2024-03-25 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 25 March 2024

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the 24th report of the Petitions Committee for the 47th Parliament. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 24 Petitions and Ministerial Responses 25 March 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracey Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented. The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 14 February and 20 March 2024. 1. The committee resolved to present the following 2 petitions in accordance with standing order 207: Petitions certified on 14 February 2024 From 5541 petitioners—requesting a moratorium on dingo culling and the use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) (EN5918) Petitions certified on 20 March 2024 From 181 petitioners—requesting that Australia sign and ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (PN0593) 2. The following 4 ministerial responses to petitions were received. Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 20 March 2024 From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition requesting the development of an Australian nuclear fusion industry (EN5364) From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel to a petition regarding the removal of the 'alone test' for the purposes of determining the Disability Compensation Payment (EN5397) From the Minister for Indigenous Australians to a petition regarding the 14 October 2023 referendum on the Voice to Parliament (EN5582) From the Assistant Minister for Social Services to a petition requesting additional Paid Parental Leave for families of children who are required to remain in hospital post-birth (EN5627) Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Presentation 1 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following two petitions: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2 Environmental Management: Dingoes 2 PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Responses 2 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following four ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Nuclear Energy 2 Veterans 3 First Nations Australians 3 Parliamentarians' Entitlements 4 PETITIONS 4 PETITIONS Statements 4 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie This report is unusually short, simply because of the cycle of petitions opening and closing for signatures, combined with the dates of parliamentary sittings. There is an important matter that I'd like to note to the House today concerning signatures on petitions. There are several rules about who can sign a petition to this House. In particular, standing order 205A(e) makes it clear that each signatory to an e-petition must confirm they are either a resident or a citizen of Australia. The petitions website requires people to check a box declaring that they are a resident or a citizen before they can sign an e-petition. The Petitions Committee has become aware that one e-petition that closed recently may have been signed by a number of people who are neither a resident nor a citizen of Australia. The committee takes this matter seriously and will note it when that petition is referred to the relevant minister. The citizen's right to petition parliament has a long tradition, one that the Australian parliament inherited from the United Kingdom. The House has a system of petitions and ministerial responses, and the Petitions Committee facilitates this process. Electronic petitions enable many Australians to engage with petitions on issues of concern to them. With global social media, it is understandable that people who are not residents or citizens of Australia may become aware of a House petition and wish to express their support for it. They may also have experience in signing other types of e-petitions that are not House petitions. But making a false declaration of citizenship or residency in order to sign a House petition is dishonest and contravenes the standing orders, and this is not going to help the petitioners' cause. As I have said in this place previously, the committee accepts that principal petitioners cannot be responsible for the actions of every person in connection with their petition over the signature collection period. However, I urge principal petitioners to remind supporters to adhere to the standing orders and to only sign if they are eligible to do so. By all means, promote your petition, but, if you seek to use the official petitions process, the House will expect petitioners to comply with the standing orders. Finally, the committee continues to believe that the vast majority of people who engage with the House petitions process do so in good faith and in accordance with the rules. I thank the House. COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Employment, Education and Training Committee 5 Report 5 10:04 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Shared vision, equal pathways: Inquiry into the perceptions and status of vocational education and training, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Despite the evidence that VET will continue to be crucial to Australia's economic prosperity, many Australians hold negative perceptions of the sector. These perceptions are often driven by a poor understanding of VET and the careers it can lead to and also because of policy decisions and media representations that reinforce the belief that university is a better pathway to personal and professional success. During the inquiry it became apparent that current and prospective VET students, employers and the public lack a single trusted source of reliable information on VET. While the National Careers Institute, the NCI, was created as a kind of one-stop shop for information on VET qualifications and careers, evidence to the committee suggested that the NCI was not functioning effectively and required a significant overhaul or substantial enhancement. Many of the witnesses who participated in the inquiry were not aware of the NCI or its work. Others said that it failed to meet its core objectives. The AIG said that it did not believe that the National Careers Institute was reaching its target. The Australian Centre for Career Education reported that the NCI did not have a prominent role in schools, including in supporting career advice. The website also came under scrutiny. The National Careers Institute's Your Career website did not provide sufficient or relevant information on skill based careers, with one of the witnesses noting that if you typed in 'I would like to work with my hands in construction' you don't get a recommendation for a trade pathway until the 40th option. Instead, it suggested 'If you'd like to work with your hands in construction then perhaps consider becoming an architect.' It's a perverse outcome, noting that the National Careers Institute was originally set up to focus on promoting vocational careers. If I can be frank, the National Careers Institute may not be able to be saved, and it may be better for it to be scrapped and start again. While I have highlighted one area of focus in my comments today—the National Careers Institute—I know that many of the other committee members will focus on other key parts of VET that the report highlights. There is a need to focus on supporting more women and diverse cohorts into VET. There is also a strong need to focus on strategic partnerships between schools, TAFEs and employers, which will be critical to enhancing VET within schools, as well as ensuring sufficient school funding to enable schools to achieve this outcome. The VET sector must deliver on training that is relevant and adapts to the economy, technology, environmental turmoil and changing human demographics. This will require reimagining how we develop and accredit qualifications and units of competency. This is not to say we need to abandon the cornerstone of VET programs. Apprenticeships and traineeships will remain a core part of the sector. However, there's compelling evidence that many apprentices are leaving due to a lack of adequate support, and therefore there is a need to enable industry led support networks. There's not enough time to really focus on what we covered in the report. But, in closing, I'd like to thank the numerous organisations and individuals who contributed to the inquiry, particularly the students and the educators. Real change will be difficult without engaging those who are impacted the most. In this report, the committee has made 34 recommendations on how to enhance VET and lift perceptions of the sector. The findings were informed by over 100 submissions, over 30 hours of public hearings and direct engagement with VET and secondary school students. I'd particularly like to thank the school students and teachers who participated in our inquiry. I commend the committee's report to the House. 10:09 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak on behalf of the coalition in my capacity as deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Committee on the Shared vision, equal pathways report, which is about the inquiry into the perceptions and status of vocational education and training. I'd like to thank the chair, Lisa Chesters, the member for Bendigo, and all the committee members for their genuine engagement in this most important of inquiries. I'd also like to thank the committee staff, headed by the secretary, Fran Denny, for their excellent work, and all those who gave evidence, submitted submissions and attended hearings, either public or private, in person or remotely. You have certainly opened my eyes to some of the challenges that we face. I was very excited when this inquiry was launched, as I come from a generation where most of the school leavers, particularly boys, left after attaining their junior certificate after completing year 10. It was mainly those who wanted to attend university that continued on to year 12. This, of course, has resulted in what we see now: a shortage of tradies. For a couple of decades, out of good motivation, we have encouraged our children to get a degree, even if they weren't suited to or desirous of getting a university degree. It got to the point where, as a society, we were basically, either subconsciously or consciously, treating people without a degree as second-class citizens, to our own detriment. I'm very pleased that this attitude is slowly changing and that those with VET qualifications are valued as much by society as those with a university degree. Supply and demand issues will have this effect. On most things, we as a committee agreed, and I support, in the main, the final report, but as coalition members we have included the following additional comments: 1.2 Members are concerned that the recommendations overlook the role of private registered training organisations (RTOs). For example, zero of the report's 34 recommendations mention the inclusion of private RTOs. This goes against the will of secondary education providers who stated in paragraph 4.133 that they preferred to engage with private RTOs due to their ability to be flexible and more cost effective. 1.3 Furthermore, in discussing the Government's recent Australian Universities Accord, the Minister for Education almost exclusively refers to university and TAFE while refusing to recognise the substantial number of students who choose to study with an RTO. 1.4 As such, members are concerned that private RTOs have been forgotten about in the recommendations of the final report where there is a strong emphasis on government providers and Members request that RTOs be considered alongside TAFE as part of the report's recommendations. Doing so will provide choice for students and secondary schools between public and private education providers. 1.5 We believe that Government should be supporting both public and private RTOs equally to provide the best outcomes for all. It was interesting to speak during the inquiry to several employers that said that, if they were faced with two applicants with similar qualifications, the applicant with the qualification from an NGO provider would, in their eyes, have an edge when getting the job advertised. This is another reason why we believe that greater emphasis must be given to private RTOs, while ensuring that we have a strong TAFE sector. Neither TAFE nor private NGOs on their own are the solution, but together they can be. I commend the report to the House. 10:12 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I was really delighted to be able to have the opportunity to be a part of this report and the inquiry that has informed it, and I commend it to the House. I'd like to thank the chair and deputy chair for their work. I'd like to thank all of the committee members, the secretariat and all the participants, who provided important evidence and were so generous with their submissions and sharing their experiences to ensure that we were able to get a really strong picture of the vocational education and training sector in Australia. This is a piece of work that's very close to my heart. My work previous to entering the parliament was working through some ways that we could strengthen the vocational education and training system in Victoria, noting particularly the very low completion rates in my home state. Anything that we can work towards together as a parliament to improve the perception and status of vocational education and training is a very good thing indeed. In particular, the recommendations that go to aligning vocational education and training in a better way across the country are quite significant. The emphasis on ensuring that students, at all levels of schooling, understand the VET system better and that their teachers and parents understand the VET system and the opportunities available through vocational education and training better is particularly important in terms of the recommendations. In light of the Universities Accord final report, lifelong learning as a critical part of vocational education and training is something I'm pleased to see come through in the recommendations, as well as the seamlessness between vocational education and training and other higher education providers, such as universities. A lot of the evidence that we heard throughout this inquiry was echoed locally with me in my conversations with students, teachers and providers in the electorate of Chisholm. I was particularly interested recently to hear year 12 leaders in their schools talk about the importance of better embedding careers counselling and an understanding of how to navigate the various postsecondary education options while students are in the earlier years of their secondary education. I'm really pleased to see that come through strongly in the recommendations in this report. As I said, I was delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House. 10:15 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I'm pleased to speak to the Shared vision, equal pathways report and recommendations resulting from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training VET inquiry. The committee took extensive evidence from students, teachers and other stakeholders about the workings of the VET system and the gaps within it. This, I believe, was particularly timely given the intersection between vocational education and training and universities, as outlined is in the just released Universities Accord report. As our economy continues to evolve, transitioning into renewable energy, artificial intelligence and an increasing reliance on the care and services sectors, an effective VET sector will be critical to creating the educational and skills base that we need. We must dispel the negative perceptions of VET not only by more effectively promoting it within schools and to families but also by strengthening the VET system by addressing the complex barriers faced by students when it comes to entry into, and effective outcomes from, VET. The committee has recognised, for example, that the emphasis on ATAR scores may be counterproductive to students who may wish to take a VET pathway but are diverted to university, when it may not be appropriate for them. The inquiry revealed very clearly the need to highlight for students diverse pathways that not only match their needs but also build the skills base that Australia needs across a range of sectors. It also became clear that effective careers education in schools is central to the success of this approach, especially considering that children aged as young as seven are beginning to develop decisions about what they may do later in life. I have particular interest in the gendered nature of VET and have had input into several of the recommendations relating to the way that women interact with the system and how to encourage more women and girls into VET pathways. These include encouraging women and gender-diverse people into male-dominated industries, ensuring equitable employment and addressing gender based violence and barriers to women in trades based workplaces, targeting women and gender diverse people with additional apprenticeship places, and implementing promotional and educational campaigns that challenge gender stereotypes. The report also recommends an increased focus within VET on female-dominated industries, including fashion and textiles—currently worth some billions per year to the Australian economy. Australia has one of the most gender-segregated workforces among OECD countries. Women and men largely work the same jobs they did 35 years ago. Caring and clerical professions remain dominated by women, while construction, trades and labouring professions are dominated by men. The ABS reports that women currently comprise around 16 per cent of trade and technical workers. They currently make up just three per cent of the trade workforce and hold only one in every 100 trade apprenticeships. While the number of women in trades is increasing, they still make up only three per cent of all electricians and one per cent of construction workers. As reported in the weekend papers just gone, an enormous shortage of trades will thwart our capacity to build the housing we need in coming years, among other things. One avenue to increased capacity and productivity is women. I look forward to working with the government to remove the structural and attitudinal barriers that stand in the way. We have so much to gain as a nation if this happens. According to Deloitte Access Economics, the Australian economy would be boosted by $128 billion if the persistent barriers to women's full and equal participation were removed. That equates to $12,000 extra a year per household. I thank the committee—particularly the member for Bendigo, for chairing it—for the excellent and thorough recommendations for creating a thriving VET sector. 10:19 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I am delighted that among the first inquiries I have participated in as a member of parliament has been one into the perceptions and status of vocational education and training. After detailed consultation and consideration of the stakeholder input, I am pleased that the inquiry's report, accurately titled Shared vision, equal pathways,is now being tabled. This report reconfirms the Labor government's commitment to strengthening and transforming our vocational education and training sector, VET, after a decade of neglect by those opposite. At the outset, I would like to commend the chair, the member for Bendigo, for her exceptional work in spearheading this inquiry. This inquiry received a hundred submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders, unions, VET providers, universities, business groups and student organisations. Over the course of the inquiry, the committee conducted 15 hearings, including one at Cranbourne Secondary College, in my electorate. I am thankful to the students of Cranbourne Secondary College for presenting their firsthand reflections to the committee. Over one in every four in Holt are under the age of 14—the highest in the country. As these students graduate high school over the next decade, they will make one of the biggest decisions of their lives: 'What do I do after school?' While university is no doubt a great career path for some, for others, the hands-on learning experience from VET is more suitable. Attending VET institutions like William Angliss Institute and Box Hill Institute of TAFE provided me a pathway to acquire skills that were workforce ready. I want to make sure that other students in my electorate and across Australia understand this, and this inquiry will go a long way in ensuring that. This report lays out 34 practical recommendations for achieving this goal. While each of them deserves a mention, in the interest of time, I want to draw the chamber's attention to recommendations 10 and 18. Recommendation 10 emphasises the need for the Australian government and state and territory governments to work together to improve the quality and consistency of VET in secondary schools. The integration of TAFE in secondary schools is one of the great education reforms of this country. Everyone learns differently, and not every student can sit through lectures in a classroom all day. This system shows students early on the possibilities of TAFE and allows them to get a head start on achieving a tertiary qualification. I also welcome recommendation 18, which focuses on addressing systematic barriers which hinder female participation in TAFE, particularly in male dominated industries. Only 12 per cent of construction workers are women, making it a mostly male dominated sector in Australia. Often women can feel uncomfortable in these highly male dominated spaces, leading to high early dropout rates. By tackling workforce discrimination and gender based violence and by introducing additional apprenticeship pathways for women, we can go a long way in addressing this gender imbalance. I am honoured to commend this report in the chamber and thank everyone involved—the committee members, the secretariat and stakeholders—for their immense contribution to this inquiry. I recommend this report to the House. 10:23 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak briefly on the report Shared vision, equal pathways and I start by thanking the chair, the deputy chair, my fellow colleagues and the brilliant secretariat of the employment, education and training committee. This is an area of policy which has been very dear to me for over 20 years as a former director of the National Careers Institute Advisory Board and after working in senior policy roles in vocational education at both the state and federal level. As the report demonstrates, Australia's vocational education system is one of the world's most admired, not only for its diversity, flexibility and metropolitan and regional reach but especially for its provision of skills on which this country, and especially my electorate of Flinders, relies for its economic growth: building and construction; engineering and electrical; and nursing, aged care and child care, among others. Without vocational education, this country would be in a right mess. But, as we heard from witnesses, what distinguishes vocational education from higher education in the main is that it is industry driven, taught where possible by practitioners in their field. We met many of these practitioners during the inquiry. In previous coalition governments, we focused on that industry leadership by creating Australian technical colleges, introducing scholarships for apprentices, providing toolkits to trades apprentices to get them on their way, and providing incentives to encourage employers and, as they were known back then, group training providers. Today, where this ethos of industry engagement and relevance still exists, it is almost by mistake, not by design. Through this inquiry we had the most extraordinary stories from schools like St Columban's College in Caboolture in the member for Longman's electorate, where vocational education is celebrated and valued, whatever the career ambition and academic capability of the student. We also learned that where there is a blend of offerings, both public and private vocational education working together, the community benefits, as was demonstrated so greatly when the committee heard from the Frankston Mornington Peninsula Local Learning and Employment Network; Nepean Industry Edge Training, which provides flexible and affordable training across the entire care industry and supplies so many of our aged-care organisations; and the Advance Community College located in Rosebud, which works in partnership with Chisholm TAFE just next door to get young people ready for TAFE-level training. Private vocational education is an important and necessary part of our educational landscape, and this report fails to highlight justly how much of an important role it plays. BILLS 8 BILLS Crimes and Online Safety Legislation Amendment (Combatting Online Notoriety) Bill 2024 8

Crimes and Online Safety Legislation Amendment (Combatting Online Notoriety) Bill 2024

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 10:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Crime videos on social media are completely out of control. We are seeing a wave of shocking crime videos right across this country, and the extraordinary thing is that these videos are posted to glamorise and celebrate crime. Every one of these videos has a victim. It might be a person who is asleep in their bed when someone breaks in during a home invasion. It might be someone who is violently assaulted. It might be someone who has their property destroyed or stolen. But every of these crimes has a victim, and people are posting these videos to glamorise that crime. It is absolutely outrageous. It is a problem right across this nation, and it's got to stop. That's why the coalition today introduces legislation to take action on this very serious problem in our society. The Albanese government needs to take action and support the Crimes and Online Safety Legislation Amendment (Combatting Online Notoriety) Bill 2024 because this bill responds to something that's a very real problem in the community. There are three things that this bill will do. The first thing is that this bill will make it a federal criminal offence to post a video of crime for the purpose of boosting a person's online notoriety—for property offences, for drug offences and also for violent material. We say, 'If you post a video that is a video of crime, that is designed to make you notorious or the person who is depicted in the video notorious, then that should be a criminal offence,' because we want to send a very clear message that this is unacceptable. If you're thinking about posting one of these videos, if you're thinking about committing a crime and posting a video about it, the message under a coalition government is very, very clear: don't do it, because, if you do it, you could go to jail. Of course, these provisions are a part of the existing telecommunications provisions in the Criminal Code. There's a well-established section of Commonwealth law where telecommunications criminal offences exist, and we will add this crime to those provisions. We will also enable courts to ban people from using social media for a period of up to two years if they're convicted of one of these offences, because if someone has committed one of these offences they shouldn't be going straight back onto social media. So we will stop that from happening. We will also give the eSafety Commissioner a clear and unambiguous power to take these videos down. She does not have that clear power in relation to these crime videos to require those videos to be taken down, and we will give that to the eSafety Commissioner under this bill. So, there are three clear elements. The first is a criminal offence if you post these videos online to glamorise a crime, to make yourself notorious. Under a coalition government, don't do it, because if you do you could go to jail. The second element is that the court can also ban that person from using social media. The third element is to give the eSafety Commissioner a very clear and unambiguous power to remove these videos, to get them off the internet, and that's as it should be. And this is happening all around the country. We have seen terrible examples. In northern New South Wales, in the town of Moree, a video was recently posted of thugs smashing their way into a motel room. We hear the gut-wrenching sounds of a woman screaming. It's horrific. The criminals take the woman's car keys, steal the car and then post the footage online. In another video we see a group of intruders enter an elderly man's home, creep up on him while he sleeps and then rob him and post the video online. Why do they do that? Because they think it's cool. They think it's going to impress their friends somehow—the perverse logic of these videos. It's got to stop, and that's why we need to take action on this issue. There is a video where machete-wielding youths in a stolen vehicle in Queensland are seen ramming a terrified motorist. Then the victim tells the Townsville Bulletin—and I note that the member for Herbert, who has been very outspoken on these issues, is here in the chamber—of the terrifying moment he thought he would die after the thugs collided with his car and it began to spin out of control. He said: They were ramming me through every roundabout until Hervey Range Rd, where I was pushed through there at 120km/h spinning out of control. The paper reported that the criminals inside the car later posted this chase online and said, 'You don't chase us; we chase you'—shocking. Then on the Mornington Peninsula: there's a shocking video of an elderly man being pushed of a pier into the dark waters below at night, and the people who posted the video stand there and laugh after this elderly man is pushed into the water. It's absolutely disgraceful. It is happening all around the country, and the Albanese government has done precisely nothing about it. There is a very well-established part of Commonwealth law, under the federal Criminal Code, where we can take action. We should take action. We must take action. We shouldn't just sit here and say, 'It is all too hard' or 'It's someone else's problem.' This is an issue that affects thousands of Australians. Action needs to be taken, and that's why this bill is being presented today. It is so important that everyone in this parliament gets behind it. I want to note in particular the member for Groom, who was one of the first people to raise the issue and has championed this issue over an extended period. He's seen the terrible consequences of these shocking videos in his own electorate. I want to cede some of my time to the member to for Groom to also speak on this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 I second the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Groom. 10:34 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I'm very happy to speak on this bill, because today we are seeing Toowoomba's voice heard. We are seeing Oakey's voice and Pittsworth's voice heard. Right across our region, this has been raised with me by locals as a great example of a grassroots campaign being adopted as Liberal Party policy. The people in my region have had enough of this youth crime crisis. It's been tearing through our region for far too long now, and people expect action from all levels of government on this. This was a true grassroots campaign, and I want to thank the people who started this off—Helen Bell and Jo Noble, working with the Voices of Victims group. They raised this with Trevor Watts, the state member for Toowoomba North. He saw that this fell into federal jurisdiction, and he raised it with me. Through a private member's bill that I brought to this place over a year ago I've continued to advocate for this. I've given the Labor government and the crossbench every opportunity to be involved in this conversation. They've offered no solutions. They've not wanted to be involved at all. I'm very happy to be bringing this forward. Mr Katter HX4 What have you done about relocation? Mr HAMILTON 291387 What are you doing about supporting this bill, Bob? If you want to get serious about this, people expect every level of government to be involved in this. I'm very happy to say that I have listened to the voices on the ground. People who rejected those voices and turned their back now want to interject and pretend they have some reasonable part in this. This has been tearing apart of our communities, and this bill seeks to end the cycle of youth crime. We have seen this become a key recruitment tool. Kids as young as eight years old are watching these videos and then coming out and doing copycat versions of their own, committing the crimes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member of Kennedy, on a point of order. Mr Katter HX4 I am being misrepresented. He accused me of doing nothing about this bill. We— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The member for Groom, in continuation. Mr HAMILTON 291387 We are seeing exactly the problem here. People's voices on the ground are not being listened to. I'm very happy to have taken this from the ground. It is now Liberal Party policy. I do not want to see more kids in detention. Nobody does. I want fewer kids committing these crimes, so we need to take steps to make sure that happens. Thank you very much, Helen, and thank you very much, Jo, for raising this with me. Thank you to the very excellent members for Herbert and Bowman, who have stood side by side on the issue knowing that it was supported all the way through. Thank you to the shadow minister and thank you to Peter Dutton, who are willing to stand up and show we are quite happy to be tough on crime and to look after the people we are here to represent. Debate adjourned. Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 10

Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:38 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There have been 15 inquiries in this place, so it's not as if I'm standing up about something that this place is not conscious of. There have been 15 inquiries in 30 years. There were two inquiries going at the same time two months ago! Every time the issue is raised, we have an inquiry. To quote the great Winston Churchill, if you simply must do it and you cannot do it, then of course you must have an inquiry. The wider the terms of the inquiry, the less likely it is to hit a target, he also said. So we have inquiry after inquiry because you haven't got the courage to do what needs to be done. It may embarrass a lot of people in this place to say that Kevin Rudd left this place with three vitally important things done: the NDIS, the NBN and the national energy grid. He did it. He had a huge fight with the mining companies, but he didn't back off. I disagreed with him on that, but he didn't back off. We haven't seen that moral courage in this place very much at all. We're giving you the opportunity here, with this bill, to do something about—you come in here and you talk about affordability. Here are two companies—they had 50.1 percent of the market in 1991. It grew to 68 or 72 per cent, depending on which series you want to refer to—let's just say 70 per cent—in the space of 10 years. It has grown 20 per cent, two per cent a year. We can assume from that that we're at over 80 per cent now—over 85 per cent now. Have we done anything about it? No. We just keep having inquiries. We are moving a bill here, and I'll bet everyone on the crossbench votes for it. But the people that are on the gravy train getting the handouts from Woolworths and Coles—they won't be voting for it. We know that the shoppies union is why these blokes are dogging it, and we know you blokes are dogging it, but I haven't got time to go into that at this point in time. Let us take the humble potato. It's the most elementary of foods. Here we go. The price paid to the famer was— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order. I'd like to remind the member for Kennedy that it's protocol in this place that we don't use props. I ask him to please put the prop down. Mr KATTER HX4 The mark-up here, Woolworths' mark-up, is $4.50. The farmer got paid between 40c and 50c. He got paid 45c and they charged $4.50. That's an 800 per cent mark-up on a humble potato. And you blokes have done nothing about it. They know nothing about it. But, do you know, over a third of the people are now voting for us. Do you know why they're voting for us? Because we're moving legislation to do something about it. That's why. We might have a lot of diverse views, but at least we have the courage to act. Don't think these people don't come at you. When I did the last aggressive attempt here, there was $2½ million spent in the Kennedy electorate to get rid of me, and the head of Coles devoted a third of his speech to the national business council to attacking me personally. So don't think that it's not without a price when you stand up to the big boys. Don't think it's without a price. We delineated five items. We just went down to the store, because we haven't got the huge resources of the major parties or the government. We went down and picked up potatoes, milk, sugar, eggs and bananas—things every person will eat every three or four days. We got the prices for those things, and then we found out what the farmer was paid for those things. We came up with the figure of a 195 per cent average mark-up. When they had only 50.1 per cent of the market share, the two of them, they had only a 108 per cent mark-up. Disgraceful! I'm going to wrap up now and hand over to my worthy colleague. If we got a brilliant answer to what we put on here, we got a reduction of 400 items in price. 10:44 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I second this excellent bill, and I would add that the government must do something about grocery prices because it is simply unconscionable that Woolworths and Coles rake it in while Australians go hungry or are struggling so hard to pay for a roof over their head or to put fuel in their vehicle. I'm sure we all understand that increased competition means decreased prices, but Coles and Woolworths constitute a whopping 65 per cent of Australia's grocery market, and there is little reason for them to drop their prices—and it shows, with Coles reporting $1.1 billion in profit between 2022 and 2023, while Woolworths posted a thumping $1.62 billion profit on an operating margin of six per cent. This is nearly double the margin enjoyed by some supermarkets in the more competitive UK market. No wonder the price of food in Australia is far too high and getting higher. But don't just take it from me, because the numbers speak for themselves. For instance, the ABS noted that the price of food and non-alcoholic beverages rose 4.4 per cent in the 12 months to January, which is well above the average monthly CPI, which rose just 3.4 per cent. According to Foodbank's hunger report, 3.7 million households experienced food insecurity just last year, 10 per cent more than in 2022. Nor does the pain extend only to households, seeing as how a Senate committee inquiry into supermarket prices heard in Hobart earlier this month that some fruit and vegetable growers haven't received a price increase from supermarkets in 15 years. How farmers can be left to suffer in this way while Coles and Woolworths grow their profits is just beyond me. Yet, as much as this feels like a crime, Coles and Woolworths can get away with it largely because of ineffective competition regulation and enforcement mechanisms. Indeed, as former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims put it, the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is 'deeply deficient' because it's voluntary and there are no penalties for breaching it. The result? Supermarkets can and do keep holding their suppliers to ransom. Yes, the announcement by the government of an ACCC inquiry into supermarket pricing practices is welcome, but what we really need is a body that can identify and stamp out wrongdoing without having to wait for the government's say-so. Now, it would be unfair to discuss grocery prices without acknowledging other price pressures, like COVID; natural disasters, including bushfires and floods; and, of course, international conflicts. But that is no excuse for us to let the supermarkets off the hook while Australians continue to resort to dumpster diving and skipping meals. No, we must instead legislate reform to the grocery market immediately, including by establishing regulation and accountability mechanisms which encourage competition and fairness. This is why I rise to second the member for Kennedy's bill, which would reduce the market share of any supermarket to no more than 20 per cent, via enforced and progressive divestiture over five years. This may sound like a drastic measure, but the fact is that this bill was first introduced 10 years ago, and 10 years later the problem still has not been fixed. In fact, the situation is even worse, demonstrating clearly that governments, indeed this parliament, must stop tinkering around the edges and instead make bold changes to the supermarket sector. To do anything less makes a mockery of all the handwringing over the cost of living and the importance of the public interest. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kennedy in the last few seconds remaining on this? Mr Katter HX4 He said it was my bill. He did a lot of work on the bill, if not the majority of the work on the bill. The SPEAKER 53517 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 12

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:50 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Electoral laws underpin every decision that's made here. These laws affect who makes the decisions and who influences those decision-makers. No-one is disputing that trust in our democratic system, like many others around the world, is declining. We won't be able to rebuild trust in our political processes and our politicians unless voters can believe that their representatives are making decisions in the public interest. This bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024, is built on some really fundamental principles of transparency, truth, minimising financial influence and a level playing field. These principles are common sense and have broad community support. Voters deserve to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. Voters should be protected from outright lies in political advertising. Companies that stand to benefit from lower regulation at the expense of ordinary Australians should not be able to control policy. No individual should be able to influence the outcome of an election. Voters deserve a competitive choice of candidates, and new challengers should have a fighting chance to get their message to voters so our democracy can continue to evolve. Based on these principles, this bill has been developed with crossbench support in both houses of parliament, with input from academics, think tanks and a range of stakeholders. There is a long history of the crossbench driving integrity reforms. Our political system has delivered two dominant parties that are now well-oiled machines that are focused on winning elections. These machines have a strong immune-system response to anything that threatens their dominance. We don't let Coles and Woolies regulate supermarket competition, but the two major parties could do a deal on electoral reform to prevent political competition. Sometimes it takes an outsider view to see what needs to change to make it fair, and the crossbench can provide this perspective. If voters stop believing that politicians make decisions in the public interest, our democracy will be undermined. The government has indicated that it supports a number of the changes in this bill—on transparency, protecting voters from outright lies and finding a model that reduces financial influence—but we haven't seen anything on it yet, despite being nearly two years into this term. At this rate, reform won't happen in time for the next election. You can't say it's government policy to have greater transparency and then not make the change despite being able to do so. I'm introducing this bill into the House today, and Senator Pocock is introducing it into the Senate, to demonstrate that a broad suite of reforms could be implemented now with the support of crossbenchers in both houses in time for the next election. We're concerned that these important reforms will be postponed and we'll be given the excuse that both major parties need to be happy with them. Many of the reforms in this bill were also in my restoring trust bill introduced in August last year. One additional reform in this bill is a major donor cap. Reducing financial influence is challenging. We don't like seeing lots of money being spent in election campaigns, but the reality is that it's expensive to communicate to voters who you are and what you stand for. Replacing donations with public funding sounds like a solution, but it creates two problems. Firstly, it means taxpayers are paying more for elections, which is hard to sell during a cost-of-living crisis, especially if we don't ban lies. Taxpayers could effectively be asked to pay more to be lied to by politicians. Secondly, it locks in the incumbents. Public funding is based on how many votes you got at the last election, so it massively favours the status quo. Voters have increasingly indicated that they want greater choice in how they're represented, with one-third casting their vote for someone other than the major parties at the last election. Less than half a per cent of Australians are a member of a major political party. We must make sure that we structure electoral laws so that the other 99.5 per cent of Australians have the option of voting outside the major party system. We need competition in business and we also need competition in politics. No-one thinks it's good for our democracy when someone spends tens of millions of dollars to influence an election. That's why we've included a major donor cap, preventing anyone from donating more than two per cent of the total public funding from the last election. Many on the crossbench thinks this strikes an appropriate balance. It stops excessive financial influence but keeps competition open and is likely to stand up to constitutional challenge. It doesn't infringe on our implied freedom of political communication. It would apply equally to all donors, irrespective of whether they donate directly to their own campaign, an individual candidate or a party, or through an intermediary like the Liberal Party's fundraising vehicle, the Cormack Foundation, or a crowdsourcing body like Climate 200. Legislation can always be improved. Today I offer this bill as a way we can progress electoral reforms right now. I welcome input from all sides on how we can improve on this baseline of reforms driven by a principle of fairness. I would love to see public discussion on these important issues, but I fear we'll get a take-it-or-leave-it approach from the government on electoral reform. It seems likely that the major parties will present a package that effectively embeds them but has enough reform on issues like transparency and trust so that the public feels they have no choice but to accept it. We can do better than that. Instead of treating parliament as a rubber stamp, I would like to see the government debating this bill or sharing its own exposure draft so that it can be scrutinised and improved to build trust in the process. Reforming electoral laws is too important for a take-it-or-leave-it approach. On other significant legislation there is public consultation on an exposure draft so people have time to understand all the intended and unintended consequences of a new law. Reform in this area cannot be driven by protecting the interests of the 0.5 per cent of Australians who are a member of a major political party. Changes must be based on principles of fairness and transparency. That's why I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? 10:56 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I second the motion on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024. Over the last couple of federal elections there has been a major shift. Australian communities are asking more from their politicians—greater integrity and accountability. They're not interested in the business-as-usual duopoly of the two major parties. They're also incredibly disillusioned with the state of transparency and accountability around elections. It's well past time we fixed this and introduced legislation to ensure greater integrity, transparency and accountability when electing our politicians but also to ensure a competitive field and more choice. Democracy thrives through the debate of ideas and having a variety of candidates articulating those ideas. This ensures communities have more choice when it comes to electing those who represent them. A system that entrenches the status quo controlled by two major parties limits participation in our democratic process. At the last federal election the combined major party vote was at its lowest on record, and the minor party and independent vote was at its highest, at 31.7 per cent. That's a third of Australians already, on the primary vote, voting outside the major parties. Then we have the question of funding. We have two systems of disclosures where community independents have to disclose in a vastly different time to the major parties. We also know there is a huge amount of dark money. The origin of at least $57 million in political donations to major parties from 2022 to 2023 is unknown. This amounts to one-quarter of major party funding coming from dark money—don't see that on the front page of the newspapers! Voters want transparency on donations. They want choice. This bill is urgently needed to give voters that transparency and choice. It will improve accountability, it will protect voters from outright lies, it will reduce financial influence and it will level the playing field and limit excessive donations. We have this crazy double standard where we are protecting consumer rights from misleading and deceptive advertising but not political rights. I am very pleased that the elements of my voter protections bill are included to ban misleading and deceptive political advertising. We know from polling from the Australia Institute last October that some 87 per cent of Australians agree that truth-in-political-advertising laws should be in place in time for the next federal election. So here is the opportunity for the government. It's already two years into this term. It's not enough to say that part of your policy position is to want greater integrity and transparency in elections. Now is your chance to act. This bill sends a blueprint to the parliament and to the Australian people of the kind of election reform we can do. There are the numbers to get this done now, before the next election. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 14 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Future Made in Australia 14 11:00 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I move: That this House: (1) commends the Government's commitment to build a Future Made in Australia that includes a strong, diverse economy with greater opportunity and security for all; (2) notes the Government is taking advantage of Australia's strengths and natural resources to create job opportunities across the value chain through: (a) the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund and its key priority areas, which includes a focus on value-add in resources; (b) investing $840 million to help deliver Australia's first combined rare earth mine and refinery in the Northern Territory; (c) expanding the Critical Minerals Facility to $6 billion to bolster the sector in Australia; (d) the $392 million Industry Growth Program to support Australian small and medium enterprises that fall under the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas; (e) developing Australia's first National Battery Strategy; (f) updating the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate to allow further investments in clean energy technologies; and (g) supporting the development of Australian manufacturing through the Capacity Investment Scheme; and (3) calls on the Opposition to support Australia's manufacturing future and the creation of more secure, well-paid jobs. I believe in a future made in Australia. If we can make it here, we should make it here. We've got the ideas, we've got the know-how and we even have a strong track record, but now we need to accelerate this. We can do this by building on policy, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. I commend the Albanese Labor government for its commitment to building a future that is made right here in Australia. This means fostering a future economy that is strong and diverse. It means creating a future that provides greater opportunity and security for all Australians. A future made in Australia was not on the Liberals' radar whatsoever. A decade of policy drift, policy neglect and vested interests meant that homegrown manufacturing waned to disastrous levels. Australia has a self-sufficiency ratio of 62 per cent. That's compared to 83 per cent in the UK and 89 per cent in the US. Germany has one of 121 per cent. Meanwhile, Ireland has one that is 203 per cent. It's clear that Australia is not as self-sufficient as we need it to be, and it shows that we're underperforming. This is not what Australians expect. This situation threatens our sovereign capability in times of crisis, and we witnessed this during the COVID pandemic. That's why we need to act, and I am pleased to say that the Albanese Labor government is acting. We are not wasting a day. In a short time, the Labor government has done what the previous government failed to do in 10 years. I also say that Minister Husic is a passionate minister who is impatient and wants action. Labor and Minister Husic recognise that we need to provide manufacturing after years of neglect. Labor recognises that products made in Australia are important for so many Australians, and Labor is committed to securing a future made in Australia. The first step that we made was establishing the National Reconstruction Fund. This fund is a key to building our future made here. The funding will be targeted to seven key areas of the economy to drive and diversify the economy. This includes the resource and agricultural sectors, to expand technology and unlock potential. It's also looking at the transport industry, by developing supply chains. In medical science, it's about harnessing world-leading research to provide suppliers here. And, for renewables and low-emissions technology, we want to make sure that we pursue commercial opportunities, and we've got $3 billion set aside to do this. We're also looking at enabling capabilities in defence, engineering and AI. The Albanese government is taking advantage of the nation's strength in creating these programs, and, in the process, it will create secure jobs and well-paid jobs. When it comes to jobs, the Albanese government is delivering. Just last week we heard that wages are up, job numbers are up, inflation is down and unemployment is down. The Albanese government is not stopping there. I commend the government for its expansion of the Critical Minerals Facility and that $6 billion. We need these minerals for our low-carbon future. I commend the government for its $392 million Industry Growth Program. I also commend the government for developing our first National Battery Strategy, for updating the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and for supporting the Capacity Investment Scheme. It's a whole package of initiatives designed to build a future made in Australia. It's a coordinated approach across government that recognises the importance of supporting local manufacturing. It's a game changer for manufacturing. I call on the opposition not to deny Australia its manufacturing future. I called on the opposition to support a future that is made in Australia, one that will create more well-paid and secure jobs. The bottom line is that Australia needs to look at diversification of our economy, which will ensure that we have more resilience. A more resilient economy means more secure jobs for longer. Rejecting this motion will mean rejecting manufacturing and a future made in Australia. My message to those opposite is: build it here so we can support Australian jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is there a seconder for the motion? 11:05 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I second the motion. I thank the member for Swan for this motion. I agree that Australia's future should include a strong, diverse economy with greater opportunity and security for all, and I believe that such a future should especially be realised in regional, rural and remote Australia. I support the aims of the programs in this motion: the National Reconstruction Fund, the updated Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate and the Capacity Investment Scheme. Our environment and economy need us to bring our industries into the future, and realising the full potential of clean, renewable energy is part of that. But, as the renewable energy rollout continues apace in regional Australia, I am concerned that the prosperous future described by the member for Swan is not being realised. At the end of the day, batteries, solar, wind and hydro will be built in the regions. In small farming towns across my electorate of Indi—towns like Dederang, Ruffy, Meadow Creek and Bobinawarrah—plans are being made for solar and battery energy systems. However, at this moment these communities are feeling like the massive clean energy shift is happening to them, not with them. It's important to remember that these farming communities have never seen energy infrastructure like this before. This is not the same as the communities phasing out of ageing coal-fired power stations and preparing for renewable energy generation. In this moment of change, my communities have legitimate questions about bushfire risk, biosecurity risk and insurance premiums. In response to these growing concerns, last year I took action and, along with Senator David Pocock, drafted terms of reference for an inquiry into community engagement on renewable energy infrastructure developments, which was undertaken by the retiring Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Professor Andrew Dyer. Professor Dyer's final report confirmed what my communities have long been telling me. A survey undertaken by the review found that 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the extent of the community engagement project developers were undertaking. Professor Dyer found: Poor engagement practices experienced by landholders and community members have led to a material distrust of project developers … He also found: The transition cannot succeed without community participation and effective engagement over a long and sustained period of time. This goes well beyond mere social licence to operate. It's clear that if we are to realise a clean energy future in Australia we have to overcome a massive hurdle in front of us. The review recommended an independent rating scheme to provide transparency on the track record of developers, so that, if you're a farmer and a company comes knocking on your door, you'll know whether they are reputable. Professor Dyer said that for programs like the Capacity Investment Scheme governments should select only developers that demonstrate best practice when it comes to community engagement. The review also recommended that the Commonwealth government have the responsibility to develop and execute a communications program that provides local communities with a clear narrative about the pragmatic reasons for energy transition. Landholders, like those in my electorate, shouldn't have to rely on the information of companies, who ultimately are seeking to make a profit, to know what is happening to them. An independent, accessible source of information is dearly lacking right now. The final recommendation of Professor Dyer I'd like to draw attention to is perhaps the most important: that governments must work with community groups to proactively identify opportunities for the broader community's benefit and to take ownership of these opportunities. When we look back in 10, 20 or 50 years, regional and rural Australians should reflect on these multibillion-dollar investments as the time when we developed our regions with well-built roads and bridges, world-class housing, cheap and reliable electricity and secure and well-paid jobs. So I call on this government to take urgent action, including in the upcoming budget. We must legislate best practice for community engagement. We must find and fund trusted programs to communicate what clean energy is. And we must forge pathways for communities to tangibly benefit from this energy. Without these reforms, this government will fail to reach its goals for clean energy for the environment and for the economy. But it doesn't have to be this way. As an Independent, I stand ready to work with the government on ensuring regional Australia realises the prosperous future it deserves. (Time expired) 11:11 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham The Albanese Labor government believes in a future made in Australia. We have not wasted a single second, putting in place programs and reforms that will diversify our economy, build sovereign capability and create a pipeline of well-paid and secure jobs now and into the future. It is a priority for our government to support businesses to invest, to grow and to embed innovation instead of moving offshore. We have faith in Australian ideas, Australian know-how, Australian workers, Australian scientists and Australian businesses. With all of the necessary components readily available, from skilled individuals to natural assets, we are poised to compete globally to innovate new products and position ourselves as leaders in renewable energy. This is in full display in regions like the Illawarra. The Illawarra is known for its robust steel production and manufacturing and has been rejuvenated through significant investments and research initiatives aiming to ensure the sector's sustainability and adaptability in the face of global challenges. Renewable energy start-ups like Hysata and Sicona Battery Technologies have chosen the Illawarra as their home for these very reasons. Hysata is one of many success stories emerging from the University of Wollongong. They started at UOW's Australian Institute for Innovative Materials. Hysata aim to manufacture the world's most effective hydrogen electrolysers in the heart of Port Kembla. Their electrolyser is currently 21 per cent more efficient than anything else on the market. 'But how?' you may ask. Electricity makes up most of the cost of green hydrogen. The more energy-efficient the electrolyser, the less electricity is wasted and the lower the cost of green hydrogen. Hysata's disruptive technology is accelerating its competitiveness in the hard-to-abate sectors. Sicona Battery Technologies are another success story from UOW, whose roots began at the university's business incubator, iAccelerate. Sicona are producing supercharged, next-generation, lithium-ion batteries. Their innovative battery-materials technology increases the energy density of lithium-ion batteries by over 20 per cent. In addition to these industrial advancements, the University of Wollongong has launched the Australian Research Council, or ARC, Research Hub for Australian Steel Innovation. This collaborative effort between academia and industry is set to deliver innovative research outcomes for the next generation of functional steel products and advanced manufacturing processes, further solidifying the Illawarra region's role in the future of Australian manufacturing. BlueScope steel, a cornerstone of the Illawarra manufacturing landscape, recently secured a grant of $136.8 million from the Albanese Labor government, aimed at the No. 6 blast furnace reline and upgrade project at Port Kembla—crucial for sustaining iron and steel production in our region. This initiative is part of a broader effort to support hard-to-abate sectors and is indicative of a commitment to maintaining domestic manufacturing capabilities, particularly those essential for the development of Australia's clean-energy sectors. In supporting business, the Albanese Labor government's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will play a key role in making more things in Australia. It will drive economic development in our regions and outer suburbs, boost our sovereign capability, diversify the nation's economy and help create secure jobs. Complementing the NRF by driving early-stage investment in NRF priority areas—which include renewables, low-emission technologies and value add in resources—is the $392 million Industry Growth Program. That provides grants and advice to help small businesses and medium enterprises, or SMEs, to commercialise their ideas and grow their business. This program will go a long way to support SMEs in my electorate, like Gravitas Technologies, who are producing two groundbreaking materials, vulloy and georock. Vulloy is a metallurgic ceramic product that has a significant weight-saving advantage for flight applications and can withstand ultrahigh temperatures—up to 2,000 degrees Celsius. There are currently no comparable global competitors for this technology. This Wollongong company are currently supporting projects across a wide range of sectors. All these things have been developed in Wollongong over the past 10 years by a young and relatively small team. These examples collectively highlight the Illawarra region's pivotal role— (Time expired) 11:16 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I take the opportunity this motion affords me to talk about a future made in Australia and particularly the opportunities in my home state of South Australia, in the city of Adelaide. Last week we had a very important milestone announcement around confirmation of detail around the next phase of construction of the AUKUS submarines in South Australia. BAE and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be partners on this fantastic opportunity for the Australian economy—very proudly, a program that will be centred in our home city of Adelaide. We have a great heritage and pride in our shipbuilding prowess and in submarine construction, and of course the ASC was established for the purposes of the Collins class program. That decision was taken in the 1980s, with construction through the nineties, and the ongoing sustainment of the Collins class program has occurred in Adelaide—the full-cycle docking. We look forward to the life-of-type extension program to ensure that a capability gap is not left between the new submarine opportunities that AUKUS provides and the importance of upgrading the Collins class submarines so that the Royal Australian Navy has the highest capability that they need in order to do the excellent work they do in securing our nation and our national interest. The next generation of submarine construction is truly exciting. To hear this confirmation is welcome news, and I welcome it as a member from the city of Adelaide. But unfortunately last week, at the same time, there was a very concerning development in the Senate, where the Greens political party moved a motion calling on the government to scrap the AUKUS program. Now, they've already called for the Hunter program to be scrapped as well. So the position of the Greens party is that the naval shipbuilding industry in Adelaide should be shut down. That would be the greatest economic cataclysm to befall my home state of South Australia in my lifetime, and I've been there for the car industry; I've been there for State Bank. But to suggest that an industry that employs more than 10,000 people should be shut down—that would have an unbelievable impact on the South Australian economy. Why they don't want those jobs is for them to explain. But on this motion, where we're talking about a future made in Australia, it's important that we call out any and all policy positions that are about the opposite of that. I'm proud of the Morrison government's pioneering work in achieving the milestone of securing the principle of AUKUS. We appreciate that the then opposition, now the government, welcomed the opportunity of AUKUS at the time, and we stand ready to be utterly bipartisan when it comes to making sure that this vitally important opportunity for the national security of our nation is fully achieved and fully realised. It will be absolutely transformative to have nuclear propulsion in a submarine fleet for a nation like Australia, covering an entire continent with very long travel times, to project the maximum amount of undetectable force as far from our coastline as possible. What an unbelievable capability for the Royal Australian Navy. Indeed, the opportunity that that provides in taking such a dramatic further step in our nuclear industry is also significant and spectacular when it comes to AUKUS—the full cycle of the nuclear industry in Australia, including having nuclear reactors operating on Royal Australian Navy vessels. We in the coalition see that as a good opportunity to look at further opportunities for the nuclear industry, as we'll discuss more in this place. That is a future made in Australia. For those political participants that don't want that future and those jobs, that's up to them. But I know, in my home city of Adelaide—and other members in the chamber right now that represent other electorates in Adelaide and South Australia know well—that in South Australia we're excited about this opportunity. It will underpin the industrial capability of our entire economy into the future. It will provide for enormous spin-off opportunities for other advanced manufacturing industries. That's the kind of future made in Australia that I want to see, that the government and the opposition want to see but that the Greens don't want to see for the people of South Australia. 