, been very instrumental in the establishment of ATSIC and the negotiations around that and then did our nation the great service of becoming the inaugural chairperson of ATSIC. Noel Pearson reflected on those times and wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These were ATSIC's best years. They were years of great coherence in indigenous affairs …</para></quote>
<para>I think he is absolutely spot on there.</para>
<para>She had an extraordinary capacity to bring people together both within and across First Nations communities in Australia, with the vastly different experiences of colonisation that occur in different states and territories. There were lots of common aims and objectives, of course, but she was able to navigate all of those meaningful differences that do exist, and she was, likewise, able to traverse all of those complex pathways through government, bureaucracy and the broader national population and speak to them with great meaning and gravitas. When Lowitja O'Donoghue spoke, people listened. Noel Pearson also reflected:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Without Lowitja's Atsic we would never have defended Eddie Mabo's great legacy and negotiated the Native Title Act and Indigenous Land Fund.</para></quote>
<para>They are two profoundly important legacies that she has left.</para>
<para>Let's not forget, also, the critical role that she played in the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. One of the comments on her passing from the former prime minister Kevin Rudd was that she had, obviously, been knocking on doors and trying to advise about the importance of having a national apology to the stolen generations, but she went straight to Kevin Rudd upon his election and said it's time: 'This is your moment. This is your time to do this now.' That was one of the nation's most significant truth-telling events. She was able, as she always did, to transcend her own experiences through life—all of those hardships and all of her own and her family's pain and grief. She rose above all of that, reached out and could see the significance of an apology to this nation. It was something that she saw as embracing our opportunity to face squarely a really traumatic part of our nation's history. But the only way that we could all heal and move forward was to confront that history face on and have the apology.</para>
<para>There was lots of resistance at the time and lots of people who thought that this was an opening of the door to all sorts of litigation and all kinds of negative impacts—but she was able to prosecute—and I think history shows, very successfully, that that was indeed the wrong way to look at this and that this was a moment for our history to engage in some serious truth-telling. That is confronting and that is uncomfortable sometimes, but you come through that with a renewed sense of hope and possibility for just relationships going forward.</para>
<para>Sadly, Lowitja didn't get to see a national voice to parliament or her people formally recognised in the Constitution, which I know she would have liked to have seen established, but I suspect that, if she were with us now, she would be advising us all. It was not in her nature to just give up on fighting for justice, and it might take different forms and take different directions. We are yet to see what will happen for us as a nation there, how we will grapple with the ongoing nature of our relationship with First Nations people and what that just relationship is going to look like going forward.</para>
<para>Lowitja O'Donoghue didn't get to be reunited with her mother until she was more than 30 years of age, following a trip to Coober Pedy with South Australia's then Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Her biographer, Stuart Rintoul, describes how, not long after she arrived in Coober Pedy, Lowitja found a group of people sitting outside a store looking at her and saying, 'That's Lily's daughter.' From them, she learnt that her birth name was Lowitja and that her mother was a heartbroken woman living in poverty in Oodnadatta. In the weeks that followed, Lily waited for her daughter in the outback town of Oodnadatta, staring off into the desert. That reunion was not easy. There was tension. There was a language barrier: they couldn't talk to each other. I remember Lowitja explaining in one of her reconciliation lectures, if I'm not mistaken, that the only language she had was to look into her mother's eyes, and what she saw was a woman broken by grief. That was a very hard thing for both of them to reconcile. But Rintoul, Lowitja's biographer, writes that Lowitja would later talk of that reunion as a lesson in the limitlessness of hope and the strength of patience. Wow. I hope that I would have capacity to be that generous in my self-reflection had I been walking in the shoes of either Lowitja O'Donoghue or her mother, Lily, at that time.</para>
<para>When Rintoul asked Lowitja why she'd lived the life she had, she simply replied, 'Because I love my people.' Thank you, Lowitja, for your love, your humour, your strength, your determination, your perseverance and that limitless hope and strength of patience that you lived with every day. Thank you for teaching so many others to follow in your footsteps and for giving your country everything you had. Your legacy is immense. We are forever in your debt, and our hearts are at half mast today, but it is your time to rest now. You've done everything you can. The rest is for those of us who follow—to ensure that your legacy continues to grow and lives on. Vale, Lowitja O'Donoghue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise, like all of my colleagues who have stood, to talk about a woman who surpasses all of us and whose courage and legacy, even when she was alive, were a living legend for all of us. I know, having been a young person coming up through the system at that time, what it's like walking in the footsteps of women like Dr O'Donoghue. Trying to meet the same principles by which she lived her life was always going to be a tough task. For someone like me, she was 30 years my senior. Going through, I saw a similar role. Dr O'Donoghue's upbringing and that early start in her life mirrored the life of my father, who was a member of the stolen generations.</para>
<para>I remember receiving the news on the day that she passed away, when Minister Burney sent a notice around to all of us that she had passed. It was a sad occasion. We all feel the loss of a family member, and she was like a family member to all of us. We might have come from a different tribal group—she'd come from South Australia, and I'm from the Northern Territory—but it didn't matter where we were from. It transcended—we were all together, fighting a fight and continuing this journey for social justice and equity for Aboriginal people.</para>
<para>I think it was around 1990 when the government established and she became the inaugural chairperson of ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, right up until about 2005. The member for Newcastle was absolutely right: in that time, ATSIC was probably the most organised, the most fearless and the most proactive in terms of organising and addressing some of the issues on the ground across our communities Australia-wide, not just in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>ATSIC was seen as the repository or the body that governments, if they couldn't deal with something, could just shove everything into, and I think it became unwieldy. It became, I suppose, the dumping ground for everything across Australia that had an Aboriginal tag on it. Lowitja and the many people involved in that early movement were able to work through that. It was her intellect, her grace and the way in which she worked with successive governments to work through the politics, particularly on the ground and in the Northern Territory, that enabled her to work through that and get what everyone in those communities wanted: a resolution and an outcome.</para>
<para>I was coming into—and, like her, had spent my life in—the Aboriginal health sector. When I think of her, I think of people like Barbara Flick and of the many Aboriginal women who were triple certificate nurses who had fought to be recognised in that system for their qualifications and to be able to work in the mainstream health sector. That was tough for them. But, in talking to and meeting with her, there was never any sense of resentment or hatefulness from Dr O'Donoghue. It was all of that early life that shaped her to be true, courageous and fearless, and, as Minister Burney said in her statement, what a courageous and fearless leader she was. She was certainly a trailblazer.</para>
<para>For Aboriginal women, she was certainly the person who cleared that path for many of us to be able to go down it and not be afraid, because she was never afraid. If you look at her early life—I'm not going to go over any of that, because I think there have been so many people who have spoken before me that have gone through her early life—and everything that she achieved, it was certainly a pathway that had been cleared for Aboriginal women, particularly young women, and for people like myself to be able to aspire to that through sheer hard work. Keeping your convictions and never losing who you are were always things that came through every time I had the privilege of talking and meeting with Dr O'Donoghue. It was always the same message: never forget who you are, be true to your convictions and, if it's a fight, do it with grace and do it with dignity. You can still get the same outcome if you do it in a way that—I'm just trying to find the right words here. You can have the biff, but she always used to say that honey can bring people—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Into respect.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. She didn't always agree with people, and it was on both sides of politics. I remember working in the health sector and both Pat Anderson, a good friend of mine, and me coming down and meeting with Dr O'Donoghue, with the then Aboriginal affairs minister, Robert Tickner, and with Carmen Lawrence, who was the health minister and also from Western Australia—so I'm going back a number of years—and talking to them about an unpalatable subject. We could see that everything, including the issue of Aboriginal health, was put on ATSIC and that ATSIC commissioners and elected members had to make decisions that they just wouldn't have expected to have happen in the mainstream.</para>
<para>We felt that, whilst health was hived into ATSIC and hidden away in ATSIC, it meant that Aboriginal people, particularly in the Northern Territory, didn't have access to the MBS, the Medicare Benefits Schedule, or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We did a lot of research which showed that, for every dollar that was spent on someone in the mainstream for MBS and PBS, 40c was spent on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory—and a lot of that was attributed to ATSIC. So the blame was pushed onto ATSIC. I remember those meetings and coming down and talking to Dr O'Donoghue, talking to Dr Carmen Lawrence, who was the health minister, and also talking to Robert Tickner, who was the Aboriginal affairs minister at the time, to transfer the responsibility of Aboriginal health from ATSIC into the mainstream health system, where it sits today.</para>
<para>Whilst it was a big hit for ATSIC, I pay tribute to Dr O'Donoghue. With her intellect, her insight and her advocacy, we were able to get that transition which would have at that time been quite highly political and sensitive, particularly if Aboriginal people felt that money was being removed from ATSIC and put back into the mainstream health system. It's a testament to her insight and the work that she did. I think that, when we look at where the ACCHO sector is today—the Aboriginal community controlled health organisation sector—and at Aboriginal people getting access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to have access to the best health care, that is testament to Lowitja. I also have to acknowledge Carmen Lawrence and Robert Tickner as the ministers at that time.</para>