11:21 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Australia's manufacturing policy was in desperate need of revival after a decade of apathy and ambivalence from those opposite. Fixing this has been a priority of this government since being elected just shy of two years ago. Australia—and, indeed, my electorate of Spence—has a proud manufacturing past. Elizabeth: built for manufacturing; an industry that provided jobs to thousands of Australians and cars to millions more. However, due to the economic Darwinism of Joe Hockey and the Abbott Liberal government, Holden were dared to leave Australia, and they did. The recovery from this decision was a long one and proof positive of a need for a government that doesn't look at our manufacturing past with wistful nostalgia but one that will ensure we have a strong, vibrant and resilient manufacturing industry here in the present. We can't rewind the clock. But we can ensure that Australia has a manufacturing future, a future made in Australia, and the Albanese Labor government have set out to do just that. Almost a year ago to the day, this parliament passed legislation to establish the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund that will finance key industries and priorities for the Australia of today and of tomorrow—industries that add value to the raw materials and critical minerals that are prized and sought-after across the globe. Our land abounds in nature's gifts, but we should be adding value to those gifts after they have been extracted from the ground. It's why the NRF is looking at key industries that add value to what we already produce and those bolstering our sovereign capability, to build on our economic and strategic interests. A truly sovereign nation is one that controls its economic destiny, harnesses its resources and cultivates industries that can stand tall on the world stage. 'Australian made' is not just a label we take great pride in. It is something worth continuing to support as a government and as consumers ourselves. Despite that, I can certainly remember, a year ago, where those opposite were sitting during the divisions which paved the way for the creation of the National Reconstruction Fund. It's policies like this, and the many that followed to complement it, such as the Industry Growth Program through to finally having a coherent defence industry policy, that will keep advanced manufacturing alive and prospering. Our policies will ensure that the many companies and industries that have grown to fill the void left by the closure of Holden in Spence will have an environment in which to thrive. From the many companies involved in our defence manufacturing industry—AML3D, Sonnex, Century Engineering, Williams Metal Fabrications, and Eptec from the Edinburgh Industry Alliance—to those in the renewable sector, such as Aquila Clean Energy and LMS Energy, with projects on the ground in Spence, they know that they have the backing of a government that supports investment in renewable energy technologies and battery storage. This again contrasts with those opposite, who took the wheels off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and put it on bricks. Their record in renewables then and now speaks for itself. We all remember the Leader of the Opposition, not too long ago, once more rubbishing renewable energy, posing the existential question to us all: what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Where did this flimsy argument even come from? It was probably from somewhere where the sun indeed doesn't shine and where the wind occasionally blows—adjacent to the 'suppository of all wisdom'. Battery storage is an industry that, unless those opposite have their way, is tipped to be worth close to $17 billion and to create 61,000 jobs by 2030 in the manufacturing side alone. Nestled somewhere alongside his worldview, battery storage has no part to play in securing Australia's clean energy future. Though usually figurative, his first option is to take the nuclear one. It's an appropriate strategy for a party that registers on the Geiger counter in this policy space. They went from white-anting renewables to white elephants. They have finally jettisoned their initial nuclear fantasy, one that reflected how the Liberal Party approaches policy in opposition—small and reactive. It's something that would see us having two options: purchase Russian or Chinese reactors. Frankly, I'd rather our pathway toward a net-zero future be built right here with its beliefs being shared by our government. A Future Made in Australia isn't some hollow slogan like the many we have heard from those opposite over the years. This means something; it means jobs and it means economic prosperity across this country. It is a future that our government is getting on with delivering. 11:26 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Any time we talk about a Future Made in Australia, we need to talk about energy security. I was on a panel last week with the member for Swan, who moved this motion, and we were talking about the importance of listening to scientists and taking the science. And the member for Spence had a bit of a crack about nuclear, which is, to be honest, quite disappointing. The reality is that, as we transition to net zero and needing cheap, reliable base-load power to make sure we can manufacture in Australia, we need to have a mature debate and conversation about nuclear energy. So let's put some quotes in from the former Chief Scientist from 2016 to 2020, Alan Finkel. The member for Swan talks about the importance of science and of listening to the scientists. All we get when we have this discussion about energy reliability in our network is cheap insults from the minister and those opposite. Former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel wrote an article and an opinion piece on the weekend. Let's hear some of his words and thoughts on nuclear: From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation, and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength. Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines. I'm looking forward to the member for Swan taking the science and advocating in the caucus for nuclear. The former Chief Scientist also said: The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed. The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal. The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output. And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power. Again, that is the former Chief Scientist of Australia. He finishes his article by saying: … it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons. The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow … He continues: The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 Where are the environmentalists in this place? Mr VIOLI 300147 That is a good question, member for O'Connor. Where are the environmentalists? That was the former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel writing. The member for Swan talks passionately about being an engineer and the importance of science. I hope she takes the word of Dr Alan Finkel and starts to advocate in the caucus to at least have the conversation, because if we don't have reliable baseload power that's cheap, we cannot manufacture in this country. I spent a decade working in food manufacturing. Energy reliability, energy security and cheap energy are crucial to making sure we continue to manufacture. One of the reasons that inflation is through the roof is that the price of energy is out of control. It impacts at every level for a food manufacturer, or any manufacturer, including in their actual materials, the raw materials they get in. Unless you have a proper strategy to bring prices down and to ensure reliability in the grid, we will lose the manufacturing base that we have in our country. This is a government that continues to make bad decisions that are impacting Australians. They are going down the same path by refusing to have a mature conversation and by sticking to ideology on a crucial issue for the future of our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. Live Animal Exports 19 11:31 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,500 people in Western Australia and is worth $85 million in direct payments to producers with an assumed multiplier effect close to $300 million; (b) Australia has developed world-leading animal welfare standards which are applied to animals exported by sea and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System ensures animal welfare right through to point of slaughter in destination markets; (c) the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Government have committed to phasing out live sheep exports from Australia, but have not released a timeframe for this; (d) the independent panel appointed by the Minister to consult with stakeholders and provide advice on how and when the Government will phase out exports provided its report to the Minister on 25 October 2023; (e) despite numerous requests, the Government and the Minister have refused to release the report to stakeholders, farmers or industry groups, claiming it is 'cabinet-in-confidence'; (f) the Coalition's Agriculture, Water and Environment Backbench Committee met with livestock farmers in South Australia and Western Australia from 5 to 8 March to hear firsthand the concerns of those in the region most likely to be affected; (g) the committee heard from farmers, industry participants and community representatives who work hard to ensure the welfare of their animals throughout the export process is maintained at the high levels Australians expect; and (h) attendees at eight meetings over four days indicated that confidence in the sheep industry was at its lowest point in decades and were fearful for the industry's future and the future of family farms and businesses and their wider rural communities; (2) condemns the Government for its reckless and ideological decision to forcibly shut down Australia's live sheep export industry in order to try and hold seats in the inner cities where they are competing with the Australian Greens; (3) recognises that any decisions made in respect to the trade should always be predicated on science and independent of the Government; (4) calls on the Government to urgently explain what factual evidence or science its decision to ban the live sheep export industry is based on; (5) demands the Government immediately release the report of the independent panel to allow proper discussion with stakeholders; and (6) urges the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to urgently re-open the inquiry into the grooming of and payments made to Faizal Ullah by Animals Australia in the light of a second statutory declaration coming forward after the closure of its initial investigation. From 5 to 8 March, the coalition's agriculture, water, drought and environment policy committee conducted eight forums, one in South Australia and seven in Western Australia, to enable sheep producers and industry participants, including transporters, stock agents, exporters and industry representative groups, to have their say on the government's plan to phase out the live sheep export trade. A total of 10 members of the coalition travelled to listen to industry participants and were shaken by the widespread pessimistic view they collectively held for the future. The live export trade is a safety valve for Western Australian industry, which absorbs sheep numbers when turn-off numbers are in excess of existing processing capacity in the state. The live export trade falls away when stock is short and prices are higher, enabling processors to maintain profitable levels throughout the year. At other times, when supply is plentiful, and even with processing facilities operating at capacity, values fall to a point where the export trade is price competitive and it ramps up, placing a virtual floor price in the market. Producers repeatedly made the point that the trade had made huge investments and turned itself inside out to meet new and ever more stringent export regulations. They were proud of the industry, and their role in it, as an outstanding success and example to others, with onboard mortality rates falling to the point where they were often better than on farms. However, the phase-out decision has destroyed confidence in the sheep industry. Where there is an alternative to exit sheep and intensify cropping regimes, growers are doing so. As a result, local markets are overwhelmed and prices are at decadal lows, with 200 sheep not receiving a bid or an offer at the Katanning sales on the day the committee visited. Estimates of unmated sheep for the coming season range from 10 to 25 per cent of the state flock. This will in time deliver a secondary blow to the industry, likely leading to undersupply and putting severe financial pressure on the processing industry. The WA sheep flock is about 85 per cent merino, so any dramatic reduction in sheep numbers is likely to have an ongoing effect on the critical mass of the national wool clip. It's also clear that the impacts of the looming ban are not restricted to WA, with more than 25,000 head a week coming over the border to South Australia. This in turn is depressing markets there. Michael Crosby from Nutrien in Perth said that all the stock cannot be processed in WA and there is a huge backlog of mutton and lamb to be killed in WA and/or shipped interstate. Caroline Robinson from Hyden, representing the North Eastern Wheatbelt Regional Organisation of Councils, said they've modelled the financial impacts of the ban and assessed it would conservatively impart a loss of $128 million on their seven shires alone over the next 20 years. The committee heard this modelling will be replicated by other shires, which carry even higher sheep numbers. Robbie Bowey from Hyden asked why, when WA makes up 20 per cent of the nation's wool clip, we are letting wool get canned as a result of the live animal export ban. Concerns were raised about future decisions affecting long-haul stock transport with Peter Sutherland from Merredin stating: 'COVID showed us how quickly food can dry up and empty supermarkets. Everyone seems to have forgotten what it was like when the borders closed and we couldn't move food around the country.' Jan Cooper from the Livestock and Rural Transport Association of WA said: 'during the last 12-18 months members were feeling vulnerable to activists—very concerned long-distance transport would be targeted next.' She described that sheep for live export were transported around five times as compared to twice with abattoir slaughter, and they would lose 40 per cent of their business if live export ceased. Steve Meerwald, who formerly worked for Metro and Wellard, said: 'with a less than 0.2 per cent mortality rate, Australia leads the world in successfully transporting sheep long distance by ship—the government should support science-based solutions.' I have a host of other quotes here, which is why I'm seeking to table this report as part of this speech. I have received a number of submissions from growers which I also seek to table. I'm seeking the government's support to table that. I'll end with one quote from Rick Twine, who said this was the first year ever he had not mated his ewes. I seek leave to table that report along with the submissions that the committee received. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion moved by the member for Gray seconded? 11:36 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. 11:37 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Everyone in Australia has a heartfelt interest in the social and economic wellbeing of farming communities, and I acknowledge the long-term commitment to that cause from the member for Grey and from other speakers in the debate, including the member for O'Connor. There is no question that Australia's high-quality and sustainable agricultural output is of vital importance to our nation; it has to be valued and it has to be supported. That's a core responsibility of government and of everyone in this place. But that responsibility is not exercised by ignoring reality or by denying the truth or by pretending that massive obvious change is not under way. And that massive change needs to be properly and responsibly managed. If anyone wants an example of massive obvious change, it would be very hard to go past the fact that over the last 20 years the live sheep trade has declined by more than 90 per cent. If that's not an example of deep and categorical— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Fremantle has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 If that's not an example of deep and categorical decline, I'll go he. Fortunately, across the same period, the trade in chilled and frozen lamb and sheep meat has grown by 369 per cent. If you want to talk about lamb alone, Australian chilled and frozen meat exports have increased by 532 per cent. In 2022-23 chilled and frozen sheep meat exports earned $4.5 billion compared to $85 million for live sheep exports in the same period. We know that a chaotic, unstable and inhumane trade has declined by more than 90 per cent and it has been replaced by a stable, humane, higher-value and higher-jobs form of sheep meat exports that is already worth 58 times more than the trade it has virtually replaced. One is going like this and the other is going like that. That is change, and it's government's responsibility to manage sensible change and not to misrepresent the truth to rural and regional communities. While that massive decline of more than 90 per cent has occurred, the sheep flock in Western Australia has remained exactly the same. The wool output has remained exactly the same. There has been no evidence of broader economic impacts or job losses. So all those claims about how a 90 per cent decline is going to cause a loss in the wool clip or a loss in the sheep flock in WA are in denial of the reality. Indeed, in 2021—which is probably the lowest year ever for the live sheep trade—WA wheat-sheep farms were found to be the most profitable of their kind in their world. That report by Meat & Livestock Australia found that our farmers were 'the most efficient, diversified and low-cost producers of sheep meet in the world', and 'sheep farmers in Australia have a high level of confidence in the medium- to long-term profitability of the industry'. That is a good thing; that is excellent. We should celebrate that. It's a reality that that is the case with a more than 90 per cent decline in the live sheep trade. That is a reality of a transition to a higher value, higher jobs sheep meat export trade. Hallelujah! Unfortunately, the marginal and unnecessary live sheep trade is continuing to produce animal welfare crises, and we've just seen that with MV Bahijah, and, contrary to what industry apologists say, the ESCAS has not been effective, sadly, in eliminating instances of terrible animal cruelty, simply because it's impossible to eliminate cruelty altogether from a trade where that is an inherent risk and a recurrent reality. In fact, only last year we again saw shocking footage on the ABC of Australian sheep. They had their legs bound together and were being dragged alive across concrete. They were being put in the back of cars and taken away for agonising backyard slaughter. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Farrer, who made her views quite clear in saying that the live sheep trade involved 'an operating model built on the suffering of animals'. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition brought her own private member's bill to end the trade because in her view 'this trade in sheep is a shame and a stain on our international reputation'. Never forget that the previous government, the coalition government, contrary to what the member for Grey said about looking to improve standards and looking to increase protections, took steps to weaken the regulation of this industry, cheered on by some of the industry players, sadly, some of the farmer representative groups, which then paved the way for further animal welfare atrocities, like the Awassi Express. We know there has been serious and proper engagement with the farming community in WA as part of the consultation process that has been carried out under this government and under Minister Watt. Many have put forward constructive ideas and proposals to assist with the transition by looking at domestic processing capacity, new and expanded market opportunities and assistance with planning investment. That's the sensible and reasonable and humane way forward—out of the live sheep export trade. 11:42 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I thank the member for Grey, who, in his capacity as the chairman of the coalition's agricultural policy committee, brought this committee to Western Australia on the week of 5 to 8 March, accompanied by many regional members from across Australia, including the member for Barker, who is here at the table today. The reason that the chair felt it was necessary to bring the committee to Western Australia was that almost 12 months ago to the day this government unleashed what is known as the phase-out of live sheep exports independent panel on Western Australia agriculture. This panel was headed by Mr Philip Glyde, a very well-respected former public servant, who was given a remit to come to Western Australia and, effectively, tell farmers how to cut their own throats. I attended two of those meetings, in Katanning and Albany. Mr Glyde stood up and said: 'We're not here to talk about how the industry might continue. I'm here to talk to you about how we're going to close you down.' That wasn't received all that well, funnily enough. The spirit with which the Western Australian farming community pushed back against the premise gave me great heart. Here we are 12 months down the track. Let's look at what has happened in that 12-month period. Once the phase-out panel had done its rounds of Western Australia, confidence in the sheep sector absolutely collapsed. The member for Fremantle talked about the profitability of the Western Australian sheep industry in 2021. I'll tell you what it was in 2023, Josh, and it's going to be even worse in 2024. Confidence has collapsed, and, as the chair of the committee mentioned, when we were at the Katanning saleyards Wednesday fortnight 200 sheep were passed in with no value whatsoever and were destroyed at the cost of the grower. That's what has happened to the industry in the 12 months since the phase-out panel went around Western Australia telling farmers that they have no future and that they're going to be closed down regardless of their views and the impact on their community. That is why it was important that the coalition agricultural policy committee visited Western Australia—to give those farmers a fair hearing. Mr Glyde promised the farmers who took the effort to turn up to those meetings and make submissions to his panel that he would do everything he could to ensure the report he provided to government would be released to the public. Those farmers who took the effort to turn up to get their thoughts and views on the record and who provided written submissions were under the impression the report was going to be released to the public so that this issue could be debated publicly, so that there could be a fair and reasonable debate where the government had the public square to put its point of view and would give the farmers the opportunity to put their point of view. Did that happen? No. Will it happen? No, I don't think it will. Minister Watt has had the opportunity to visit Western Australian farmers. He was in Western Australia on 19 February. He was invited to visit regional Western Australia to listen to farmers. He made himself available for half an hour to speak with agricultural industry leaders. They saw that as a complete affront and refused to meet with him, and I concur with their position. The minister had the opportunity to get out in regional WA and listen to Western Australian farmers about the impact that his policy, this government's policy, is going to have on their livelihoods. He refused to take up that offer, and I think Western Australian farmers have quite rightly marked him down for that. So we come to today, where the coalition agricultural policy committee took the time and the effort—colleagues like the member for Barker took a week out of their very busy schedule—to come to Western Australia to listen to my farmers. We also said to those farmers who turned up to that meeting that we would make an attempt to table their submissions in this place; why wouldn't the government want to hear from those farmers we spoke to over the last week? This morning, the chairman of the committee asked if he could table those documents, provided to us in good faith, and he has been told that leave is not granted. This is an absolute disgrace. This is the government running scared from Western Australian farmers telling them how their world will look after its policy is introduced. It's an absolute disgrace, and I call on Western Australian farmers to keep fighting to the bitter end on this issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour. Renewable Energy 22 11:47 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I move: That this House: (1) notes that under its Inflation Reduction Act, the United States of America (USA) has committed more than one trillion (AUD) in incentives to accelerate the USA's transition to net zero by 2050; (2) acknowledges that, with our abundant natural resources, Australia is well-placed to become a renewable energy superpower; (3) further notes that business representatives have raised concerns that Australia is lagging in the race to decarbonise, in part due to: (a) unwieldly state and federal approvals processes; (b) low investor confidence due to decades of climate inaction; (c) the comparatively high cost of doing business; and (d) competition from other countries with stronger support structures for new industries; and (4) calls on the Government to commit to an urgent, comprehensive and well-funded plan to increase our international competitiveness in decarbonised industries. I'm calling on the government to act now to increase Australia's international competitiveness for new energy industries. We cannot overestimate the scale and impact of the United States Inflation Reduction Act, which broke new ground with its A$1 trillion investment in green and renewable energy. This is the most significant climate legislation in US history. Approximately two-thirds of this IRA budget is allocated to uncapped tax incentives for different stages of production within clean energy industries. These tax incentives deliver a deafeningly loud signal to investors doing new energy business in the US. But what about us? Investors are looking for reasons to choose Australia over other countries. Companies are actively looking to develop and grow their renewable operations in Australia but they need this government to give them tangible confirmation of Australia's energy transition vision and to give them the confidence and certainty that Australia will welcome and incentivise the new energy opportunities currently knocking on our door. There is much discussion about Australia's natural advantages—our abundance of sun, wind and critical minerals. Australia is one of the few countries in the world with all the input minerals and materials required for lithium batteries. But we face a very real risk of remaining a country that digs and ships rather than being a serious and competitive producer of new energy, unless we make sure downstream processing projects are established onshore. We need to accelerate Australia's response to the IRA by incentivising value-adding projects onshore or we will miss out. Independent research from Mandala Partners found that the key driver for financial close for downstream projects is incentives that help mitigate total operating costs throughout production cycles—not loans and not upfront grants but long-term, embedded incentives that encourage advantages in production. Production tax credits are a proven mechanism that are now being used prolifically under the IRA. A production tax credit means you pay less tax when you actually produce something. Instead of money paid upfront for something that may or may not turn into something tangible, production tax credits are payable only when you deliver, so taxpayers are paying for results. The introduction of a production tax credit in Australia would provide a clear signal that Australia is ready and willing to invest in value-adding downstream projects. It would allow global companies to be rewarded for value adding in Australia without losing out on manufacturing credits elsewhere. The way production tax credits usually work is to attach the credit to phases of manufacturing and production for a set period. In the US, the manufacturing of batteries, solar panels and wind turbines, as well as the processing of critical minerals, attracts production tax credits, as well as further bonus tax credits for components made in the US. The US package has also committed tax credits for any investments in zero-emissions electricity generation facilities or energy storage technology. The Smart Energy Council has reported that, due to the attractive US incentives, many of its member companies are moving their facilities to the US or proactively considering the IRA incentives. This isn't a potential risk; this is already happening. In Australia there have been calls to apply production tax credits to the processing and value-add phases of critical minerals, as well as more broadly to secure the development of the renewable energy production and manufacturing industry. As we know, critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, silicon and rare earth elements are essential components in many rapidly growing clean energy technologies. They're critical because they can't be easily or cost-effectively substituted. The supply of these minerals is concentrated in a small number of places. Western Australia accounts for around half of global lithium production and is a major exporter of nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earth elements. This government has already put nickel on the official Critical Minerals List and in February announced a 50 per cent royalty discount for 18 months to address serious competition in that market, which was a positive step. It's essential that we accelerate opportunities in WA's critical minerals sector and capitalise now on the position that critical and battery minerals will play in decarbonising the global economy. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia believes that the window of opportunity is narrow to unlock Australia's potential as a major participant— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is there a seconder of the motion? Ms Steggall 175696 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:53 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to thank the member for Curtin for raising this matter today, and I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all her hard work in this place on matters relating to Australia's transition to renewable energy. She is in this place because she wants to see Australia move away from fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy generation. On that issue, the people of Curtin, the people of Bennelong and the majority of Australians agree. It's why the member and I were both elected. Australia elected a government to invest in clean energy, to implement land and energy policy anchored in renewable energy and to take meaningful climate action to protect our environment. We both won blue-ribbon Liberal seats because we believe in strong climate action and that Australia is uniquely positioned on the global stage to take advantage of our vast and diverse natural resources and become a worldwide renewable energy superpower. Our country is home to some of the world's most potent solar and wind energy potential, thanks to having more sunlight than almost anywhere else on earth and above-average wind conditions. It's widely known that Australian solar is the most effective and efficient solar in the world. Our natural advantage presents a significant opportunity for Australia to transform into a renewable energy superpower which will drive substantial economic growth, create thousands of jobs and solidify our position as a leader in global climate action. However, transitioning to a renewable energy future is not without its legislative and political challenges. Complex state approval processes remain and need to be addressed. I too have received feedback on slow state planning assessment processes and have raised the matter with colleagues accordingly. In her motion, the member for Curtin is right: decades of climate inaction have led to low investor confidence. But, since the election of the Albanese government, we have seen that start to turn around. Since May 2022, the Albanese government has approved enough renewable energy projects to power almost two million homes. That's enough to power all households in Tasmania, South Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT combined. That turnaround is important, but we also acknowledge that there's more to do. To further shore up investment to reach the 82 per cent electricity generation that our targets call for, the Labor government moved to provide certainty for investors in renewable electricity generation. Our revamped Capacity Investment Scheme, announced last year, will underwrite 32 gigawatts of new electricity, consisting of nine gigawatts of storage and 23 gigawatts of variable renewable energy generation. We saw that, despite this positive progress, intervention was still needed to provide investment certainty. So we did it, and it was well received. The Australian Aluminium Council, the Australian Industry Group, Energy Consumers Australia, the Clean Energy Council, the Smart Energy Council, the Climate Council, Rewiring Australia and a host of others all acknowledged the government's Capacity Investment Scheme and how essential it was to continue a steady rollout of renewable energy. It's not just solar, wind and battery storage; our government has invested in other forms too. Our $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart initiative, designed to kickstart local production and industry, underlines our ambition to position Australia as a frontrunner in renewable green hydrogen production. Recognising the immense potential of hydrogen as a clean fuel, this initiative is designed to catalyse technological advancements and anchor a new industrial sector capable of propelling economic growth across the regions. All our policies are about turning our green and renewable energy potential into reality, and I challenge the member for Curtin and those who may read this speech at a later date to compare our approach in less than two years to that of the former Liberal government in nearly a decade. In their years, we had a decade of climate delay and denial, and it continues today. In the Liberals and Nationals, we have parties deeply opposed to the large-scale renewable energy rollout. In the Liberals and Nationals, we continue to have climate sceptics, conspiracy theorists and MPs spreading misinformation about offshore wind, solar farms in regions and battery storage in our suburbs. And in the Liberals and Nationals we have parties that have, in their support of nuclear energy, put forward an energy policy whose main effects will be to extend Australia's reliance on coal for energy generation. There's a reason why the member for Curtin and I are in this chamber. We'll continue to work hard to get renewable energy as part of our energy mix. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in the order of the day for a later hour. MOTIONS 24 MOTIONS Middle East 24 11:58 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Griffith from moving the following motion —That the House calls on the Government to immediately end all trade of military equipment with the State of Israel. Countries around the world are banning the export of weapons to Israel, but here in Australia this Labor government is allowing Australian weapons companies to manufacture and export to Israel weapons and weapons materials to assist in carrying out a genocide on the Palestinian people. Not only that, but Labor is handing over public money to Israeli weapons companies who make claims and brag about testing their weapons in Gaza and on the Palestinian people. So the Greens are moving a motion today to ban all weapons trades with Israel, because it is the bare minimum that this parliament should be doing to stop the genocide in Gaza. Canada recently voted to halt all arms sales to Israel, and now the UK is threatening to end the arms trade. They will join Japan, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and many others in ending weapons exports to Israel—countries that know that to send weapons to Israel right now is to be complicit in genocide. But not this Labor government—a Labor government that has stopped aid funding to Palestinians for 48 days, while they suffer under the worst famine since World War II. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 At least take some responsibility for it. This is a Labor government that temporarily suspended visas for Palestinians fleeing the killing. This is a Labor government that has taken actions against Palestinians but provided money, weapons and support to Israel. As we speak, Israel is laying siege to three separate hospitals in Gaza, with witnesses reporting carpet bombing from Israeli jets near Al-Nasr hospital. But Labor continually deny that Australia is exporting weapons and weapons materials, despite all of the facts, including those from their own departments. Here's what we know. Despite the secrecy of this Labor government, we know that, thanks to DFAT's own data, the Australian government are exporting weapons—millions in arms and ammunition—to the state of Israel. They exported $10 million over the last five years, including in October 2023. Drone engines, parts of missiles, mechanisms for bomber planes and metals for tanks are all made in Australia and are being used by Israel during their ongoing invasion of Gaza. In Tingalpa, Brisbane, Ferra Engineering is the sole supplier in manufacturing the mechanisms that hold and release 900-kilogram bombs in Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets. These bombs are being used in Gaza right now. They are, potentially, the ones carpet-bombing the Al-Nasr Hospital. Each time that happens—killing hundreds of civilians—it can only happen because of mechanisms manufactured in Australia and exported to Israel. During this time we have also seen the Albanese government provide hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli arms companies such as Elbit Systems. This company is currently using Palestinians as test subjects for their new weapons. They are using the destruction in Gaza as their sales pitch. It is clearly working because the Albanese government bought it. In February this year Labor signed a $900 million contract with Elbit Systems. Not only this but the Future Fund has $500,000 invested in the company. Countries like Norway and Denmark have blacklisted Elbit Systems for repeated, evidenced violations of humanitarian law. But the Australian government, while a genocide is occurring, is signing off on new contracts with them. So what have these weapons done? They have helped kill 31,000 Palestinians, 13,000 of whom are children. They have injured 74,000 people. They have helped enforce an engineered famine on the people in Gaza. There are estimates now that 677,000 people, or 32 per cent of all Gazans, are in catastrophic conditions today—famine conditions. Forty-one per cent are in emergency conditions. It is expected that fully half of Gaza's more than one million people will be in catastrophic famine conditions within weeks. In all, 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza—about half the population—are experiencing catastrophic shortages of food. What we know is that the consequences of this are not only potentially hundreds of thousands of Palestinians dead in the next few months; we know that there will be long-term consequences as well. This is from a recent article on the famine in Gaza: Little children who survive starvation face lifelong deprivation. They tend to grow up to be shorter than their peers and suffer reduced intellectual capacity. The World Health Organization warns of an "inter-generational cycle of malnutrition" whereby infants with low birth weight or undernourished girls grow into smaller and less healthy mothers. This is what Israel is enforcing: a manufactured famine on Palestinians in Gaza. They are doing it with weapons and weapons parts exported from Australia. If Canada and countries around the world can ban weapons trade with Israel, then why can't Australia? This is the bare minimum that we could be doing right now. There are brave protestors attempting to stop the export of weapons from Australia to Israel, but they have been met with violence from Australian police. Australians are pretty sick right now of a government that can't even do the bare minimum to stop the killing of men, women and children in Gaza. Frankly, this Labor government has underestimated the public opposition to this. They have underestimated how angry and fed up people are. Come the next federal election, I think they will learn what happens when they give up all moral legitimacy and help fund and support a genocide in Gaza. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion seconded? 12:04 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I second the motion. As we sit here today in this House, Israel—right now—continues targeting civilians in hospitals: doctors, nurses, babies, the sick and the injured. Al-Shifa Hospital has suffered devastating blows since November, when Israel first targeted that medical establishment. Israel has deliberately not allowed medical supplies inside, leaving patients to die because treatments cannot reach them. And still Australia continues to export weapons to Israel. In the last five years, Australia has provided almost $10 million in arms and ammunition to Israel. Australia has also given 350 military export permits to Israel—350! With the support of this government, Australian companies export to Israel: companies like Currawong Engineering, who make the engines for Israeli ThunderB drones; and Varley Australia make launch components for the Spike missiles—the very same missiles that are used to target and kill innocent Palestinians. We've also seen the Albanese government give hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli arms companies, such as Elbit—the same Elbit that is currently using Palestinians as test subjects for their new weapons, using the destruction in Gaza as a sales pitch. And it is a sales pitch the Labor government bought. Still, the Labor government continues to misinform and gaslight the public about their complicity in what Israel is doing. That is the urgency of this motion and why it must be passed as soon as possible. This parliament must rescind its support of the ongoing genocidal invasion of Gaza and stop the military exports. Canada recently voted to halt all arms sales to Israel, and now the UK is threatening to end the arms trade. They're going to join Japan, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and many others in ending weapons exports. And where is the Labor government in all this? It's silent in the face of the atrocities we are seeing in Gaza. The government must cancel contracts with Israeli arms companies and stop the export of military equipment to Israel. The rest of the world is doing it. Each time I rise here to speak about Gaza, and since the last time I spoke, the death toll has climbed by thousands. Today, more than 100,000 people have been murdered or are injured or missing. That's thousands of innocent children, teachers, nurses, journalists, mothers and their babies. And now, through Israel's actions, which this parliament has endorsed, thousands more are under threat in Rafah—a place that people were once told was safe. Millions fled there hoping for safety, and it is now, itself, under siege. People are living in unfathomably cruel conditions. Children are starving to death, while aid trucks line up across the border. Israel won't let them through. That's right: children are starving, when there is food within metres of the border waiting to be let through. And yet the Labor government still does not condemn the actions of Israel. People are grinding bird-feed, where they can find it, into flour, to try to stave off their children's starvation. Humanitarian agencies there are trying, against all odds, to prevent the deaths and improve the conditions on the ground. One of the largest of those organisations, UNRWA, had their funding cut by this very government—by this very parliament—for months. How many children have died because of Labor's collusion in the collective punishment of Palestinians? And collective punishment is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Suspending funding to such an important relief agency on the basis of the alleged actions of a tiny number of their staff, resulting in a huge decline in relief efforts, seems like collective punishment to me. The interim International Court of Justice ruling was that Israel may be carrying out a genocide in Gaza, with very clear orders to prevent that genocide. Yet, despite the mountains of evidence—including what was presented to the ICJ: the explicit genocidal language used by Israeli officials repeatedly and proudly—Labor has neither withdrawn support for Israel, nor called for a permanent ceasefire, nor supported South Africa's heroic actions at the ICJ, nor committed to ending military exports to Israel. The only way to stop this carnage and the horror is through international pressure, and Australia has a role to play and a responsibility. Labor is sitting on its hands while this genocide unfolds. Labor will be judged harshly by history for this cowardice. This parliament must correct this mistake. It must not continue to support Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza. 12:09 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand The Albanese government's approach to the conflict following the Hamas terrorist attacks of 7 October has been consistent and it has been principled. Australia is not a central player in the Middle East or in the current conflict. We do, however, have a respected voice, and we have sought to use it with countries of influence in the region to advance our objectives. We've been clear that we want to see the release of hostages, we want to see the upholding of international law and we want to see the protection of civilians, and we've prosecuted this case with partners in the region. There are differences of view in the Australian community with respect to this conflict. It's unsurprising. Australia is a diverse country with people from a range of backgrounds and with a range of life experiences and a range of different perspectives. But, as a government, we've been clear that, as we prosecute these differences and work this through as a nation, the way we conduct this debate in our community about these differences matters. Unfortunately, during this debate, regrettably we've seen people who claim to champion human rights and justice behaving in a way that shows little regard for either. Shocking attempts at intimidation and character assassination have become, unfortunately, characteristic of this debate. We've seen blatant antisemitism and Islamophobia. Some are intent on reproducing the hatred and social conflict of the Middle East here in our community, in Australia, pushing absolutist agendas ahead of the respectful and peaceful disagreement that a healthy democracy, particularly a diverse, multicultural Australian democracy, demands. Australia is not a country where you should be pushed to adopt an absolutist position on one side or another. We're a pluralist country, allowing for many different viewpoints, where we are united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. Regrettably, there are some in this country who seek to confect a direct connection between Australia and this conflict in order to raise the stakes of their own political campaigns in a way that is simply not justified by the facts. The motion before the House is a prime example of this. The facts with respect to the motion being moved today are clear and have been set out by the government on many occasions in this chamber, in the Senate and in Senate estimates. The foreign minister has spoken to this in Senate question time. Departmental officials have done so also in the last round of Senate estimates hearings. For the benefit of the House I will reiterate, in response to this motion, what the government has already made clear: Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since this conflict began and for at least the past five years. I understand that the Greens political party supports imposing a trade embargo on Israel, and it's its prerogative to hold that position, but that is not the government's position. We do not have a policy of boycotting all exports to Israel or of disengaging from Israel economically. As the government has made clear previously, Australia has a stringent export control framework which is designed to ensure that our military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of Australia. As the Deputy Prime Minister said on 1 February of this year: Australia's defence export control regime is one which is thorough and detailed as it applies to defence exports or dual-use items, to anywhere in the world. The framework applies to a wide range of goods and technology, including items used for civilian and commercial purposes. So I'd remind members that export permits should not be confused with weapons sales. Defence undertakes a rigorous assessment of each export application, and this includes determining if there is an overriding risk that the export may be used in ways contrary to Australia's national interests or our international obligations. If this risk is identified, Defence refuses the permit. Australia is a party to and fully implements all major international arms control treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty. The Albanese government is also taking proactive steps to reform and strengthen Australia's export control framework, including through the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023, which will strengthen Australia's export controls framework, and the Independent review of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012, which was tabled, with the government response to it, on Wednesday 20 March. We all have a responsibility in this place to ensure that our language does not rely on or convey misinformation, so I encourage members to consider the consequences of the language they use on this matter. Simply choosing to ignore the facts that have been presented repeatedly and promulgating a false narrative on this matter is only contributing to the divisions that we currently see in our community. Despite this, the Greens and others continue to disseminate misinformation and, frankly, encourage perpetuation of conspiracy theories on this conflict. Some of the misinformation on this matter that I have seen shared in WhatsApp groups in my community and across the country since the outbreak of this conflict have been frankly farcical. There were claims that shipments of Bushmasters were on ships leaving Sydney Harbour, bound for the conflict, claims of ADF deployments to the region, sent as a contingency to assist in the consular evacuations of Australians and their families should the conflict spread in the region, and claims that those contingency deployments were engaged somehow to participate in this conflict. These false claims have consequences in our community. Inflammatory claims inflame community tensions. Extreme rhetoric encourages extreme actions. The Australian community is being tested by this conflict. We need to manage difference in a way that enables us to continue to get along as a community to ensure that diverse Australian schools, workplaces, sporting teams and community groups are able to continue to function as the diverse, harmonious groups that they have been in the past. The least that we can ask from members in this chamber in facilitating this is that the debate be informed by the facts, not by misinformation or insinuations. I noted the member for Griffith's comments on humanitarian assistance to the region in this respect—the claim that the Australian government had suspended all humanitarian assistance in this conflict. This is one of those classic distortions of reality designed to inflame tensions. Since 7 October the Australian government has contributed $52.5 million of humanitarian assistance to the Middle East, consistent with that objective that I talked about before—to protect civilian life. That $52.5 million does not include the doubling of funding to UNRWA, announced on coming into government, so it doesn't include the $20 million provided to UNRWA before this conflict commenced. The $6 million of additional support to UNRWA that was announced following the foreign minister's visit to the region earlier this year was suspended— Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 There you go. Mr WATTS 193430 in response to very grave allegations of involvement of UNRWA staff members in the 7 October terrorist attacks. We acted in response to UNRWA's actions of dismissing staff who were alleged to have been involved in that, initiating review processes. None of that should take away from the fact that, of that $52.5 million provided for humanitarian assistance in this conflict, only $6 million was suspended in response to grave threats. The member for Griffith giggles, snorts and chortles, but those are the facts. There was $46 million provided for humanitarian support, which he, for his own partisan, political purposes, pretends didn't happen. If he had any integrity, he would stand up in this place and withdraw the false claim that he made in the moving of this suspension. He won't withdraw, though, because deliberately inflammatory claims like that, which are misinformation and not based on the facts, are part of his political campaign. He sees votes on this issue. The Australian government sees a terrible humanitarian crisis. We see a conflict in the Middle East— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The minister has the call. Mr WATTS 193430 that will only be resolved through peace building through the parties. We respect the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and the Palestinian people to live side by side within their own states and with internationally recognised borders in peace and security. The only way we'll realise that is through peace building, not through divisive partisan political campaigning. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 53517 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 28 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 28

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

Second Reading 28 12:25 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon On behalf of the federal coalition I rise today to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In doing so, I'm proud to affirm to the House that on this side of the chamber the coalition continues to be a strong, dependable and ardent supporter of Australia's resources sector. On this side we remain committed to ensuring that this crucial industry, which generates and delivers so much wealth, is able to keep investing in our nation. It's worth recognising just how important that contribution is. In 2022 and 2023 Australia's gas industry generated approximately $92 billion in export earnings, which provided direct economic support to federal, state and territory budgets. Australian gas also powers energy and manufacturing across our country and provides affordable energy security to our international partners. Therefore, if these sorts of projects continue to be threatened, we jeopardise billions and billions of dollars worth of investment and run the risk of not being able to supply the international market with the vital energy supplies it needs. Further to this, Australia is set to hit a gas supply cliff by 2026, and with continued attacks on the gas sector we run the risk of not being able to encourage, to facilitate and to secure the substantial investment our country requires to avert this crisis. Therefore sensible government policy which supports the resources industry, which incentivises investment and which will help develop greater prosperity of this sector and the whole nation is so desperately needed at this time. But this is not what we're seeing from this government. The circulation of an amendment attempting to restrict sensible reforms to offshore regulations is an attempt to appease the Greens. These amendments add a new EPBC trigger into the decision-making process, which would completely remove the EPBC exemption for offshore products if the minister for the environment decides they don't like a particular offshore gas regulation. And by adding the sunset clause into these amendments the government has assured that when they inevitably bungle the regulation reform there'll be no chance to fix it. We're going through this entire process right now because of provisions to fix regulations that simply don't exist. Why would the government then move an amendment to remove those exact provisions, which we are voting on right now? We will be opposing this amendment to this bill. And it is telling that, despite the government having bipartisan support from the coalition for this bill in its original form, when Mr Bandt said 'jump', Labor couldn't help itself from watering down those parts of the bill—important reforms—whilst running scared of the radicals who want to shut the industry down. Because we want to continue to see a government that puts good policy before politics, especially if it means cooperating with the coalition, this bill has bipartisan support. Labor had no need to crumble to the Greens pressure—yet they did. It begs the question: why do they always slap away the hand of bipartisanship in favour of bowing to the Greens' agenda? This is indicative of the type of government the Prime Minister leads. Labor will go to the media and plead the bipartisanship thing, or attack the coalition for not blindly supporting them in their legislative agenda. But when the opportunity for real bipartisanship presents itself, Labor cannot help themselves. Instead of continuing to work with the coalition, whose support Labor had already secured, they folded to the Greens. Yet again, it's the Greens' tail wagging the Labor dog. When will Labor end the charade and just offer Mr Bandt a position in their cabinet, because he's obviously already there writing their policies. Despite all of the posturing by Labor and all that they do to support the resources sector— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order. The member for Melbourne has a point of order. Mr Bandt M3C Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that you should enforce the rule that members should be referred to by their titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 That's true. Members should be referred to by their titles. So I would ask the member for Braddon to do that, please. Mr PEARCE 282306 I take the point, Deputy Speaker. Despite all the posturing that Labor does about supporting the resources sector and understanding the need for gas in our energy mix, they still cannot bring themselves to deliver the proper reform. Instead, as usual, they bow to the Greens and to the radical Labor Environmental Action Network. It's disappointing to see the resources minister's authority being stripped by the environment minister. But it does not come as any surprise to the coalition, because we all know that it is ideology that drives this government, not good policy. To continue to attack this sector, which is still under immense pressure thanks to Labor's policies, is simply layering bad policy on top of more bad policy. There are elements of this bill that are important, and it is important that we discuss those. It's important to note that the workplace health and safety reforms contained within this bill are based on a review that the coalition conducted during our term of government. In fact, many of the measures are already in place, with the oil and gas industry holding themselves to very high standards when it comes to matters of health and safety in the workplace. Ultimately, Australians who are employed in the resources sector are fortunate enough to operate in one of the best environments in the world. They earn great wages. They operate in safe and secure conditions, and they support those vital projects which provide such tremendous contributions to our domestic energy security and to the energy security of our partners. The coalition remain ardent supporters of those workers in our resources sector. We support the necessary reforms to workplace health and safety measures that ensure all Australians can go to work and can return home safely. That's why we initiated this review. The bill before the House today also enables the government to deliver urgent reforms for offshore regulations. Although, unfortunately, it must be pointed out that the Albanese Labor government has put Australia's natural gas market under extreme pressure, with heavy-handed interventions and policies that are harming investment, not increasing supply. Over the past 18 months, at every single opportunity, the coalition has repeatedly warned the government of long-term impacts that their policies will have on this vital sector. We have called on the Labor government to cease and desist with their constant interventions and to instead proactively engage with the industry to urgently address the looming natural gas shortfalls. And today we repeat this message loud and clear. The coalition notes that a significant component of this bill strengthens the potential for the Minister for Resources to genuinely and constructively engage with industry and to ensure that these sorts of projects are able to progress without delay. Despite Labor watering down their own reforms by letting the environment minister empire-build and seize control of the resources minister's decision, it is still vital that urgent reforms to these regulations and processes exist. These are reforms that the coalition have been demanding for more than 18 months. The coalition will not block this bill. Despite the government trying to undermine the bipartisan work that has occurred within the second amendments. We acknowledge that modelling released late last year confirmed that more natural gas is needed, with the demand for Australian gas rising by up to 30 per cent from current levels by 2050. And so, faced with looming shortfalls on the east coast and Western Australia, it is now critical that new gas developments are supported and brought online. Otherwise, we run the risk of blackout and shortfalls dramatically increasing as time goes on. In terms of the immense contributions of royalties and taxes from our gas sector and the taxes that they provide to state and federal budgets, in 2022 and 2023 this amounted to a staggering $16 billion. These taxation receipts could fund the construction of around 11 new public hospitals or 160 new schools or cover annual public health care to the tune of 1.67 million Australians. However, despite all that wealth, despite all the revenue and despite all the investment that the gas industry gives to our nation, we continue to witness the shameful spectacle of the ideological crusaders and extreme activists who are hellbent on waging war against this great sector. When it comes to legislation such as this, it's absolutely paramount that the government does everything it can, everything in its power, to ensure that proper reforms are made to support the Australian gas industry, for both the continued strength of the sector and the continued protection of workers, their rights and their safety. Every Australian worker should be able to come home safe at the end of a day's work. This bill strengthens health and safety standards for this industry. Our offshore workers play an important role for both our domestic energy supply and supporting our international community. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, not only does our gas industry power Australian homes and businesses, but it's also crucial to keeping the lights on for our strategic partners—countries like South Korea and Japan, who already rely on Australian gas in order to power their populations—and it is essential that we continue to provide a stable and secure gas supply to these countries. It's as simple as this: if Australia's offshore oil and gas sector continues to face the combination of sustained and relentless attacks from activists, as well as the damaging and misguided government policies, then all of the supply is put at tremendous risk, which in turn puts many international relationships at risk. To conclude, while the federal coalition will not block this bill from progressing through the House, it's imperative that the government takes the decisive action to implement real and urgent changes to support the gas industry and sector as well as the broader resource sector throughout the country. Right now, the layering of industrial relations policies, the safeguard mechanism, the ongoing attacks from legal activists and general anti-business environment will have a long-term impact on investment prospects going into the future. We cannot afford to lose the tremendous prosperity that this sector has brought our nation. So, despite Labor's unnecessary yet unsurprising capitulation to the Greens political party, the coalition will support the passage of the bill because we know the importance of delivering certainty and security for our resources sector. 12:38 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House: (1) opposes schedule 2, part 2 regarding approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999; and (2) condemns the Government for making its first legislative action since the Voice Referendum depriving First Nations people of their voice and legal rights to oppose destructive gas projects on their land and sea country". The government's first piece of legislation since the Voice that directly affects First Nations people is one that completely strips them of their voice in the fight against Australia's powerful gas cartel. Despite their supposed commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and strengthening environment safeguards, the government is shamefully teaming up with the coalition to push through legislation that allows gas companies to completely disregard the concerns of traditional owners. What a disgrace. Do you want to know how much corporations like Santos control our government? A few months ago, Santos CEO Kevin Gallagher, with a couple of other gas exec buddies, wrote a letter to the minister requesting a meeting because they want faster approvals for their projects. A few months later, the Labor government is here moving legislation to bypass environmental approvals for gas projects. I wonder what they said at that meeting. It must have been very persuasive—or perhaps it's just the hundreds of thousands of dollars Santos has donated to the Labor Party over the last few years. Here we are in a truly perverse situation where the Labor government is siding with the LNP to take powers that protect the environment away from the environment minister and hand them to the resources minister—a resources minister who is notorious for her full throated support of that gas industry. Will everyday people see the wealth from these new mines? No. Santos hardly pays a cent in tax. All this money will go to wealthy shareholders. CEO, Kevin Gallagher, sits on an astronomical $8.7 million salary. Imagine if Labor listened to families struggling with the cost of living the way they listen to gas corporations. Imagine that. We'd have free school breakfasts and lunches for all kids; we'd have genuinely free GP visits and dental in Medicare; we'd have free uni and TAFE. But, evidently, unless you have billions of dollars in your back pocket that you can hand over come election time, the government doesn't want to listen to you. Labor promised at the last election to strengthen environmental laws. Now they're siding with the coalition to hand over power to the pro-gas resources minister. What a sick joke. We're in the middle of a climate crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis, and the Labor government is spending its time doing everything it can to prop up the profits of gas corporations, not lifting a finger for everyday people. At a time when everyday people are absolutely struggling with housing and cost-of-living crises, the government should be collecting more revenue from big corporations and putting that into things like building quality public homes, making seeing a doctor actually free and, yes, wiping HECS debt. Sadly, we're heading in exactly the opposite direction. Independent think tank the Australia Institute has shown that, while gas corporations in Australia made $164 billion in total revenue in 2023, they only paid $16 billion, or just 9.8 per cent, in taxes and royalties to federal and state governments. By contrast, in Norway the government's share of gas and petroleum revenue was 55 per cent. Part of the problem is that corporations in Australia are incredibly adept at artificially inflating their expenses to dodge tax. They do this in a number of ways. Often, they borrow money at high interest rates from related corporations in tax havens so repayment costs appear much higher. Likewise, they pay exorbitant fees to related corporations in tax havens for things like marketing services or access to intellectual property. Norway, with much better taxation laws, does not have this problem. The other problem is that Queensland's royalty rate for gas is abysmally low, rarely reaching even 10 per cent. Even Texas has a 25 per cent royalty rate for oil and gas. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis showed that in 2021-22, as the gas price spiked, the revenue of Queensland gas projects surged to $22 billion but the state only took $1.2 billion in royalties, or less than 5.5 per cent—shame. State and federal governments can fix this. They can fix tax loopholes, raise federal taxes on gas companies and raise royalty rates. They don't because Labor and the LNP are beholden to gas corporations via political donations, lobbyists and that revolving door between politics and corporations. Resources like gas belong collectively to all of us, to all Australians. Companies pay a royalty for the right to extract and sell them, but the resources do not belong to the corporations. They belong to all of us. Asking that they pay their fair share is only reasonable. In an orderly transition away from coal and gas, we should tax the gas corporations properly to fund the future renewable energy infrastructure that we need, while helping fund the things that all Australians need to live a good, healthy and thriving life here. Any time a politician from the Labor Party or the Liberal Party says, 'We need more gas. It's a transition fuel,' watch closely. Watch to see the hand of the gas industry ventriloquist behind them, because that's the line they're running—that's the gas industry's spin—and it's complete and utter nonsense. We don't need to open a new gas field. We don't need a new gas project—not a single one. Of Australia's current gas production, 84 per cent is used for export. That's only 16 per cent that we use for domestic use—households and industry. Australia is already producing a truly staggering amount of gas—far, far, far more than we need—but the gas corporations don't care one bit about whether Australian households have cheap and reliable energy. They don't care about ensuring our industry has the energy it needs. They care about making maximum profit, and that means more gigantic gas projects to export the maximum amount of gas overseas at the maximum price. It's not helping us. That's billions upon billions of dollars going to wealthy shareholders, so when the Minister for Resources—to whom Labor seem to want to hand control of all gas approvals—says we need gas as a transition fuel, look closely at whose talking points she's running. Look closely at whose interests she's actually serving, because they're not yours, they're not the Australian peoples', they're not those of everyday people around the world—they're the interests of the gas corporations. The thing is, if you approve a gas well now, you approve it for a corporation who expects to generate profit who expects to generate profit out of exploiting it for the next 30 or more years. That's their model. That's 30 years of massively increased emissions—those 30 years being precisely the time period in which we have to reduce our emissions to zero. Labor talks about wanting net zero emissions by 2050. That target isn't even good enough; that should happen by 2035. But okay: even if we accept 2050 as a reasonable target for net zero emissions, how on earth do they think that's going to be achieved if we're approving massive new hugely polluting gas projects in 2024 which will be operational in the 2050s? The thing about gas is the more we know about it, the more truly harmful and unsustainable we realise it is. The more research is done into the fugitive emissions from extraction and processing, the more terrified anyone paying attention becomes. The terrifying fact is, corporations and governments have been under-reporting gas emissions for decades now. The International Energy Agency estimates that methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are 92 per cent higher than previously estimated—that's almost double what we actually thought or were being told was going on. I'll tell you why that's so terrifying. When burned, gas is less polluting than coal, sure. But when leaked as methane before burning it—from a coal seam gas fracking well, for instance—it is 82 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. That means gas is cooking our planet in exactly the period that we need to be reducing these emissions and reducing this spiralling warming. Thirty per cent of today's warming is caused by methane. That's not some distant problem. That's not some abstraction. We have been hovering dangerously, frighteningly close to a 1.5-degree increase in global temperatures for the last year or so. In fact, we've already gone over this, by some reports. All the records are being broken far more quickly than mainstream science had predicted. This means more frequent, more devastating floods, fires and droughts. It means skyrocketing food prices as production starts to falter. It means major shortages as a regular occurrence. This is what gas is actually doing. Labor know this. They do. I'm sure there are Labor Party politicians who are very concerned about that. But, of course, we can't just stop all gas production and consumption in Australia overnight. Of course, we need some gas in our energy mix for the next decade or so in this century, but we already have far, far more than we will need to power this transition. Let me repeat that: we don't need a single extra gas well drilled, we don't need a single extra gas project approved, and we can't afford it. We can't afford the increasing devastation that comes from a warming world. My grandkids and others' grandkids will suffer as a result of this truly heinous support for the gas cartels. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm actually hear in this place. That's why Australians are crying out for greater climate action from this government. Let's not hear that nonsense about the need for gas to export to other countries, that it's a wealth and jobs generator for Australia. Gas employs so few people in this country. Meanwhile, gas brings home to the Australian government so little revenue that we could see the gas industry phased out and hardly affect the balance sheet of the government's ability to pay for public services. And, in terms of exports—really? Are we seriously saying that our best exports are coal and gas? Are we seriously saying that? Is that the best we can do? Firstly, countries around the world are shifting to renewable energy sources, and us flooding the market and keeping gas prices lower slows that process. Secondly, Australia used to be a nation that had aspirations to export things to the world that are useful, things that we could be proud of. We used to fund CSIRO to ensure that we could have high-tech industries and export valuable commodities and research to the world. But that seemed to end a few decades ago, and now we prefer to be an extractive economy, like so many Latin American countries that have been forced to be by their local oligarchs and by US led globalisation. Is this really what we've become in Australia? How can we possibly be proud of our country if this is our primary export—ripping up natural resources, shipping them overseas—not for us, but for the profits of gas cartels? The window to becoming a high-tech renewables and green energy industry powerhouse—replacing our resources exports with things that actually help the world—is closing. Any further steps towards propping up this parasitic, destructive industry will only see that window close further and continue to entrench our reliance on gas and entrench the political stranglehold. So, Labor, cut off your puppeteers' strings. Don't let the gas corporations be your ventriloquists. Don't design bills around what Santos wants you to do. Instead of shifting approvals for gas projects into the hands of the resources minister, it is time to substantially strengthen the environmental approvals required for new projects so that we can ensure no new gas projects go ahead, so that we have a shot at reining in the crisis of global heating, so that we have a shot at protecting and preserving this beautiful planet for our kids and grandkids. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the amendment seconded? 12:51 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I second the amendment. And, without commencing my speech on the amendment to the second reading, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the question for the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being put to the House for decision only when the Government's promised environmental reform package has passed both houses. Not one Labor member has the guts to come in here and speak to this bill. Not one. Not the member for Macnamara, not the member for Wills, not the member for Cooper, not the member for Sydney, not the member for Richmond—none of them are prepared to come in here and even speak to this bill. Labor and Liberal are trying to rush a bill through right now to fast-track gas projects and take away First Nations voices. The debate on this bill must be adjourned until after we hear what the government intends to do around its environment reforms. If we don't do it that way, if we rush this dirty deal with the Leader of the Opposition and the climate deniers in the Liberal Party and Labor Party, if they rush this legislation through today, then it will take away the rights of First Nations people to be consulted on projects as they currently enjoy it, if the resources minister so decides. It will render completely pointless huge swathes of the election promise that Labor gave to us about strengthening environmental reforms, because what the bill will do is carve out big chunks of our environment laws and approvals and give it over to the gas-loving resources minister, who, under the primary section of this bill, will be able to say, 'Even the rules put in place by John Howard back in 2014 don't need to be followed anymore'. It is a dirty deal between Labor and Liberal done at the behest of the big gas corporations, and they are trying to sneak it through in the week before Easter with no debate, when not even one member of their backbench has the guts to come in and explain. Why? Because they know they will be standing up to explain that, in their first legislative act affecting First Nations people since the referendum, they are taking away First Nations voices, if the resources minister so determines. We know that that is the exact purpose of this bill that Labor is trying to rush through, which is why standing orders have to be suspended. We have seen courageous First Nations owners in the Tiwi Islands and in the north-west of Western Australia take the big gas corporations to court and say, 'Even under our weak environment laws, you have to consult us.' As a result of that, and the full Federal Court finding that those consultation provisions are workable, Santos, the big gas corporation, wrote a letter to the resources minister and said, 'Oh, we can't have this. These rights that First Nations owners have to consultation are slowing down our projects. You've got to change it.' Santos said, 'Jump', and Labor said, 'How high?' They've come up with a bill that has no guidance for us about what the new consultation regime will look like. It's not like they've come up with a replacement. They've come up with a bill at a time when they've said: 'We know we're doing broader consultations about what our environment laws should look like, and that might affect this, but we don't want to wait till those are finished. While all these other discussions are taking place, we want you now to fast-track a bill that gives the resources minister a blank cheque to not even have to comply with the John Howard era requirements anymore. Please pass that, and then we'll get back to the business of pretending that we care about climate and of pretending that we care about First Nations owners.' This bill must be delayed at a minimum until we see what the government is intending to do to so-called strengthen our environment laws—although you've got to think that promise is under a cloud right now. It has to be delayed. If it's as important as the government say it is, then they should come and tell us what the new regime is going to look like and what the new consultation provisions are going to look like. The one thing we know for sure is that it's not just Santos who are backing it; the Liberal Party are backing it. We just heard the shadow minister get up and say the Liberals have been calling for this legislation. They want this legislation, and they said they're not going to stand in the way of it either. So here, on the eve of Easter, we have a dirty deal between Labor and the Liberals to fast-track new gas projects and take away First Nations voices and to give the resources minister huge powers to say that gas corporations don't even have to comply with the minimum standards that were set down by John Howard. It is absolutely critical that this bill not be rushed through and be subject to the fullest possible scrutiny. Do you know what happened when this bill came to parliament? Labor and the Liberals got together to have a half-day inquiry that happened over the break when most of them were there remotely—maybe for good reasons, I don't know, but they scheduled it at a time when they couldn't make it. So we have had next to no scrutiny of this. To this legislation: the Prime Minister has said that he wants to hear what First Nations voices say. The question is: does that come with an asterisk attached to it as well that says, 'We'll only listen to First Nations voices if they agree with us'? Maybe there are some Labor backbenchers who don't know about this—maybe they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by the resources minister—but this bill will say that the resources minister can, of their own volition, absolutely rewrite all this substantial consultation and other environmental protections that exist with respect to offshore gas projects that exist in the 2014 plan. Many of those, I would say, should be much stronger. They do not give First Nations owners the rights they are entitled to. But they are there. They were put in place by John Howard. Labor now wants to weaken the John Howard consultation provisions because apparently they're too strong. Labor is now more pro gas than Scott Morrison. Labor is now a bigger booster of the gas industry than Scott Morrison. Not even Scott Morrison tried to take away First Nations owners' rights to be consulted over projects. Not even Scott Morrison moved to amend the environment protection laws by carving out offshore gas projects from them. This is an astounding bill. The reason this suspension must be supported is that Labor has said: 'Trust us. Look, it's okay. Yes, we've got an amendment here that's going to give huge unfettered power to the resources minister'—in exactly the way the Liberal Party wants; they've just admitted it. This is what the Liberal Party wants. That was their whole speech. Labor's now saying, 'We want to give the resources minister full power', at the same time as the environment minister and the government are out saying, 'We're going to burnish our environment credentials by rewriting the EPBC Act,' including around these very matters. Up until now, everyone had been led to believe that the government was consulting in good faith about reforms to its environment laws that would include the question about how these big new projects get approved. Now, because the government has taken the time they want to take on that and it hasn't been completed yet—and we haven't seen what new protections, if any, are likely to come—rather than let that process finish and come back to us with a full package about what new environment laws and consultation provisions might look like, they've said, 'In the meantime, no, what we want to do is slip this bill through, with no speakers from the Labor backbench having the guts to come up and even speak to it'—and the Liberals offering the only speaker in support of it to say, 'This is great; it's exactly the legislation that we wanted'. Labor are saying, 'Pass this through quickly, please; please, parliament, don't notice it, don't scrutinise it, so that we can rewrite those consultation provisions and take away people's rights and hopefully no-one will notice.' Well, the Greens have noticed. The crossbenchers have noticed. First Nations organisations have noticed. The environment groups have noticed. The climate groups have noticed that Labor are climate con artists, trying to rush through a bill in the week before Easter to remove First Nations rights while working with the climate deniers in the coalition to fast-track gas projects. Well, we are here to call you out. If you don't even have the guts to speak to this bill, at the very least defer it until you've done your consultations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Melbourne. The member for Melbourne should refrain from using insulting language in describing other members of parliament. Thank you. Is the motion seconded? 13:02 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I second the motion. In my electorate of Ryan, every time we have heavy rains I have constituents contacting my office worried that they may again face what happened in the 2022 floods: houses and livelihoods destroyed. Many families are still grappling with the aftermath of that, struggling to rebuild, some of them dealing with dodgy insurance companies. The 2022 floods were said to be unprecedented—like the 2011 floods and like many of the floods we've seen right across Australia. But we know the stark reality is that with climate change these natural disasters will only get worse and, unfortunately, more and more frequent. Yet what does our government do in the face of this crisis? It shamelessly attempts to ram legislation through, handing the resources minister unprecedented—and this really is unprecedented—authority to fast-track new coal and gas projects, completely undermining the environment minister. It's pretty amazing stuff, really. The government is essentially passing legislation written by the gas industry for the gas industry. The government gets a letter from a few gas company executives and a few months later they offer up a bit of legislation that removes all the headaches of environmental approvals processes. Evidently that's what big political donations get you these days—pay to destroy. The Labor government and the environment minister have failed to deliver on their promises to overhaul our broken environmental laws, make them stronger and truly protect our environment. But it's pretty clear that the government is actually siding with the gas cartels, making it easier for them to continue destroying our precious environment. The fact that the resources minister can make changes to regulation and not have to consider the environmental laws is absolutely reckless in an age when we know the urgency of the climate crisis. That's why this bill must be delayed until after the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms come into effect. These significant environmental reforms are meant to protect our environment from greenwashed habitat destruction and dangerous fracking. Prior to this, and unbelievably, the minister was not required to assess fracking projects for their impact on the environment. The Greens and environment and First Nations groups have been campaigning for a decade to expand the environmental laws to include a water trigger, which effectively closed the loophole that gives gas fracking corporations a licence to drill without any federal environmental water assessment. On the back of this, the government is effectively trying to legislate another loophole back in for gas companies to get the green light on environment-destroying projects. Basically, the government is allowing companies like Santos and Woodside to get around complying with the current requirements of environmental laws for gas projects. Yes, you heard that correctly: gas companies will essentially be exempt from complying with certain environmental regulations under even the new amendments. The independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has an endorsed program for the requirements of any gas project, and the government is giving gas companies more powers to bypass this process or rush it through altogether. Just at the moment, Santos has six approvals through NOPSEMA for the Barossa, and they could all be exempt from any environmental approvals process in the next 12 months. This is the project that would emit 401 million tonnes of CO2 pollution in its lifetime. That's the equivalent of 80 per cent of Australia's total emissions in 2020. We've just gone through multiple flooding events and sweltered through a summer with outrageous humidity, heatwaves and fires, and we know this will only get worse as the planet gets warmer. We're in a climate crisis. Australia cannot afford to pay the price of any new coal and gas projects. The government must not give fossil fuel companies any more power than they already have. This bill must be considered after the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have come into place. 13:07 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith We're running out of time. We're running out of time to stop runaway climate change. What this government should be doing is bringing bills to parliament to fast-track the phase-out of coal and gas, and, at the very least, ban new coal and gas. Instead, what this parliament is debating is a bill that will effectively make it easier for large gas projects to be approved in Australia and that will override the opposition, in particular, of First Nations groups, who have put up a remarkable fight against really large gas projects in this country. This is genuinely remarkable. It's remarkable when the science is telling us that, right now, we are on the brink of global catastrophe. Over the last few years, Australia has already been smashed by record awful, destructive bushfires that have tragically taken lives, devastating floods, devastating heatwaves, and droughts in some parts of the country at the same time. What this government should be doing is looking at how to stop any new massive gas projects. We know Santos has written to the Minister for Resources asking for changes along these lines, changes that will make it easier for gas corporations to bypass existing, already very weak environmental laws. Now, just as we're debating sea surface temperatures around the world reaching record heights, and just as we're on the brink of a climate catastrophe, where people have already lost lives, we stand here trying the best we can to delay a bill that will allow projects like Santos's Barossa project, a giant gas carbon bomb. Just as we're trying to stop that, this is a bill that will make it easier for it that be approved. One of the things this government likes to attempt to do is to pretend that Australia doesn't have much of a role to play in stopping climate change—'We're just a small part player'—except for the fact that Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. There are two countries ahead of us, Saudi Arabia and Russia—not exactly auspicious company, is it? The role Australia could be playing in combating dangerous, destructive, deadly global heating could be world leading. We could be sending a signal to the world and saying that we will not open a single new gas or coal project. We could be sending a signal to the world saying that we will tax existing coal and gas projects and raise money that could be spent on phasing out coal and gas in this country, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and lifting people out of poverty. Instead, we're in parliament, and the government is trying to rush through a bill that will make it more likely and easier for Santos to get giant carbon-bomb gas projects approved. Future generations are going to look back at moments like this and ask: 'What was this parliament doing? What was this parliament doing when billions of climate refugees are on the move, when global food systems are collapsing, when entire ocean ecosystems are dying, and when large areas in places like my home state of Queensland are considered uninhabitable because of the heat and humidity in the summer in 20, 30, 40, 50 years time?' They're going to look back at moments like this and ask, 'Why was a Labor government attempting to pass a bill that makes it easier for gas projects to continue to destroy our climate?' These gas corporations, by the way, wield enormous political power over our political system. Santos, we know, has been a large and generous donor to the Labor Party both at a federal level and at a state level. Gas corporations like this have gotten their way. I mean, we're in a housing crisis, right? We could be debating an urgent bill to tackle the housing crisis. Instead, we're debating an urgent bill to give gas corporations more power. These gas corporations, by the way, are some of the most profitable in the world and barely pay any tax because of a tax regime and a new gas tax that was written with gas executives in the room. We are a country that is now run by gas corporations. They get whatever they want, regardless of the human consequences or the costs to the environment, to our climate or to people's lives. This government should be ashamed that it's fallen to the Greens to fight a rearguard action to try and stop a bill that will ride roughshod over First Nations voices in the same term of government that they claimed to care and try to get the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice passed. On the one hand they want to give First Nations people a voice, but on the other they want to silence First Nations people when it comes to standing up to massive gas corporations. If the government claims that this won't do what the Greens are claiming then let it go through a committee process. Let the experts come in. Let's actually properly scrutinise this, not try and rush it through on a day when we're already experiencing a massive climate catastrophe. It should be alarming to members of the public that stuff like this can happen without proper scrutiny, without proper debate. The government aren't even willing to stand up and defend their own bill. They're trying to claim: 'There's nothing to see here. Nothing's changing. Don't worry. We're not really doing anything.' If that's the case, why move the bill at all? That's the thing, right? On the one hand you're claiming, no, this won't change anything. Well, if that's the case, don't change anything. The reality is that what this does, at the behest of gas corporations like Santos, is give them more power to bulldoze over the top of First Nations communities and those Australians who are trying their very best to stop the madness of the major parties, who, in the middle of a climate catastrophe being caused by coal and gas, are trying to open up more coal and gas projects. Future generations will remember this. They'll look back at moments like this and they'll think, 'What were you doing?' This government should be ashamed that it has fallen to the Greens to try and stop this madness. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 12 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 41 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Buchholz, S. Burnell, M. P. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Coulton, M. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gosling, L. J. Keogh, M. J. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

The requirements for an absolute majority not having been satisfied, the motion was not carried.