<para>I heard the member for Newcastle talk about how Lowitja was the steadying ship, and she did have a lot of respect. People did respect her because she was able to listen to all sides of that debate and then work it through with those communities and organisations. Anyone who's sitting in this room who's got any knowledge or understanding of black politics in this country will know she had the ability to balance the differing levels of culture, language and identity, bringing together particularly—and I can only speak for the Northern Territory—Aboriginal people from many different cultural backgrounds, and the ability to keep people focused and energised as to what their job was. That is a testament to Lowitja.</para>
<para>The regional councils at that time, in terms of ATSIC under her stewardship, were probably the best in the Northern Territory. If you go back to 1990 to 2006, when she stopped being the chairperson, you only have to look at what ATSIC did in terms of getting outcomes with housing, with education, with jobs—all of those things that we talk about today and we say, 'We're back to where we were before.' Sometimes it's hindsight, and back to the future is often a good thing. We can look back on some of those examples. Maybe we need to look back at what she had achieved and bring back some of those policies and have a look at them. It made sense then and it makes sense now. We shouldn't be afraid to look at the lessons of yesterday as examples for today.</para>
<para>There are many people that criticise ATSIC—and I've heard those criticisms in this parliament since I've been here and even before I came into this parliament—and they say, 'It was a basket case.' Often, if people criticise ATSIC and call it a basket case, they're reflecting on the stewardship of a great lady and a dame and someone that was highly respected in Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. She was someone who held the ship. She steadied the ship. She carried it through some stormy waters, and then she stepped away. I think that when she stepped away—and I say this a lot in the Territory: if you want someone to do the job and you want them to do it right, get a woman!</para>
<para>When you look at Dr O'Donoghue and what she did, she did it in a frank way. She did it in a fearless way. She did no favours for anyone, and I think that's what's really important. She kept her dignity. She didn't need favours to be done. But she took no prisoners. I remember many conversations with her, particularly through the health discussions, where I, being a young person and thinking that I knew everything, was pulled down a peg or two—and that's okay. Often we need a bit of pulling down every now and then to make us see.</para>
<para>It was a loss for this nation, as well as for the Aboriginal community and her family, when she passed. I know the South Australian community. I remember being in Adelaide a long time ago, Member for Boothby, and she was sitting at the DFO near the airport, which I like to visit every now and then when I'm in Adelaide! She was at Harbour Town and she was sitting there having a cup of coffee, and I walked over. As always, in her presence, you felt compelled to bow because of her greatness and who she was and who she represented. She always made you feel special, and that was what I'll always be grateful for.</para>
<para>I have a favourite author—and I've read <inline font-style="italic">I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings</inline>—Maya Angelou. Always, when I look at her and when I look at Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue I can see similarities between these two women. They were remarkable women.</para>
<para>I want to read something that I've always had, which is really close to me. I know that this sums up Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, because she was brilliant, and her ability—and that's what was important, having the ability—like Maya Angelou, to harness the power of words to inspire people was truly remarkable. If you read her books and her teachings, it's not hard to be inspired. But I want to leave a little poem which I thought about with the passing of Lowitja. It's 'Still I Rise', and it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You may shoot me with your words,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You may cut me with your eyes,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You may kill me with your hatefulness,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But still, like air, I'll rise.</para></quote>
<para>Vale and rest in peace, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Lingiari for her fine words, for her personal insights and for the affection with which she personally remembers Dr O'Donoghue. That was very special—listening to you. It's with heavy heart that I am also here to pay tribute to Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, a great leader, an extraordinary woman and a woman who made a difference. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Lowitja's story is the truth of this country.</para></quote>
<para>Lowitja was born in the APY Lands of South Australia to a young Pitjantjatjara mother and an Irish father. At the age of two she was taken from her mother, along with her older sisters Violet and Amy. Two older siblings, Eileen and Geoffrey, had been removed eight years earlier as well. Her name was changed to Lois, and she was not allowed to ask about her family. Lowitja would not see her mother again for three decades, when, in 1967, working as a remote area welfare officer, she had a chance meeting outside a Coober Pedy store with an aunt and uncle who recognised the family resemblance: 'That's Lily's girl.' In the weeks that followed, Lily waited for her daughter in the outback town of Oodnadatta, staring off into the desert, waiting for her daughter to come home. The reunion was not easy. They no longer shared a common language. They did not embrace. They didn't know how to be with one another. Lowitja later said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">By the time I met my mother, of course, it was far too emotional to talk about …</para></quote>
<para>It was at this stage, aged in her 30s, when she learnt her birth name.</para>
<para>The children had been taken to the United Aborigines Mission home, Colebrook children's home, in Quorn in the Flinders Ranges. Nine years later they were transferred to the United Aborigines Mission's new Colebrook Home in Eden Hills in the electorate of Boothby where she attended the local Eden Hills primary school and then Unley Girls Technical High School.</para>
<para>Colebrook children's home was a place of rigid discipline, joyless religious observance, allegedly bad food and endless hymn singing, and praising of the Lord. She felt powerless and unloved and she was often in trouble. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"I remember in my very earliest days standing up for what I believed in … One of the earliest memories I have is of coming between the matron and the strap. I would often stand in the way when the strap was intended for others, with the result being that I, too, got a beating."</para></quote>
<para>She asked herself the unanswerable, painful questions:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… where is my mother, why doesn't she come for me, doesn't she love me?</para></quote>
<para>Despite this, the Colebrook children were encouraged to participate in local community events. Many of the locals I speak to have great memories of their Aboriginal school friends.</para>
<para>Colebrook House in Eden Hills has now been demolished and in its place is Colebrook Reconciliation Park, a beautiful reflective place where we are reminded of the stories of the children taken from their parents many hundreds of kilometres away and raised to be servants, and of the mothers left behind with empty arms.</para>
<para>Despite the circumstances under which Lowitja O'Donoghue came to Eden Hills and her experiences at the children's home, we are proud of having been a little bit of her story and we are sad at the experiences she and the other children had at Colebrook. It's important that these stories, painful as they are, are not forgotten.</para>
<para>Lowitja dedicated her life to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and she deserves Australia's deepest respect, gratitude and love. Lowitja made a difference. Despite the trauma and disadvantage, she went on to have a stellar career full of many firsts—albeit firsts that shouldn't have had to be firsts. As the member for Lingiari said, she was a trailblazer for Aboriginal women, in particular, and for Aboriginal people generally. She lobbied South Australian Premier Tom Playford to become the first trainee Aboriginal nurse in South Australia, training at Royal Adelaide Hospital, where she rose to become staff sister and charge nurse. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'd resolved that one of the fights was to actually open the door for Aboriginal women to take up the nursing profession, and also for those young men to get into apprenticeships.</para></quote>
<para>In the 1970s she became the regional director of the then Department Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia, the first woman to hold a position like this in a federal government department. She was appointed the founding chairperson of the restructured National Aboriginal Conference in 1977, and of course she was chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC.</para>
<para>She was the first Aboriginal Australian to address the United Nations General Assembly, which she did in 1992 during the launch of the United Nations International Year of Indigenous Peoples; she was involved in the negotiations for native title legislation following the Mabo decision; and former prime minister Kevin Rudd consulted her on the Apology to the Stolen Generations. Notably, she turned down the offer of the position of Governor-General, proudly declaring, 'I'm a republican.'</para>
<para>Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue did not lead an easy life. The circumstances of her childhood and upbringing we would not wish on any child. She had to fight every step of the way to pursue her career. But I pay my respects to a woman who overcame adversity, kept going when obstacles were put in her way and ultimately made a significant difference with the actions of her life. She won many awards: she was Australian of the Year; she had a CBE—Commander of the British Empire; and had many honorary doctorates—she was an honorary professor at Flinders University. But, most importantly, she made a difference. She made a difference to the lives and prospects of Aboriginal Australians. She made a difference to this country and to all Australians. She advanced the cause of reconciliation through her words, through her actions and through her life.</para>
<para>I'd like to offer my condolences to her family and friends, and to the wider First Nations community. Vale, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. May she rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise today to pay tribute to Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, and to extend my deepest sympathies to her family and loved ones.</para>
<para>Dr O'Donoghue was, without doubt, one of the most remarkable leaders this country has ever known. Many have spoken here about her childhood and the unimaginable disadvantages she endured, as have so many of our Indigenous sisters and brothers. She was removed, or stolen, from her mother and assigned a birth date. She endured so much that many of us have not. Even after a childhood of immense trauma, she dedicated her life to the advancement of reconciliation in Australia, and played a pivotal role in national initiatives that have had a profound effect on Indigenous Australians and, therefore, upon all of us.</para>
<para>Dr O'Donoghue was never one to shy away from a challenge, as many others have noted in this place. She was a woman of many firsts. She was the first Aboriginal nurse in South Australia. In 1973 she was the first woman to be appointed as a regional director of an Australian federal department, being the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. She was the founding chair of the National Aboriginal Conference in 1977. She was the first chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in 1990, and she was the first Aboriginal person to address the United Nations General Assembly, in 1992.</para>
<para>She has, quite rightly, received many awards in recognition of her contribution to this country and to many others. In 1976, she was the first Aboriginal woman to be made a Member of the Order of Australia. In 1983, as was mentioned earlier, Dr O'Donoghue was named a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her services to the Indigenous community of Australia. The year after, she was acknowledged by the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, as Australian of the Year. In 1993, Murdoch University was the first university to grant her an honorary doctorate. That was the first of many honorary doctorates. I believe she got another nine from universities right around the country in recognition of her vast contributions. In 1999 she was made a Companion in the Order of Australia for public service through leadership to Indigenous and, importantly, non-Indigenous Australians in the areas of human rights and social justice. I think it is very important that her Companion of the Order of Australia citation mentions her contribution to non-Indigenous Australians as well. Her honours continued. In 2006, she was invested as a Dame of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, a papal honour awarded by then Pope John Paul II, which just goes to speak of how Dr O'Donoghue was regarded right around the world.</para>
<para>In the nineties, when Dr O'Donoghue was the chair of ATSIC, she worked alongside other prominent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and then prime minister Paul Keating to negotiate the terms of the Native Title Act following the Mabo decision. Keating would later recount the influence that Dr O'Donoghue had on delivering that act, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… she decided, alone decided, that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia would negotiate, and I emphasise negotiate, with the Commonwealth government of Australia—and that the negotiators would be the leaders of the indigenous land councils. She decided that. And from that moment, for the first time in the 204-year history of the settled country, its indigenous people sat in full concert with the government of it all.</para></quote>
<para>The Native Title Act passed in 1993, and finally Indigenous Australians had a legal process to claim native title over the lands and waters that they had lived on for tens of thousands of years before colonisation—the eternity that existed before colonisation and, indeed, exists today. Today, around 40 per cent Australia is covered by native title, most of which is in our northern regions, and of course it has a great interaction with the resources sector of this country. Sixty per cent of resources projects are on land covered by native title. The member for Newcastle mentioned this in her contribution, but I think it's important to reiterate that today, in 2024, we should not underestimate how difficult it was to enact and then go on to implement the national Native Title Act. There was an extraordinary scare campaign around native title following the Mabo decision and then Paul Keating's progress with the bill and the act itself. Most of that was, sadly, driven out of my home state of Western Australia, which the leaders of that state at the time would have said had a lot to lose from native title. It was an enormous and frightening scare campaign which set the tone for many discussions since between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>But the reality is that the Native Title Act and all that has come after it have been absolutely transformative for the resources sector but also, more importantly, for our wider community. Now we see an extensive array of voluntary land use agreements under the native title regime, and these agreements benefit Indigenous communities while also enabling responsible resources developments right across the country. These land use agreements and other agreements entered into between Indigenous communities and resources companies have the deep involvement of local communities—and not just Indigenous communities, I might add. Some of the neighbouring communities have benefited greatly from the consequences of the Native Title Act development over the years. There has been active involvement by communities in mine development, planning, rehabilitation, and all the extraordinary activity that goes on within the resources sector. We know the work Dr O'Donoghue did, alongside Paul Keating and many, many others, in developing that act has had enormous benefit for Indigenous populations and, more importantly, for the wider community.</para>
<para>We know that Dr O'Donoghue was a strong advocate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be recognised in Australia's Constitution. Sadly, Dr O'Donoghue did not get to see that constitutional recognition in her lifetime, but I know we can all agree here today that Australia is a better place because of her and her extraordinary contribution to this country. Even after her passing, her legacy will live on through the lives of those she has changed forever. My condolences to her family and friends. Vale Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. May you rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the previous speakers on this condolence motion because, collectively, they have started to paint a picture of the life of a truly extraordinary Australian. On Sunday 4 February our nation lost a national treasure with the passing of Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. I don't know of any other Australian who lived such an extraordinary life and achieved so much, who distinguished herself on the national and international stage and who was recognised with so many awards and titles. I won't go through them all but will touch on some of the more notable titles: for example, the Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Order of Australia, Australian of the Year, Australian National Living Treasure and then the papal order of Dame of the Order of St Gregory the Great—an honour bestowed on her by Pope John Paul II. Even for those alone, I can't think of anybody else who has achieved a similar level of recognition throughout the world. Without trying to in any way put her in a stature that others would say are equally deserving, the only other person I can think of in the Indigenous community that I have come across that perhaps I would put on the same platform in many respects would be Dr Evelyn Scott, who lived through the same era and who I also had the privilege to meet, to host and to listen to. Between her and Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, the Indigenous community have had two incredible leaders through a very, very difficult period.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of knowing Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, having met her at several community events in Adelaide, including events in the City of Salisbury, which I hosted and which she attended as a guest speaker. It was always a privilege to have her in the city. As I reflect on my encounters with her and I read the tributes that have flowed since her passing, there is nothing that has been said about her that I would disagree with.</para>
<para>When Lowitja walked into a room, there was an aura and a calmness about her that distinguished her from everyone else. Her presence was noted and felt throughout the room, and she was highly respected. Her views and responses were always measured and insightful; indeed, she was a person of great wisdom. Not surprisingly, it is because of that great wisdom, because of that very persona, that led to her taking on so many leadership roles that she held throughout her life.</para>
<para>Dr O'Donoghue devoted her life to her people and to lifting them out of poverty and disadvantage but she always did that in a spirit of goodwill and reconciliation. Lowitja O'Donoghue cared deeply for her people. I believe that the injustice and the disadvantage that she herself had experienced motivated her to. I suppose, if you don't walk in the shoes of someone, it is hard to understand what motivates them and why they do things but, when you have walked in their shoes, particularly of those who are disadvantaged, I suspect it changes your own outlook on life and I have no doubt that is partly what led her to being the person she was. However, her mannerisms reflected not a person filled with anger, albeit she had lived the life she did and bitterness, but rather a person who displayed reason and compassion.</para>
<para>In no small way was Lowitja supported, and perhaps even motivated, at the time by the reconciliation initiatives led by both the Dunstan and the Whitlam governments of the sixties and seventies. I believe that both of those governments not only listened to the likes of Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue but also encouraged and inspired them to campaign even more. So it was a combination of both the attitude of governments of that era and leaders like Lowitja—and there were many others who, I believe, were responsible for the changes that we started to see in that period.</para>
<para>Change is a constant, and every era is unique. For Australia, the 20th century was a critical period which significantly shaped the identity and the future of our country. It did so in so many ways. If people look back at the history of this country, the mid-19th century was an era that transformed the direction of Australia, whether it was through immigration or policy changes that occurred at the time. Many of those policy changes were the policy changes relating to the way we looked at the Indigenous people of this land.</para>
<para>For the Indigenous people, however, the 1950s was still an era of struggle, recognition, truth-telling and reconciliation. There are many stories about that, and many historical books have been written about that period. But, without people like Lowitja O'Donoghue, we may not have achieved what we have since. Whilst I accept that there is still much to do—and that was made clear in the annual <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report to parliament only last month—Australia is indeed a much better place because of people like Lowitja and because of her specifically.</para>
<para>I don't believe that we will see another Lowitja O'Donoghue again, perhaps because we live through different times, where there are different kinds of demands on people. We live through a different era, but her legacy and her name will live on with affection, admiration and respect. Her funeral service will be held on Friday 8 March at St Peter's Cathedral in Adelaide. I'm hoping to be there. I have no doubt it will be a fitting farewell to a great Australian to whom we owe so much.</para>
<para>The country we live in has been shaped over the years by different individuals. Lowitja will be amongst those that have both changed the country we live in today and changed the periods of the greatest disadvantage for her people. At the time when Lowitja was very prominent in public affairs, I worked for a period of time for Senator Jim Cavanagh. Senator Jim Cavanagh had been a minister for Indigenous affairs, or Aboriginal affairs, as I think it was termed in the Whitlam government for a period, and he was also caught up very much in the debate on land rights when the Fraser government was elected. I can very much recall the concerns that were raised in respect of Aboriginal land rights and the like in the years that followed. It was a period where there was a great deal of unease throughout the community. It was a real power struggle for many, and it was a real struggle for the Indigenous people of this land. It was a time when the likes of Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue shone the brightest. It was a period when, without people like her, we may not have achieved what we did.</para>
<para>The list of her achievements is there on public record for all to see. She was truly a great Australian. I say to her family: thank you, Lowitja O'Donoghue, for what you did to make Australia the place it is today. Vale, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places and I ask all present to do so.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members having stood in their places—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Federation Chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further proceedings be conducted in the House.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:35</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>