 13:21 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith It's 2024, and once again we are facing the prospect of this government passing legislation—the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024—essentially written by the gas industry for the gas industry. Proposed changes introduced by this Labor government regarding how the oil and gas industry is regulated look to sideline the environment minister and strip them of their powers to oversee the offshore petroleum industry. The fact the gas industry is happy about this says everything you need to know. It shouldn't come as a shock either, especially after it came to light, through a freedom of information request, that the CEO of Santos wrote to Minister King essentially demanding exactly these changes. The environment minister has said over and over again that she will fix Australia's broken environmental laws, and yet here we are. The resource minister wants to quietly give herself the power to bypass any changes from these laws with loopholes in order to approve new mega gas projects. The potential for one minister to be able to make changes in regulation but not have to review standards under environmental laws is abysmal policy. Make no mistake: this is a Labor favour for the gas lobby, and it comes at the cost of our environment—and not only our environment. It comes at the cost of our First Nations voices as well. Climate change is here, and our wildlife, forests and ecosystems are already at breaking point. We cannot afford weaker environmental laws. Labor promised at the election to strengthen environmental laws, but now they're working with the climate deniers in the Liberals to carve out big gas projects from environmental and cultural heritage laws and hand over control to the pro-gas resource minister. Labor is breaking an election promise by working with the Liberals to fast-track new climate-destroying gas projects that take away the voices of First Nations traditional owners. This is on the back of the referendum and two historic cases regarding consultation with First Nations people for offshore projects. The first legislative action that the government has chosen to make this year is to turn around and silence First Nations voices. First Nations people have bravely been standing up for their right to be heard and consulted with. They have taken these giant gas corporations to court, and they have won. Now the government wants to change the rules in favour of the gas companies. It is well beyond time for truth and treaty in this country, yet we have seen this government vacate this space almost completely. This is the same government that said on election night that it was committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and that has committed to strengthening our environmental laws. The amendment proposed to the OPGGS Act threatens to sideline the environment minister and bypass environmental approvals and First Nations consultation required by the EPBC Act for new oil and gas approvals. This amendment trashes our environmental laws and makes a mockery of consultation with the explicit aim of fast-tracking climate-wrecking coal, oil and gas projects. The first legislative act of this government is teaming up with Dutton and the coalition to fast-track gas and stitch up a deal on the PRRT. Hiding a change that will give the Minister for Resources such wide-reaching powers in a bill for workers' safety is a cop-out and in bad faith. The government is trying to rush this bill through, avoid scrutiny and make it seem like this is not a complete power grab. The government hid section 2(2) from the crossbench and did not tell the Greens about it at all, which says all you need to know about what they think it's going to do. This government is doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. We have known that for years. But this makes crystal clear not only how wide-reaching the gas cartel is but also the reach it has into our governments. It seems that when Santos says, 'Jump,' the government now asks, 'How high?' This change will lead to more gas and less consultation. We are in a climate crisis and the science is clear: we cannot have any new fossil fuel projects. The change pre-empts both the Nature Positive reforms that we have been promised and the findings and ongoing review into the offshore consultation process. The proposed Barossa Gas Project is owned by none other than Santos, the very same company who has asked for these changes. Santos first proposed to build the Barossa offshore gas project north of Darwin and the Tiwi Islands in 2018 and has faced fierce opposition ever since. The Barossa Gas Project is one of the biggest new coal and gas project proposals in Australia. The Barossa Gas Project would emit 401 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution over its lifetime. That's the equivalent of 80 per cent of Australia's total emissions in 2020 alone. There is something most people in Australia are absolutely aware of: that politicians in the old political parties—in particular, Labor and the Liberals—have been completely captured by the interests of massive multinational corporations, in particular the gas corporations. This is called state capture. It is where private actors, corporations like Santos, through their control over resources and through their influence, shape policies and their implementation in the service of their own financial interests. Santos is one of the most striking examples of this in Australia. It has been the biggest winner since COVID. At every level of government, Santos spends so much money on lobbyists to get access to politicians and to government officials, in particular the resources minister. Former Labor resources minister Martin Ferguson's chief of staff is the company's head of government and public affairs. Let that sink in for a minute. In the 2022 financial year, the fossil fuel industry gave Labor and the Liberals around a million dollars each. Why would they do that if not to advance their interests? This is what we know and have seen time and again from both Labor and Liberal governments—that bills have been moved in this place to give gas, oil and coal corporations more power to ram through not only projects that are destroying our environment but also projects that often they don't pay much tax on. We've also seen PRRT changes that are so weak that we'll see students pay more back to the government on their HECS debt than oil and gas corporations will pay on the PRRT tax bill. I've said before and I'll say again that the government claims that this won't really change much around approvals. If that were the case, why move it at all? If it doesn't change much or doesn't change anything at all and it's just business as usual, then why move these changes at all? We know that First Nations groups, environmental groups, experts and legal experts have all pointed out that this will make it easier for projects like the Barossa project to be approved, even where First Nations and traditional owners oppose it. The reason it's coming here, really, is that those First Nations groups stood up and won previously. Rather than the government celebrating the voices of First Nations people finally being heard, they turn around and bring a bill to this place that will silence those voices. Now, this government claims to care about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and claims to care about passing a First Nations Voice. Well, how is it that, in the same term of government, we're debating a bill that will reduce the power of First Nations voices? We know that Australia is the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. We know that we have a global role to play when it comes to tackling climate change, and we should be in this place debating a bill that bans the opening of new coal, oil and gas. Instead, we're debating a bill that may well help fast-track the Barossa Santos gas project—Santos, lest we forget, is one of the largest— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 37 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Groom Electorate: Hope Horizons 37 13:30 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Our community will be celebrating the opening of the new premises for Hope Horizons, the Jenny Black Cancer Wellness Centre, on Saturday 6 April. This is a fantastic occasion. There are very few projects that I've seen in my community that have had such great support from locals, and I want to go through and thank a few of them. I'll start with Jo Capp, who had this driving energy behind her to make sure that this project was delivered. She's done a great job. Harvey and Jenny Black have supported this all the way through. They even increased their support to help the project overcome different obstacles. Kehoe Myers Consulting Engineers did all of the engineering for this project for free. This is a project that hopes to diminish the impact of cancer for patients by providing a holistic approach, and it's a fantastic thing to get behind. Feather & Lawry Design provided all of the architectural works for free—another local company doing great things. The people at Gather & Graze, a group of young legends trying to make our community that much better, put $300,000 towards this. The Rotary Club of Toowoomba City: $61,000. The list goes on. I will run out of time, but we've got the Lions Club, the Quilters Association, and Zonta. The Order of St John contributed over $100,000 towards this great cause, and they're going back to try and do more. This matters in our region. We are a health hub. We are a health hub not just for Toowoomba region but for western Queensland and northern New South Wales. This is where people come to get better health outcomes, and I'm so glad to see Hope Horizons leading the way. Petition: Falun Gong 38 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin by leave—I present a petition with 22,470 signatures calling for the end of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The petition states that Falun Gong is a peaceful meditation practice based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and forbearance and that, since July 1999, millions of Falun Gong practitioners in China have been fired, jailed, tortured or killed. In particular, the petition calls on the Australian government to: firstly, pass a motion or statement to openly request an immediate end to the 20-year persecution of Falun Gong in China and the immediate release of all Falun Gong practitioners and other prisoners of conscience; secondly, urge China to immediately end the practice of organ harvesting from all prisoners of conscience and conduct a thorough public education campaign to ensure Australians do not unknowingly participate in forced organ harvesting in China; and, thirdly, deny visas and bar entry to Chinese officials and policemen who are involved in the persecution of Falun Gong. I ask for the petition to be referred to the Petitions Committee for their consideration. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That will happen. Renewable Energy 38 13:33 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Destructive, dangerous, ugly. I was hoping the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water would be able to tell our community something more about Labor's planned Mandurah offshore wind farm proposal. A proposal to lock up almost 8,000 square kilometres off our coast for what could be one of the world's largest wind farms—an area that stretches from Mandurah to Dunsborough. The reports I've heard from consultations in Mandurah last week have done nothing to alleviate the concerns of locals. Last week's so-called consultation in Mandurah was nothing short of a charade. It was a tiny attempt to pacify my community while advancing the corporate interests of wealthy activist investors. Locals were even told by representatives of a massive energy company which stands to profit from this project that my opposition is 'interfering with democracy'. They don't want the truth out there, that the stunning beauty of our coastline will be damaged and compromised, and the massive wind towers and blades will make our ocean will look like a scene out of a dystopian science fiction movie. There are massive sunk costs with this wind farm, which will be paid for by Australian families and business, and it will increase our energy dependence on a foreign power. We are not a laboratory for Labor's radical energy policies or the vested interests of crony capitalists. This is our home, it's our region, and we will protect it. Werriwa Electorate: St Rafqa Maronite Church 38 13:34 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Yesterday I was honoured to be invited to the observance of Hosanna mass for Palm Sunday at the parish of St Rafqa in Austral. The service was conducted by Bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay, Father Sarkis and other clergy. It was a very large and very welcoming congregation, and I was overwhelmed by the welcome, support and love from everyone. In December 2008, in response to the growing population in Austral, the parish purchased a three-acre block land to build St Rafqa's church. The congregation is currently housed in the building adjacent to the church, which is under construction. The parish is home to more than 800 local families, with ties to other churches in the area. St Rafqa's has a thriving youth group which assists in the organisation of events at the church. The church also provides Arabic language classes for up to 100 children every week. The youth leaders tell me they spent many hours preparing for yesterday's wonderful service and the feast afterwards. I was privileged to be invited to the lunch, which in true Lebanese tradition was bountiful and delicious. Thank you to all the volunteers who are working tirelessly in this church's community. Thank you so much for your invitation and the opportunity to speak with Bishop Tarabay and many members of the congregation. It was a wonderful day, and I enjoyed my time sharing with the community. Microplastics 38 13:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark ():  There is growing concern about the impacts of microplastics in our waters, and rightly so, I say, considering the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates about 14 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans yearly, comprising 80 per cent of all marine debris. The result, for a start, is that marine species often ingest or are entangled by plastic debris, causing severe injuries and death, and that the pollution threatens food safety and quality, human health and coastal tourism. Indeed, a report released this year by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation shows that consuming microplastics changes the behaviour, hormone levels, growth, reproduction and life expectancy of over 90 per cent of the studied fish, crustaceans and molluscs. In Tasmania, the aquaculture industry in particular is a major contributor to plastic and microplastic pollution. Indeed, our shores are littered with plastic pollution from the salmon industry. Meanwhile, even more lies beneath the water, with plastic eventually breaking down into bite-sized bits. Yet in Tasmania microplastics are not regulated in any way, which is illustrative of Australia's naivety in understanding and combating marine plastic and microplastic pollution. There is a need to explore new and enhanced legally binding agreements to address this, and I call on the federal government to address the problem now. Wills Electorate: Shop225 39 13:37 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My electorate of Wills is blessed to be home to some of the best food in Melbourne, which means the best food in Australia and in the world. So we're spoilt for choice, with so many amazing local businesses. It's always good to have your beliefs validated, though, and I'm glad that 50 Top Pizza, the first guide to the world's best pizzerias, has done that. I want to extend my congratulations to Pascoe Vale's own Shop225 for being named one of the top three pizza shops in Melbourne and one of the top 10 in Australia. For those who've enjoyed a pizza at Shop225, it won't come as surprising news. Their commitment to quality ingredients and authentic Italian flavours shines through the whole menu. I think it's even more impressive that it's the first pizza shop accredited in the whole of Australia accredited by Coeliac Australia. They've elevated gluten-free pizza, making it into an art form, and managed to cater to everyone's dietary requirements while still keeping a hold of their true Italian roots. In doing so, they've led the way for many more restaurants to follow in their gluten-free footsteps. To achieve such recognition in a city as culinarily competitive and diverse and as Melbourne speaks volumes about Shop225's iconic status in my local electorate. So to Lorenzo, Roberto and the entire team at Shop225: congratulazione. Once again, here's to many more years of success, growth and delicious food shared among family and friends. Australian Greens 39 13:38 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan ():  Right around the country, there's a second Green wave, and the major parties are on notice. The Greens have had astounding success in the Brisbane local government elections, the Tasmanian state election and the Dunstan by-election in South Australia, with massive swings right across the board. People are demanding change, and the major parties can't seem to keep up. People are choosing between paying rent, affording medication and putting food on the table. Their dreams of owning a home or paying off their HECS debt are so far out of reach. You only have to look at the groundswell of support for the Greens in these elections to see that people want solutions that tackle the heart of the problems they're facing. In Dunstan, the Greens polled 22 per cent of the primary vote, with a massive 8.3 per cent swing. In Tasmania, while counting continues, we're on track to double our representation. I'm so proud of the candidates, their volunteers and all who give up countless hours of their time to build our movement. It's thanks to you that we're building the pressure on Labor and the Liberals with every election. Major parties can't claim to represent the majority when they just aren't getting the votes. They need to listen to the Greens and make the changes voters desperately need—freeze rent, drive down the cost of living, wipe HECS debts and get mental and dental into Medicare. If they won't listen and won't put forward these solutions, then I say this: bring on the next federal election. Easter 39 13:40 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Easter is a time of reflection, a renewal, for many across my electorate and across Australia. It is a time when we pause to remember the profound love and compassion that he showed to all regardless of their place in life. During this time, we remember and honour the ultimate sacrifice made by Jesus Christ and the boundless love that transcends time and space. But Easter is not just a religious observance. It is a universal message of hope that transcends boundaries and beliefs. It is a reminder that even in our darkest moments there is always a promise of a new beginning, a chance to rise above adversity and embrace the possibilities of tomorrow. As we navigate the challenges and uncertainties of our time, let us draw strength from the message of Easter, a message of resilience, courage and unwavering faith. Let us remember those who are less fortunate, those who are marginalised and oppressed, and let us strive to build a society that is inclusive, just and compassionate. From my family to yours, I would like to wish everyone a happy and blessed Easter. Acott, Mr Warren 40 13:41 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to speak about an incredible Australian man named Warren 'Woz' Acott. Woz has been a truck driver for about 40 years in rural Victoria, but last year, aged 66, he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease, as I've spoken about many times, is a neurological disease. The nerves become damaged and start to die. In the majority of cases the cause of MND is unknown. There is currently no cure, and life expectancy is approximately two to three years from diagnosis. I am advised prevalence is increasing. Not content to sit around, Woz got on his ride-on lawnmower and rode 800 kilometres from Toolleen, Victoria, all the way to Parliament House up the front lawn to raise awareness for people suffering with MND across Australia. It was a real privilege to welcome Woz last week as he crossed the finish line in front of his family, friends, locals, people living with MND and their carers on the front lawns of parliament. And I want to thank Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for meeting with Woz, his carers and other people living with MND and putting his support behind this great cause. I am co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of MND, along with Senator Carol Brown, and we are fighting to improve the lives of people with MND and to listen to the community about making MND a notifiable disease. There's a petition going at the moment. I'd encourage each and every one of you to get behind this important cause out there in Australia. I want to thank Woz and his family in particular for his determination, strength and sheer guts riding a lawnmower 800 kilometres with MND. Thank you, Woz, for everything you have done. Greek Independence Day 40 13:43 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Today, being 25 March, marks Greek Independence Day. I extend to all Greek Australians in my electorate and throughout Australia and, of course, throughout the world: Xronia Polla, or Happy Independence Day. It's a significant event, celebrated by Greeks all over the world, wherever they are today, including by all in the Greek Australian community all over Australia and in my electorate. On the weekend, I attended celebrations held in Adelaide. On Saturday, I attended the wreath laying ceremony hosted by the Messinian Association and supported by the West Torrens council. Yesterday, we started off the day with a church service at the Greek Orthodox Archiepiscopal Church of Saint Sophia in Bowden, which was officiated by Bishop Silouan, followed by a wreath laying ceremony at the North Terrace War Memorial, which was attended by all the Greek associations and all the Greek churches, including Premier Peter Malinauskas, Minister Tom Koutsantonis and Minister Andrea Michaels, and of course representatives from the defence forces—the Army, Air Force and Navy. Greek Independence Day is also an opportunity to reflect on the proud history and heritage of Greece. Across generations, Greek people have found a new home in Australia, weaving their faith, language and culture into our nation's story. Today, on Greek Independence Day, it's an opportunity to thank all Greek Australians for their hard work and generosity as we join with the people of Greece in celebrating. (Time expired) Whitton, Ms Lisa, Camp Quality, Grafton Tour de Cure 40 13:44 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to congratulate and thank Lisa Whitton from Grafton on her recent retirement after 42 years working at Coles, and for her nearly 30 years of volunteering service at Camp Quality in Northern Rivers. Lisa was an incredibly positive member of Grafton Coles who will be certainly missed in her retirement. Lisa also recently received the Northern New South Wales Gillard Award for her incredible years of service at the children's cancer research charity, Camp Quality. She has built strong connections to promote Camp Quality, while also helping to bring in more advocates to make a difference to the next generation of Camp Quality kids. Lisa plans to spend more time in her retirement with family and to volunteer at Camp Quality. I wish you well in your retirement, Lisa. I'd also like to acknowledge and congratulate members of the Grafton Tour de Cure. Mark Hackett, Peter Grainger and Jon and Keaton Ingram began their tour in Hobart and finished, over 1,400 kilometres away, in Adelaide. For a total of nine days, the Grafton Gang team rode between 120 and 180 kilometres each day, raising an amazing $43,480. The Grafton team's funds will go towards Tour de Cure's annual grant round. In addition, the team donated $10,000 to a local charity in each town they stayed at, with money going towards the care of local cancer patients. Thank you to Mark, Jon and Keaton and Peter on your incredible cycling journey and your contribution to cancer research. Haydn, Ms Tania 41 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge Gosford Woman of the Year nominee Tania Haydn for her continued dedication to our Central Coast community and, in particular, the Woy Woy Peninsula Community Garden. Tania has been involved in the Woy Woy community garden for the past 12 years, ensuring that it remains a place for residents of the peninsula to meet, grow nutritious vegetables and fruits, and cultivate produce to sell and generate funds to reinvest back into the garden. For many years, the Woy Woy community garden struggled with antisocial behaviour and damage to its property which diminished the appeal of the garden. Since Tania's involvement, as well as with the help of other dedicated community members, they have been able to turn around this set of circumstances. The Woy Woy community garden is now thriving. It is proving so popular that volunteers have to be placed on a waiting list to get involved. I'm also told that they have recently signed a 10-year lease with the Central Coast Council, which will ensure the garden's continued custodianship of the property in Moana Street, Woy Woy. I would like to congratulate the Woy Woy community garden itself on becoming incorporated. That will allow the organisation to apply for grants and to help them further strengthen, prosper and become more resilient as time goes on. Finally, Tania also dedicates her time to the Rural Fire Service and has assisted St Vincent de Paul within the region on the Central Coast. Again, thank you, Tania, for all the amazing work that you do for our Central Coast family. Easter 41 13:47 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie With Palm Sunday yesterday and Good Friday and Easter Sunday coming up at the end of this week, we are reminded of the significance of Easter: a time of reflection, forgiveness, renewal and hope. The story of Easter is one of profound transformation and redemption. It is a reminder that, even in our tough times, there is always the promise of a new beginning. Just as the resurrection of Jesus Christ brought hope to the world, we too can find hope in our collective efforts to address the challenges we are facing in our nation and world. Within my electorate of Petrie, there are numerous faith based groups serving the community, from the thousands of food hampers and food banks providing daily for those facing financial hardship, to the work of the Love Army going out to assist those in need of support by selfless acts of service, volunteering their time. These people of faith are selflessly serving the community, to extend hope and help to those in need. Quite simply, without these acts of service and care from Christian churches within our communities, there would be many left in despair and without the assistance they so desperately need. In the spirit of Easter, let us strive to build a society where every individual is valued, forgiven and respected. And let's never forget that we are blessed and fortunate to live in a country with our strong Christian foundation and the freedom to express our religious beliefs. This is a freedom worth protecting. I wish all in this House and especially all the people of Petrie a very blessed Easter. Taxation 41 13:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean One of the best ways to ensure workers can deal with cost-of-living pressures is to ensure that they earn enough to provide for their loved ones and to get ahead—not one or the other. This is how the social contract should work. That's why the Albanese government will argue for the Fair Work Commission to deliver an increase to minimum wages, in line with the rate of inflation, on top of the historic increases delivered in 2023. We don't sit on our hands. This is in line with our broader economic plan to help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is why we're focused on delivering strong and sustainable wage growth, and it's also why we're giving a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer on 1 July this year. Labor's tax cuts will be good for Middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. This government does not believe Australians should just be surviving on their incomes. We on this side want Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn, which is why we're supporting cost-of-living increases in the Fair Work Commission wage case. New England Electorate: Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales Awards, New England Electorate: Renewable Energy 41 13:50 Mr JOYCE e5d New England At the Royal Easter Show, I'd like to say a big hello, welcome and congratulations to Tycolah hereford stud, who got the supreme hereford award; to Michael Purtle, who I often bump into when I'm at the saleyards buying and selling cattle and Justin Oakenfull, who won the young auctioneers awards; to Dominique Wise from Tamworth High School, who won the Land royal ag show young woman of the year; and to Rob Hayward, our favourite bagpipe-playing veterinarian, who won the royal ag show youth medal. But, unfortunately, at the same time, we have the dichotomy of the swindle factories—the swindle factories otherwise known as wind farms. Why do they call them farms? Gosh only knows. They don't produce fruit; they don't produce grain; they don't produce meat. They produce the filth of transmission lines. At the same time, they're talking about the price of power being forced up by poles and wires. The Labor Party are going to build another 26,000 kilometres of poles and wires. They're building them all over our countryside; all over New England. We have no right to this being forced on us. We need a Senate inquiry so the Australian people have a better understanding of exactly what they're doing to us. We have to have the people in the city understand this. We're going to go to Dee Why; we're going to have a seminar there. Make sure that you clearly understand—if you want to stand up for regional people, stand up against the 'swindle farms'. Multiple Births Awareness Week 42 13:52 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Last week was Multiple Births Awareness Week. Over the weekend, I attended two SA multiple births association playgroups, and last Thursday we welcomed the Australian Multiple Birth Association, with lots of little twinnies and triplets and their parents, to Parliament House for playgroup, to celebrate the association's 50th anniversary and also to launch their new report, Multiples unfiltered. In Australia, 1.4 per cent of pregnancies result in a multiple birth—98 per cent of those in twins and the remaining two per cent in triplets or more. Twenty-four years ago I had one of those pregnancies, resulting in my triplet boys. Families of multiples face a number of challenges. Pregnancies are often high risk and can result in long hospital admissions pre birth. Births are often premature, resulting in long hospital stays for the babies. Much of your parental leave can be used up before you've even got them home. Finding multiple childcare places, at the same place, at the same time so you can return to work is also difficult. Consequently, mothers often return to work much later than singletons. You need to buy multiple cots, multiple car seats—multiple everything. There are no hand-me-downs; you need them all at the same time. The birth of multiple babies can be an absolutely joyous time for the whole family, albeit an exhausting and sleep deprived time. But these families do face specific challenges, and I'd encourage members to download the report from the association's website and give it a read. Capricornia Electorate: Health Care 42 13:53 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Central Queenslanders have once again been duped by the Queensland state Labor government into believing that they are finally getting access to vital health infrastructure. Currently, those who are undergoing cancer treatment or require diagnosis of brain and heart conditions are required to make a seven-hour round trip to Bundaberg or Mackay to undertake crucial PET-CT scans. The state assistant minister for health declared a PET-CT scanner 'not a priority' for the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service catchment area, which encompasses 230,000 people. Nearly 2,000 signatures and weeks of public outcry finally forced Labor's hand on a PET scanner for Rockhampton. But let's be clear: their announcement feels like an empty promise. It's a classic Labor move—all talk and no action. We were initially hopeful when the government announced a PET scanner for Rockhampton, but here's the catch: it won't be here for three years. A private provider has a scanner ready to go, but the government says no and instead offers an empty promise three years down the road. That's not good enough. We need this machine now, not in 2027. Over 1,400 Central Queenslanders are diagnosed with cancer each year. Many of them need multiple PET CT scans throughout their treatment. Central Queenslanders deserve better than waiting years for this vital healthcare service. They deserve a government that prioritises their health and delivers real solutions, not just empty announcements. Swan Electorate: Wages 42 13:55 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Money matters, wages matter, earning more matters and keeping more of what you earn matters. That's what matters in my electorate of Swan, and that's what matters to the Albanese Labor government. Cost-of-living pressures impact people on the lowest incomes, like the young student from my electorate who's been using his savings to get through uni and been borrowing money from his mother, or the young woman who contacted me who's been struggling with cost-of-living pressures, or the young man that I know who's been working in hospitality, struggling to make ends meet. We want to back wage growth, not wage cuts, especially for our lowest-paid workers. That's why we've asked the Fair Work Commission to raise the minimum wage in line with inflation. We're backing workers and we're backing worker wages. Our economic plan put forward by this government is working, and the Treasurer, with his financial acumen and strategic vision, is delivering on our economic future for our nation. Unemployment is down, inflation is down, jobs are up and wages are up. And there are tax cuts for every taxpayer, with bigger tax cuts for 77,000 people in Swan and bigger tax cuts for 600,000 women in WA—another act towards closing the gender pay gap. Farrer Electorate: Local Government 43 13:56 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise on behalf of local councils in my electorate of Farrer. For well over a year now, my mayors and general managers have been patiently waiting for the promised increases in local government funding. And when did the Albanese government make this promise? Before the 2022 federal election. For most of that time I've also been privately warning local government that Labor's delays and reviews of the coalition's regional development funding was blatant evidence of cost shifting back on to local ratepayers. Last November the local government minister told the Commonwealth Grants Commission, 'I really want to see councils front and centre of so many services.' By February it was a vastly different tune: 'Councils are doing it incredibly tough. It's a harsh reality that services might need to reduce.' And that is true. My councils are crying out for urgent assistance from this government. So what did they get last week? Another Labor government review. On Friday afternoon the minister welcomed a parliamentary inquiry into local government sustainability. Of course she welcomed it; she was the one who asked for it. And here's the kicker: the Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport won't even look at this until after the May budget. Here we are, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, with Labor cuts to councils falling back on family budgets and ratepayers forced to fund the gaps in demand for new infrastructure, maintenance and critical services. Those opposite should be ashamed. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. Liberal Party of Australia 43 13:58 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Vicky Pollard is one of the great figures of modern British satire. You've all heard her: 'Yeah, but no, but yeah.' It's far more clever than people give Vicky credit for because she indicates initial assent—that's the 'yeah'—but then gives herself wiggle room and doesn't overcommit—that's the 'but no'. The opposition is like the reverse Vicky Pollard, but, unlike Vicky, they don't start with 'yes'; they start with 'no'. For the opposition, it's, 'No, but yeah, but no.' This is the opposition's attempt to start negative but then claim that, all along, they were actually in favour of what it is that actually works. Let's think of the tax cuts. What was their initial response to our revamped tax cuts? 'No.' But when it came to the vote, what was it? 'No, but yeah.' Let's think about real wages. A $1 increase in the minimum wage? 'No.' An increase of 15 per cent for aged-care workers? 'No.' Closing loopholes? 'Double no.' But when it came to coming in every day and complaining that real wages aren't high enough, that's the 'yeah' bit—but that comes after all the 'no' votes. At least Vicky Pollard is likable and relatable. When you hear the 'yeah' from the opposition, it follows a whole series of noes. It's the noes people should take into account when they're thinking about how those opposite think and, most importantly, how they act. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 43 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 43 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time this week. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. I'm sure that, on behalf of all the parliament, I congratulate Stephen and Brooke on their marriage on Saturday, and wish them a very happy life together. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 43 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 43 14:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Given the unprecedented amount of violence in Indigenous communities following the government's withdrawal of the cashless debit card, what actions has the minister taken to restore order and protect vulnerable women and children? How much of the $250 million package for Central Australia announced by the minister in February 2023 has been spent—and on what? 14:00 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for her question. I remind her that the cashless debit card is not in Central Australia. It has never been in Central Australia. The money that was allocated for Central Australia was $250 million—there is $38 million unspent. I met with the leadership group in Central Australia just two weeks ago and spoke to them and what their priorities were in terms of the expenditure of that money. They are very keen to see resources go into young people, and they are also very keen to see resources go into some of the smaller communities around Central Australia. The investment of that $250 million is running very smoothly and, as I reported to the House several weeks ago, it has been spent in terms of youth services. When we first came into government, all the youth services were about to fall off a cliff— Ms Ley 00AMN Rubbish! Ms BURNEY 8GH It's not rubbish. We spent $20 million on propping up those youth services. We've also invested into family violence centres. We've made major investments in health, particularly in relation to the diagnosis of things like foetal alcohol syndrome and other neurological issues. That is proving very resourceful. We spoke just last week to the Northern Territory leader in relation to the rollout of law and order in Central Australia. Finally, the announcements that were made last week by the Prime Minister go very much to the heart of this—an additional $4 billion of housing for the Northern Territory, which will have enormous roll-on effects in terms of child safety and child participation at school. The Minister for Education made a major investment in terms of education—a billion-dollar commitment to getting the schools up to the Gonski standards in the Northern Territory, which was going to take until 2050, but will now happen in the next year or two. The other thing is that we are in very close liaison and contact with people— (Time expired) Wages 44 14:03 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. After a decade of deliberate wage stagnation, how is the Albanese Labor government helping to get wages moving? What has been the response? 14:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Dunkley for that question. With that question about wages, the member for Dunkley, on her fifth day here, has now asked more questions about wages than the entire opposition this term. Don't pretend you can care about cost of living if you want people's wages held back. We've now had three quarters of real wage growth in this country. People have now turned a corner, but it will take some time before they really feel they're getting in front. That's because those three quarters followed a decade of wage stagnation, which was a deliberate design feature of how those opposite managed the economy. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW Today we've announced the key content of the government's submission to the annual wage review—that low-paid workers in Australia should not be going backwards when compared with inflation. Now, it's not the first time there's been a discussion on this particular point. It's something that was raised during the election campaign, when the question was asked, 'Should people on low wages be able to keep up with prices?' When those opposite were asked the question, 'Should people on low wages keep up with prices?' at first they said, 'That would be reckless.' Then they were asked, 'Should people on low wages be able to keep up with the prices?' and then they said, 'That would be dangerous.' When this Prime Minister was asked, 'Should people on low wages be able to keep up with prices?' it was a one-word answer: 'Absolutely.' As a result of that, people on the minimum wage in Australia are now earning $110 a week more than they were earning when we came to government, and soon those same workers will get a tax cut of $827. For those workers—like for all Australians under the Albanese Labor government—we're making sure that they'll earn more and that they'll keep more of what they earn. The response wasn't only during the election campaign, from those saying this was a bad idea. Only this morning the member for New England was there describing it as 'Window-dressing'—window-dressing—'for people on low wages.' I invite the member for New England to tell an early childhood worker that now earning $95 a week more is just window-dressing. Tell them that getting a tax cut of $1,000 a year is just window-dressing. Try telling a cleaner, who now earns $100 a week more because of the approach this government's taken to the annual wage review, that their pay rise is just window-dressing or their tax cut of more than $1,000 a year is just window-dressing. Those opposite want people to work longer for less. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Cybersafety 45 14:07 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer to the disturbing trend of people posting videos to social media that glorify crime, including examples of thugs invading people's homes at night and terrified occupants being confronted and accosted by these criminals. Will the government support the coalition's bill that creates common-law criminal penalties for posting these videos and expands the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to deal with them? If not, is that because the government believes that no action needs to be taken by the Commonwealth? 14:07 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for his question on a very important issue, because, of course, the top priority of this government is keeping Australians safe. That includes two limbs: firstly, in relation to law enforcement authorities within states and territories, but also obviously at a Commonwealth level—but also in terms of the online environment—what governments, industry, regulators, and civil society do in order to keep Australians safe online. On that point, I was very pleased on Friday to visit Riverbank Public School in my electorate, where the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, thanks to $6 million allocated by this government, is able to roll out a suite of tools in order to equip young people to be aware for the online environment. But, of course, the government shares concerns that young offenders are using social media to spruik their criminal activities online. Whilst we will consider the private member's bill introduced today, I want to be clear to the House about some of the powers that exist under the Online Safety Act, which came into force under those opposite when in government. The Online Safety Act already provides the eSafety Commissioner with powers to require the removal of material that would be refused classification in Australia—so, RC—including material that promotes, incites or instructs people in crime or violence. Furthermore, there are longstanding provisions in the Telecommunications Act and in the Criminal Code that specifically criminalise the use of a carriage service, including by devices such as computers or mobile phones, to post menacing, harassing or offensive content. I do point out the role of eSafety in this regard, and eSafety has established relationships and procedures with law enforcement agencies and social media platforms. What this has done is to enable a very efficient means of removing and referring concerning content, to limit its spread and to protect victims. I understand from the eSafety Commissioner that the platforms are very responsive to law enforcement requests for their removal under this protocol. The government recognises the need to ensure our online safety framework remains fit for purpose and is able to respond to new and emerging harms. That's why we have brought forward the independent review of the Online Safety Act, although it's only been in force for a couple of years. We know that these new and emerging harms are occurring right now. Ms Delia Rickard is reporting to the government later this year. We're undertaking that review. It will be a broad-ranging examination of the effectiveness of the act, and it will consider the adequacy of the commissioner's power to remove harmful material. Wages 45 14:10 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government getting wages moving again in our economy, and what approaches have been rejected? 14:11 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Corangamite for all of her hard work and for her great question as well. This Albanese Labor government's focus this week and every week is helping to ensure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is the primary motivation behind the tax cuts which will come in for every taxpayer from 1 July, and it's the primary motivation behind the submission that Minister Burke and I will make to the Fair Work Commission on Thursday. We are the party of working people. We support Australians on the minimum wage. We know that wages growth is best when it's bottom-up and not just top-down. We back people who work hard and provide for their loved ones and who just want to get ahead. Mr Taylor 231027 Wages are down 7½ per cent. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 This is our reason for being: to feed and fuel aspiration right up and down the income scale, not the limiting and exclusive and elitist view that those opposite take about aspiration, which says you can only be aspirational in Australia if you've already made it. We know that people are under pressure and, as the member for Swan was saying in her great contribution a moment ago, we know that cost-of-living pressures disproportionately impact people on the lowest incomes. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We know from the data that we'll get later in the week, in the monthly CPI, that people are still under cost-of-living pressure. We also know that one of the most effective ways that we can deal with cost-of-living pressures in our economy and in our communities is to get wages moving again. But this is not the only way that we can go about it. We're rolling out tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief. We've got the tax cuts for every taxpayer from 1 July. We see these important cost-of-living measures as in addition to, not instead of, a decent pay rise for Australia's minimum-wage workers. Partly because of our plan, we've got a trifecta at the moment of falling unemployment last week, moderating inflation, and real wages growth for the first time in years. A big reason why we've got real wages growth is the approach that we have taken to the minimum wage. Our approach is very different to theirs, it must be said. For a decade, a deliberate design feature of their economic policy was to keep wages low. That's why we had stagnant wages for the best part of a decade; that's why we had real wages falling 3.4 per cent when we came to office; that's why wages growth, on average, under them was half of what it is now, under us; and it's why workers earning less than 45 grand didn't get a look-in in their stage 3 tax cuts. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite want people working longer for less. The difference is very, very clear. You'll see it in our submission to the Fair Work Commission. We are here for working people. Those opposite never were, and they never will be. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 46 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Clark, Rt Hon. Helen, Parke, Hon. Melissa, Sullivan, Mr Jimmy, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 46 14:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Rt Hon. Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and UNDP administrator. We have Melissa Parke, the former member and minister, as well as Jimmy Sullivan, a state member from Queensland. I'd also like to welcome representatives from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. On behalf of the House, welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Lobbying of Parliamentarians 46 14:14 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is to the Attorney-General. At the National Press Club on 12 October 2022, you said that you would work hard to ensure that there is 'as much transparency as possible', specifically around ministerial diaries. My 'Clean Up Politics Act' would require publication of all ministerial diaries for all Australians to see. Why won't you support my Clean Up Politics Act? 14:15 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I do thank the member for Kooyong for her question. Our government is, as she indicated in the preamble to her question, completely committed to accountability and completely committed to integrity. That's why we have reformed the administrative review system. But when it comes to the suggestion that there should be some blanket categorisation under the Freedom of Information Act where any category of document is automatically available, we don't accept that position. There should be a series of exemptions which are to be considered by decision-makers when requests are made for the release of government documents. Those exemptions are set out in great detail in the Freedom of Information Act. They have served Australia well and will continue to do so. I repeat: we are not in favour of any kind of blanket categorisation of documents that are automatically available. Cost of Living 46 14:16 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government tackling the cost-of-living pressures Australian families are facing, and what has been the response? 14:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thank you very much to the member for that question. Indeed, taking action on cost of living is of course this government's No. 1 priority. We understand that people are under pressure and we're acting to provide relief. We're doing that in three ways. One is getting costs down for families through policies like cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, energy bill relief, fee-free TAFE—all of those measures. Secondly, we're getting wages up for workers—something that those opposite opposed. They wanted, of course, low wages to be a key feature of their economic architecture. The third, of course, is getting the budget onto a stronger foundation, producing, under this Treasurer, the first surplus in 15 years— Mr Taylor 231027 Costs are going up. The SPEAKER 53517 The members for Hume and Page will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 a $100 billion turnaround in just one year. After a decade of flat wages, it is a good thing that real wages have increased for three quarters in a row—three consecutive quarters of real wage growth. Those opposite, of course, will once again oppose any increase in the minimum wage. Well, that's not this government's position. The government's position is that people who are on the minimum wage shouldn't fall behind, and our submission this week will be consistent with that. When, during the election campaign, as the minister said, I was asked, 'Should lower-paid workers keep up with the pace of inflation?' I answered in a single word: 'Absolutely.' What those opposite did was run a campaign for about five days saying that the sky would fall in, the economy would collapse, whereas what we are actually seeing is real wages increasing and inflation moderating at the same time, as is unemployment, of course. They had other figures they hated last week when unemployment hit 3.7 per cent. It's not just about the wages that people earn. We want people to earn higher wages, but we want people to keep more of what they earn. That is what our tax cuts on 1 July will do. For people on those low minimum wages—all 13.6 million of them—there'll be $800 more in their pocket as a result of this government's policy. Under those opposite, they would have got nothing. This morning Senator Hume—in a battle of the economic titans between Senator Hume and the member for Hume—was out there criticising us, saying, 'The Labor government wants minimum wages to go higher as a cost-of-living measure.' You bet we do! Energy 47 14:19 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Cafe owner Natalie Siegele in my electorate of Barker is at breaking point. She said, 'It's the worst it's been in my whole seven years of running the business.' The minister repeatedly promised to cut prices by $275 a year, but in fact energy bills for South Australian businesses are up $1,288. Why are Australian families facing higher prices and fewer choices because of this government's failed energy policy? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Lyons and the Treasurer will not interject before the minister speaks. It's the same rule for both sides. If that continues, people will leave the chamber. It is highly disorderly to interject when a member is not shown respect in asking a question, and equally before a minister speaks. If that continues, people will be warned and they will leave. 14:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question. I would have thought the honourable member would have welcomed the announcement last week by the Australian Energy Regulator that the regulated price or default market offer for small businesses in South Australia would fall by 8.2 per cent. Now, that is welcome news. It's not always the way a default market offer goes, because there was a default market offer in 2022 which showed not a fall in energy prices for small businesses in South Australia but a 5.7 per cent increase for small businesses in South Australia. But, to be fair to the honourable member, nobody knew. That was the effective policy of the government of the day: to keep it secret—to change the law so that nobody knew. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS It was a pretty cunning plan—a very cunning plan by the member for Hume to deal with higher energy prices by keeping them secret. We, on the other hand, have been working to put in place coal and gas price caps to see prices come down, which the member for Barker and all his mates opposed and voted against, along with the energy bill relief that was in the Treasurer's budget for families and small businesses. So they actually voted for higher prices. They actually came into the parliament and argued for policies which would have stopped the 8.2 per cent reduction in energy bills for South Australian small businesses. I imagine that we're going to have quite a debate about energy bills between now and the next election, because government policy is very important when it comes to energy bills. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax is warned. Mr BOWEN DZS Government policies can have an impact on energy bills—like, for example, if a government chose to bring in the most expensive form of energy available, which would be nuclear energy. We've seen the opposition drop their small modular reactor policy. We saw the small modular reactor— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has interjected about 20 times so far during question time, so he's going to cease interjecting—he's had a very good go—so I can hear from the member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance. Natalie wants to know when she's going to get her— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Tehan 210911 That was the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The question wasn't that. The question was: why are Australians facing higher energy prices? Natalie was mentioned as part of the question. So that's the question. It's not correct to get up and simply say what you'd like to say. The minister is dealing with the end part of the question. He's obviously disagreeing with that part of the question, and he's going to answer it accordingly, I assume. Mr BOWEN DZS Well spotted, Mr Speaker. They've dropped their small modular reactor policy in the face of a 70 per cent cost increase for the only small modular reactor under development in the world, NuScale, to A$14 billion for one nuclear reactor. So now they're going with large nuclear reactor policy—six of them around the country. But the poster child for large nuclear reactors is Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom, which has just come in at A$86 billion. That's their genius policy to put downward pressure on power prices. Today the Leader of the National Party was claiming, on Sky News, that nuclear policy would see bills go down—at $86 billion a pop for one reactor, and they want six. Let's bring on the debate. Defence Procurement: Submarines 48 14:24 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing the delivery of AUKUS submarines, and how does this compare to other approaches? 14:25 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question, and I acknowledge his service. On Friday, along with the US and the UK, the government announced the sovereign submarine partnership, which will see a joint venture established between ASC and BAE to build Australia's future nuclear-powered submarines at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide. This will be one of the biggest industrial undertakings in our country's history. At its peak, we will see 4,000 to 5,000 people engaged in the construction of those submarines. It is a unique arrangement which is designed to maximise the presence of ASC and, with it, the voice of the Australian government and, of course, the Australian people in this project. ASC has also been appointed to sustain submarines in Western Australia as part of the Submarine Rotational Force West. Through to the 2050s it is expected that $30 billion will be spent on uplifting Australia's industrial base to enable this happen. There is also a commitment of 2.4 billion pounds over the next 10 years to expand the Rolls-Royce facility in Derby in the UK, which is where the nuclear reactors will be built for Australia's future submarines. Already there are parts being fabricated there which will find their way on to the very first of those submarines which will be rolling off the production line at Osborne in the early 2040s. This is a really positive announcement which is demonstrating, once again, that AUKUS is happening and progressing well. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! Mr MARLES HWQ As usual, those opposite cannot avoid playing politics. To be clear, all the money that has been described over the course of the last few days is fully provided for in the allocation which was part of the original AUKUS announcement last year. This government is increasing defence spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP over the course of the next 10 years. By contrast, the position of those opposite is to limit defence spending to 2.1 per cent of GDP. They cannot be taken seriously on the question of spending on defence when their position is to cut tens of billions of dollars from the defence budget. While they are spinning their wheels, we've got our shoulder to the wheel to deliver Australia's future nuclear-powered submarines to keep Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher has been continually interjecting all throughout question time. He is now warned. Energy 49 14:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised on 100 occasions to the Australian people before the election that he would cut power prices by $275. He's never mentioned that figure since. At the moment 500 families a week are going onto energy hardship arrangements because they can't pay their bills—a nearly 60 per cent increase on Labor's watch. Will the Prime Minister apologise to these struggling families? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Of course, he was a part of a government that had 22 policies but didn't land one. Four gigawatts out; one gigawatt in. Indeed, he might want to talk to his deputy, who said that the current energy crisis is not one that has been created 'since they arrived in power'. That's what she had to say. Others, of course, have commented similarly about the reality which is the mess that they left for us. They left Australia with a national energy grid built for the last century. They changed the law, as we heard earlier today, to hide the energy price hike before the election. They actually hid the energy price hike. They concealed, from the public and the energy market, construction delays and the hefty cost blowouts on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. In 2019, they promised to reduce the wholesale electricity price to less than $70 per megawatt hour by the end of 2021. Instead, it was $286— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Leader of the Opposition, continually yelling at me has never happened before from the role of the Leader of the Opposition. It's got to stop. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take a point of order, he shall always receive the call. That is the appropriate way, rather than simply yelling at me. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI The point of order is relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a very tight question. There are families who just can't work out how they will pay their bills under this government at the moment, and we get this glib response from the Prime Minister. I ask whether it's your ruling that the Prime Minister is relevant to the question that he's been asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The point of order was raised on relevance. The Prime Minister at this stage is being relevant, but I'm going to make sure, given that he's provided context around the question and is halfway through—whilst he's setting the scene for why this situation is, the question was: will he apologise to Australian families? That's the question. That's the question that he's answering. I'm just going to ask him to be relevant for the remainder of his answer. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, so that we're clear, is it your direction—is it your ruling— Mr Dreyfus HWG We are clear. You're making a speech. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General is warned. Mr Dutton 00AKI Just so that we're clear, is it your ruling that the Prime Minister is in order and that he is relevant to the question? The SPEAKER 53517 I've answered that. Mr Dutton 00AKI But that is your ruling? The SPEAKER 53517 I've answered that, and I've also asked the Prime Minister—given he is answering the question about whether he will apologise to Australian families, which I appreciate that members perhaps would like a yes/no answer to. But, under the standing orders, I don't have the power to compel a minister or prime minister to answer the question. I'm just going to ensure, for the remainder of the answer, that the Prime Minister is directly relevant to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 I understand the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition, because he asked a question about energy prices, and they voted against energy price relief. They voted against it. We brought to this parliament a $3 billion plan that was endorsed. I sat down and negotiated it with the Liberal Premier of New South Wales,. Dominic Perrottet, and the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, as well. Every premier and chief minister supported the energy price relief plan. Those opposite voted for higher prices, and now they think the solution is the most expensive form of new energy. The Leader of the Opposition said that there were just four little outstanding issues with regard to announcing the detail of nuclear: safety, disposal cost and location. Apart from that, it's all fixed. But the shadow minister's come up with some other beauties as well. His three issues are technical feasibility, financial feasibility and community acceptability. Apart from that, it's all sweet. He can't find a single member who wants one of these nuclear reactors in their— (Time expired) Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for O'Connor will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Macarthur. Vaping 50 14:34 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to tackle vaping? Why is strong action urgently required? I thank you for your efforts. 14:34 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Macarthur for his question and interest. Last week I introduced legislation into this place that represents a precious opportunity for this parliament to do something meaningful and lasting for the health of young Australians. E-cigarettes and vapes were introduced to this country as a therapeutic good to help hardened smokers kick the habit of cigarettes. They were not presented as a recreational product, particularly not one that would be targeted and marketed to young Australians. But we now know, several years on, that that is exactly what they are. Just look at the products and look at where the vape stores set up to sell them. Nine out of 10 of them are within walking distance of our schools. What is undeniable now is that this is an insidious device from big tobacco to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction. The tragedy is: it's working. One in six high school students and one in four very young adults in this country are vaping. It is now the No. 1 behavioural issue in our schools. In and of itself, vaping is dangerous—ingesting 200 chemicals into young lungs, chemicals used to make weedkiller and nail polish remover, chemicals used to embalm dead bodies. The Dental Association told us a couple of weeks ago about an alarming rate of increase in black gum disease among 12- to 15-year-olds, which they connect to vaping. And we know it is a proven gateway to cigarettes. That is why we are so determined to stamp out this public health menace for our kids. We've already put in place new import restrictions and additional resources to the Border Force to increase their enforcement activity, and they are doing that. The bill I introduced last week will outlaw the supply, manufacture and commercial possession of vapes in this country other than for genuinely therapeutic reasons. To those who say that this amounts to prohibition, I say: it is no more prohibition than was the regulation of codeine and pseudoephedrine in recent years. Our extensive consultation around this bill showed that health experts, parent groups and school community leaders expect decisive action from this parliament. That's why so many of them would have been so troubled by the report that James Campbell wrote on the weekend that the opposition are planning to entrench vaping and then milk it to fund their election promises. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance: I'm sorry; this minister is up to his usual tricks. The question was in fact commendably tightly drafted. There is no scope for him to be referring to the opposition, and he should be directed back to the terms of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The question also asks, 'Why is strong action urgently required?' as well as the first part. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, if the standing orders are to be taken seriously, it is not sufficient to have particular pieces of code words that somehow allow ministers to range across a whole range of territory. The SPEAKER 53517 I have some sympathy for the Manager of Opposition Business, because the question included 'actions urgently required', and I think it is a bit of a stretch to completely have the answer framed around the opposition policy, so I'm just going to ask the minister to return to the question for his remaining 20 seconds. Mr BUTLER HWK Urgent action is required by this whole parliament, not action that would seek to balance the books on the basis of a highly addictive product so deliberately and obviously marketed at our kids. Energy 50 14:39 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Labor's energy policy is driving prices up and reliability down. The Australian Energy Market Operator revealed that gas generators might need to run on diesel to keep the power grid running and the lights on due to the looming catastrophic gas supply shortfall. This will add unnecessary costs to households and big users and will hinder efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. Why are Australian families facing higher prices and fewer choices because of this government's failed energy policies? 14:39 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question. He talked about the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Operator's Gas Statement of Opportunities last week. I'm not sure that he had actually read the Gas Statement of Opportunities because, if he had, he might have framed the question differently. Every Gas Statement of Opportunities since 2013 has warned of shortfalls—all of them. Every single one in every single year warned of a shortfall, from 2013 to 2022. The difference is that last week's Gas Statement of Opportunities made the point that actions of this government had seen that shortfall move to the outyears because of the Mandatory Gas Code of Conduct that has been put in place by this government. There was a vote on the gas code of conduct in the other house. The Greens moved the disallowance of the gas code of conduct, as is their wont. I didn't understand why, because the gas code of conduct actually requires new supply to be made domestic, not international. But the Greens moved that. They had support from Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Senator Babet from the Palmer United Party, a coalition of some interesting persuasions there, but they had that support. They also had Senator Canavan turn up and vote for that disallowance and the rest of the Liberal Party and the National Party stayed in their offices because they didn't want to support the gas code of conduct. The fact of the matter is that the gas code of conduct, like other policies that we've put in place—the Minister for Resources, the Minister for Industry and Science, the Treasurer and I, with the Prime Minister—have actually been dealing with the situation of gas shortages that those opposite were warned about. They promised a gas led recovery and all they did was gaslight the Australian people for nine years! Defence Industry 51 14:41 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australia's critical defence industrial base? Why is this so important after a decade of neglect? 14:41 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Blair for his question and for his interest in matters of defence— The SPEAKER 53517 Minister, your mic isn't on, so please pause for a moment while we make sure of recording and sound from broadcasting. I invite the minister to continue. Mr CONROY 249127 For the last year, the government has been pursuing the largest defence export deal in the history of Australia. I'm delighted to inform the House that last Thursday the German parliament approved the acquisition of 100 Boxer heavy-weapon carriers, to be supplied by the Australian government— A government member: Hear, hear! Mr CONROY 249127 Absolutely! They're to be made Rheinmetall in Ipswich, in the member's own electorate. As a result, I've signed a government-to-government agreement with my German counterpart to deliver these vehicles. As I said, this is the biggest defence export deal ever, worth over a billion dollars. It's supporting 600 direct jobs at Rheinmetall and hundreds in a supply chain that involves 300 local companies. And it's not just the dollars; it's about us exporting very advanced military vehicles manufactured here. This is what we mean by a future made in Australia. This export deal didn't happen by itself; it was the result of 12 months of hard work from a team all the way up to the Prime Minister, who advocated hard for this in Berlin and who signed an in-principle agreement. It required a Defence team engaging with their German counterparts at speed, and it required Rheinmetall and their hardworking staff to step up enthusiastically. But not everyone backed the deal, I'm ashamed to say. Surely not? The shadow defence minister, in July, took real glee in claiming that the export deal was dead. Unlike him, those on this side believe in Aussie industry. We believe in 100,000-plus defence industry workers. We believe in a future made in Australia and we'll fight for it every day. This is important, due to the decade of neglect under the coalition—a decade of neglect, where one coalition defence minister said he wouldn't trust South Australian workers to build a canoe. It was a decade of neglect where a coalition cabinet that the opposition leader was a member of tried to send the submarine contract to Japan. It's vital that we support the Australian defence industry base because it's a fundamental input to the ADF. That's why the government has released a new Defence Industry Development Strategy, and we're backing it up with a $41 billion increase in the defence budget to deliver the capabilities the ADF needs. The Australian Defence Force needs all our support and the Albanese Labor government believes in a future Australia. Those opposite just want to talk Australian industry down while they cut the defence budget. Education 51 14:45 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the Prime Minister. Many young people in Fowler are not just experiencing the cost of living crisis but are also facing an increased mountain of debt with their education. The majority in this chamber have reaped the benefits of a free education. It's a very different reality today for our young people pursuing higher education with a HELP debt being counted against them. When will the government take action to freeze this debt to provide immediate relief for young people, especially those struggling in Western Sydney? 14:45 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Fowler for her question. She has the privilege of representing one of the best places in Australia, if not the world. It just happens to be the place that I grew up in, Cabramatta. She also represents my mum and dad, who still live there. I went to Cabramatta Primary School and Canley Vale High School. I was the first person in my family to finish Year 10. A lot of kids I went to school with never got a chance to go to university. For them it seemed like it was somewhere else for someone else. It was just too far away. That's why the Fairfield Connect University Hub that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and I opened in Fairfield the other day is really important. It's about breaking down that invisible barrier and helping kids from the communities that we represent in Western Sydney to get a crack at university. I can anticipate your points of order that says what are we doing about HECS and HELP? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fowler on a point of order? Ms Le 295676 Relevance. When will the government take action to freeze the HECS debt, especially for those struggling in Western Sydney? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has had one minute 10 seconds and provided some context, but he'll have to return to the question. Mr CLARE HWL Like a modern-day Nostradamus, I thought you were going to take me there. Mr CLARE HWL Are you smiling? I've never seen you so happy. Come on, smile a bit more. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will return to the question and the Leader of the Opposition will pause. Mr CLARE HWL Now he's angry, like a try-hard Tony Abbott: all the anger without the onion. Come on, hurry up, Mr Smiles. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition will pause. The member has asked the question. I appreciate the back and forth that's happening at the front table, but I'm asking you to refer to the member for Fowler's question. Mr CLARE HWL Back to the best place in Australia: Fowler. We want to make sure more Australians get a crack at going to university. That's what the Universities Accord is all about. One of the set of recommendations in that report, as I said in answer to the member for Ryan's question last week, was about how we make HECS, what we now call HELP, fairer and simpler. We're considering those recommendations at the moment and we'll respond in the next few months. What that report told us is that we need more people to be able to get a crack at going to TAFE or university in the years ahead. More jobs will require more skills. In the days when we were growing up, when Hawke and Keating were prime ministers, the percentage of people who finished school jumped from 40 per cent to almost 80 per cent. That was nation-changing stuff. That was big economic reform that created businesses and jobs that otherwise wouldn't have existed. The accord says that in the decades ahead, we won't just need 80 per cent of people to finish school, we'll need 80 per cent of people to be able to finish school and then go on to TAFE or university. A lot of those people grow up in Fowler and Blaxland and McMahon in the western suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and in regional Australia too. If we don't make sure we give them a crack at going to universities, we won't have the economic firepower to be everything this country can be in the years ahead. At its core, that's what the accord is all about. Aged Care 52 14:49 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese government helping aged-care workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? What impact is that having on the quality of care older Australians are receiving? 14:50 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. I know she cares very deeply about ensuring that the hardworking carers in her electorate are valued and are able to provide a higher standard of care for older Australians. That's why the Albanese government wants all workers, including aged-care workers, to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Strong, sustainable wage growth is how Australians overcome cost-of-living challenges, not what causes them. That's why we backed aged-care workers in their fight for better wages at the Fair Work Commission, and we delivered a 15 per cent increase to the award wage minimum for 250,000 workers across this country. That is an $11.3 billion investment in people who dedicate their working lives to caring for our most vulnerable people. Under the Albanese government, personal care workers are now taking home an additional $141 per week, or $7,000 a year. Registered nurses are now taking home an additional $196 per week, just shy of $10,000 per year. That extra money coming in every week is changing the lives of workers and the people they care for. Manisha is an aged-care worker at Arrunga Uniting in Ermington, in the electorate of the member for Bennelong. When she first started working in aged care she was an assistant in nursing—an incredibly valued position. While working as an assistant in nursing, Manisha studied a bachelor of nursing to become a registered nurse. Manisha told me that the aged-care pay rise has empowered her to plan more for her future. She now wants to get her master's and continue her career, her whole life, working in aged care. That is what happens when you invest in workers and value their skills and their experience. Our investment in workers like Manisha is not just changing her life; it is changing the lives of the older people she cares for. We have just published the latest 24/7 nursing data for February, and today I can share that the number of registered nurses in aged care in Australia has again increased. There is now a registered nurse in aged care on site 98.79 per cent of the time in Australia; 90.02 per cent of aged-care homes now have a registered nurse on site 24/7, with the majority of the remaining homes very close to 24/7 RN coverage. That is an achievement that those opposite didn't even dream of attempting in government, let alone legislating for and let alone budgeting for. Under the Albanese government, older people are receiving an additional 2.16 million minutes of care every single day. There has been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, in the number of physical restraints, in the amount of significant unplanned weight loss, in the number of falls, in polypharmacy and in the use of antipsychotics in aged care. New Vehicle Efficiency Standards 53 14:53 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The minister hailed Labor's new family car and ute tax as bringing Australia into line with vehicle standards in the United States by 2028. Now the Biden administration has abandoned its initial policy amid fears that billions of dollars in new fines on auto makers would increase the price of new cars for families. Why are Australian families facing higher prices and fewer choices because of this government's failed energy policies? 14:53 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. There was a lot in there, but I'm just going to focus on the new vehicle efficiency standards, because on this side of the House we've had enough of Australian motorists being second-class citizens and being the dumping ground for motoring companies to send cars to Australia that they're not allowed to send to other countries. What the Minister for Transport and I have been doing is a very similar process to that taken by the previous government when they thought about doing this: putting out a preferred model and consulting on it. That's what we've been doing. That consultation is very close to a conclusion, and we'll have more to say. Of course we've looked at the recent developments in the United States as part of that, but the difference is that, when the member for Bradfield consulted on his preferred model, he got rolled and they rolled over the policy. They were happy to have Australian motorists treated at the back of the queue of the world's car companies. We are not. We think it's about time Australia had similar standards to the rest of the world and we got out of the G2 of Australia and Russia, as the only two countries without efficiency standards. Housing 53 14:55 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts help tradies build the homes Australia needs, and what is standing in the way of the government's broad housing agenda? 14:55 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank the member for Macnamara. He understands how important our tradies are to build the homes that we need under our broad housing agenda. He's also been very supportive of developments—particularly around Melbourne, in Victoria—that will get more people into a home sooner. Our hardworking tradies do deserve a tax cut, and thanks to the Labor government they'll be getting a tax cut on 1 July, which means that they will be able to keep more of what they earn. But we're also supporting more Australians to start their careers in construction. Last year alone we had 24,200 students enrolled in the construction sector through Labor's fee-free TAFE, adding to the 240,000 people that were already training in the construction sector. We've added, of course, thanks to the work of the Minister for Skills and Training over here, a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024 to 2026 in priority areas that include construction, because we understand how important that is. So we're investing in our tradies through training Australians and bringing in skilled workers. We need these investments so that we can build the homes that Australians need. We have committed now more than $25 billion over the next decade for additional investments in housing. Unlike those opposite, we're working closely with all levels of government to achieve our ambitious 1.2 million homes target. We're supporting the states and territories through the $3 billion New Homes Bonus. We're supporting them with a $500 million housing support program that the minister for infrastructure and I will be announcing in the coming weeks and through, of course, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will fund and build 30,000 social and affordable homes over the next decade. There is, of course, the Housing Accord, with a further 10,000 homes to be matched by states and territories. There are obstacles to what we are trying to achieve in housing. There are obstacles, and sadly they sit over there. They keep voting against more housing for Australians. Particularly, they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. The Greens over there did hold it up for a further six months. What I would say to those opposite is we now have Help to Buy going into the Senate, and those opposite know that this is targeted at supply, with a 40 per cent equity scheme, and those opposite should be supporting it. They can't go out and say we have housing challenges and continue to come in here and vote against measures that will add to supply. They continually come in here and they continually vote against it. But they need to think about the people. They need to think about people like M-R, who I met on Friday when I was in Prahran and we opened 434 new social homes with the Victorian government. M-R said how much social housing has changed her life. We want to do more of this for people like M-R, and those opposite should be supporting it, not voting against it. Environment 54 14:58 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Resources. Labor promised to strengthen environment laws and back the Uluru statement, but, after big gas corporation Santos wrote to them and complained about traditional owners winning court cases, Labor rammed a bill through the House that gives the resources minister the power to override the Federal Court decisions and remove existing protections. Why is Labor working with the climate-denying Liberals to fast-track climate-destroying gas projects and weaken the voices of First Nations traditional owners? 14:59 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I refer to the question from the member for Melbourne. It might be a surprise to the Greens political party that the resources industry does from time to time write a letter to the ministers—sorry, the Minister for Resources. It was ministers over on that side, but, of course, there's only one resources minister in this government! The government has been really consistent in its position that it would work with stakeholders to further strengthen the bill to which you have referred, to give everyone confidence about the intent of the changes. The Senate inquiry, in recommending the passage of the bill, has illustrated there is scope for additional protections, which we are pursuing, and those amendments will be discussed later today. What I have observed in my time working on this offshore safety legislation and other matters is this: it's become increasingly clear to me the Greens political party simply want to continue the situation where there is an absolute lawyers' picnic over approvals of various projects going through the courts. They would prefer to see millions of dollars get spent in the courts, delaying the right of Indigenous people to have their say. What we are doing right now is making sure consultation provisions are indeed improved so they're more clear for everyone concerned, whether it be traditional owners or the wider community that host these projects or have concerns over them, no matter where they're from. This is the point of the consultation we're undertaking right now. It's very open and very public. We have extended it. Many people have submitted to it. The Senate inquiry last week, indeed, revealed that traditional owners, as well as the wider community, as well as proponents, are frustrated by the lack of certainty around the consultation provisions as they now stand. I for one, and this government, would rather pursue reform to that to make it more certain through legislation rather than let this endless lawyers' picnic continue. You may shake your head, Member for Melbourne, but the truth is the Greens political party would prefer lawyers to get a lot of money pursuing this through the courts and wasting everybody's time—and wasting the courts' time, I might add—rather than letting environmental regulators look over approvals and see them done properly, and see consultation and make sure consultation is required to be face to face, has guardrails around it and introduces certainty for everybody, not just bits and pieces of who has interest, who has money to go to the court, who has access—like millionaires that go to courts, as you well know, and publicly funded bodies that get donations from very rich international trusts that go to fund these processes through the courts. I for one want to end this lawyers' picnic, end the practice where we see dodgy academic people going through the courts to support Greens— An honourable member interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Well, they are dodgy; I can hear the interjection—apologies, Mr Speaker. We know what the court has said about some dodgy academic practices that go toward this lawyers' picnic. I want it to end, and I want it to end now. Housing 55 15:02 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How can Australian manufacturers help build more homes in Australia, creating more jobs with better pay? Are there different views about how this should be done? 15:02 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Aston for her question and her ongoing interest in this area. Ours is a government that's focusing on what matters to all Australians: getting a secure, well-paid job; being able to earn more and keep more of what you earn; and being able to secure your own affordable, good-quality home. Our government backs those aspirations through a future made in Australia—growing our industrial muscle, putting Australian knowhow to work, creating new jobs and making more things here. A great example of that is in the area of prefabricated, more modular homes, which rely on advanced manufacturing techniques to help construct a home offsite, cutting construction time from a year down to just 12 weeks, delivering high-quality homes, cutting costs and creating jobs—and it can help play a part in reaching our target of building 1.2 million new homes over five years. To make it easier to do this, at Friday's Building Ministers Meeting all levels of government agreed to see how we could cut red tape to help build more of these homes quicker and more affordably. As an aside, the Albanese government's tax cuts will mean a joiner in the construction industry on $85,000 a year is going to be $1,800 better off. Whether they're putting together prefab homes in a factory or installing them onsite, Labor's tax cuts are delivering for blue-collar workers. I'm asked about whether or not there are different views. There are a lot on that side—always negative, always nasty, all the time. But they're celebrating an anniversary today; it was 10 years ago today when the coalition brought in the idea of knights and dames. As absurd as Monty Python's knights who say 'ni', it's the knights and dames who say 'no'! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton will leave chamber under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 It's relevance. Australians can't find homes. There's a rental crisis— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No. The member for Wannon, due to his seniority, gets a bit more licence than others, but he is what we call a serial offender of getting up and giving speeches. The point of relevance is to show that the minister isn't being relevant to the question. It's not to then make a statement after. So you'll leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Wannon then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister was asked about homes. I'm just going to make sure that he gets back to the topic. Character assessments are not part of the answer. I'm just going to ask him to return to the question that he was asked. Mr HUSIC 91219 When we talked about building manufacturing capabilities in this country, those opposite said no. When we talked about shielding manufacturers from the worst of energy price rises, they said no. And today—my personal favourite—the member for New England, the stalking horse you love the most, was out there saying that manufacturing jobs had gone down, unburdened by the weight of facts. That back never had to carry facts. He ignored the fact that nearly 90,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since we came to office. He joined our good friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in only ever talking about manufacturing to talk it down. He described manufacturing as a graveyard, talking down manufacturing jobs. They're a complete rabble, not ready for government. As always, they stand for nothing; they oppose everything. (Time expired) Housing 55 15:06 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. In the year to September 2023, Labor's big Australia has grown even bigger, with migration reaching a new record of 548,000, yet only 173,000 new homes were built. When will this Prime Minister admit there's absolutely no chance that his promised 1.2 million homes will ever be delivered? Why are Australians facing higher prices and fewer choices for housing because of this Prime Minister's failed housing and immigration policies? 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, there's a lot to unpack in that question. Mr Sukkar 242515 Just answer the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin has asked the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Well, you've asked about five in that period. Mr Sukkar 242515 Just pick one. Mr ALBANESE R36 You've been here a while. You'll work it out eventually. The population statement of 2023 made it very clear: for 2030-31, the expected population is 600,000 people below what was projected prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2019-20. So, when his leader was the minister responsible, he had figures that would show it would be 600,000 more than what it will be as a result of this government's policy. But they— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister was referring to the December 2023 figures. The member will get the call. The Prime Minister will just pause. It's one minute in, but we'll hear from the member for Deakin on a point of order. Mr Sukkar 242515 The point of order is on relevance. My question referred to the official ABS data for the September 2023 quarter and compared it to the number of homes being built. The Prime Minister's not even attempted to answer the question. I ask you to call him to be relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's reading out figures regarding immigration. The figure was 548,000 in your question. He's just quoted a figure around 600,000 on what the immigration figures will be for the—wait, member for Deakin; otherwise you won't hear what I'm about to say—next 10 years. It's impossible to argue that he's not being directly relevant to the question. Okay? Yes, the member for Deakin. Do you have a point of order? Mr Sukkar 242515 I appreciate the explanation. Speaking about numbers projected for 2030 cannot be relevant to my question. It just cannot be relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW Given under standing orders only one point of order can be taken on the issue of relevance, I'm not sure what that was just now. The SPEAKER 53517 The issue of relevance raises its head yet again. On page 567 of the Practice, it clearly states: It has been ruled that while a Minister— or a Prime Minister— is addressing the policy topic which is the subject of the question, the answer is directly relevant. So if the Prime Minister is talking about figures and he is contesting the figures or is adding additional figures to the topic, he is being directly relevant. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E Go and ask Tony Smith! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a). No one is to interject while we're dealing with issues. The member for McEwen then left the chamber. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. I appreciate the shadow minister would like an answer that he expects, but the Prime Minister, as long as he's being directly relevant to the topic, under the standing orders, is within the—the Prime Minister will continue. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll try to remember the question, Mr Speaker—or questions! I know it was about migration or it was about housing. On migration, it would have been bigger under them. That, I know. Indeed, they complained that we weren't bringing enough people in. The Leader of the Opposition said this in September 2022: 'we do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear that the number needs to be higher'. That's what they had to say. When it comes to housing, we have comprehensive plans to build housing, all of which have been opposed by those opposite. Our social housing accelerator—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Accord—opposed by those opposite. The Housing Australia Future Fund—opposed by those opposite. Providing additional financing to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—opposed by those opposite. New incentives to increase build-to-rent—opposed by those opposite. Every single proposition put forward by the government— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 is opposed by those opposite. Mr Taylor 231027 Why isn't your plan working? Mr ALBANESE R36 The shadow Treasurer can't get a question, so he just mouths off the rhetoric. But the fact is that those opposite have opposed all of the measures that we have put forward on housing. They left a migration system that was, in the words of Dr Parkinson, the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under those opposite, is so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision to neglect the system. The Nationals leader has nailed it as well: 'We've got to acknowledge some of the challenges that we left behind … You've got to put your hand up … you've got to be honest with people.' He said, 'We didn't get it right in the fact that that backlog was there ...' Absolutely there was. It was a mess, but we're fixing it. (Time expired) Energy 57 15:13 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government working with states, territories and local members to deliver reliable and affordable electricity, and what other approaches have been proposed? 15:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The honourable member for Newcastle asked me in part about working with members of parliament, and she's a terrific one—an absolutely terrific one. Working with the states and territories is important as well. Our cooperation with states and territories is one of the reasons we saw a record 5.9 gigawatts of renewable energy installed into the grid last year. It's also one of the reasons the Investor Group on Climate Change today released figures showing that those investors citing regulatory uncertainty as a barrier to investment have dropped by 30 percentage points since we came to office. That's cooperation with the states and territories. The same report showed that, out of 14 options for investing in energy in Australia, the most popular for investors was renewable energy and the least popular was nuclear energy. The report said: 'This is due to nuclear energy's very high cost and lack of maturity and deployment in next-generation technologies.' I was asked by the honourable member for Newcastle about approaches that have been proposed. Of course, we know that those opposite proposed nuclear. The Leader of the Opposition said last week to his party room there were four problems: cost, safety, disposal and location. We've just added a fifth, which is lack of investor certainty and lack of investor interest. I can add a sixth, which is the states. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Honourable members opposite yell out 'There's a ban.' Yes, there is; there's a federal ban. What they don't talk about so much is that there's also a ban on nuclear energy in the three mainland eastern states, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Recently, we've seen leaders of the opposition, leaders of the Liberal Party, asked whether they would lift the ban. Mr Crisafulli, when asked if he supported the federal Liberal nuclear policy, said, 'No, we don't.' Mr Pesutto said, 'The ban can't be removed in the short term and won't be.' So those opposite need to explain how they'll overcome a ban in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. I'm also asked about local members. Today we've seen 12 local members of great conviction say they fully support nuclear policy as long as it's not in their electorates. I won't go through them all. The member for Hinkler had an interesting reason: 'I have some technical reasons that would make it unlikely. We don't have a power station, we don't have the infrastructure, and we have earthquakes.' My favourite was the member for Menzies, who said, 'No reasonable person would suggest putting them right where people live.' So we're narrowing it down. It's going to be six electorates with a power station, infrastructure, no earthquakes and no people. I know there's a redistribution coming, but I doubt it's going to produce six electorates with nobody living in them. That would be an unusual result for a redistribution. The sooner we get some detail from the opposition, sooner their policy will fall apart. Motor Vehicles 57 15:16 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy: Toyota has said Labor's new family car and new tax will lead to price rises or companies rationalising their product offerings, and that it will have a huge impact on not just tradies, but also farmers' families, remote area workers and many more. Why are Australian families facing higher prices and fewer choices because of this government's policies? 15:17 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for Hume for his question. Seventy-seven minutes in the Shadow Treasurer gets a question, and he doesn't put it to the Treasurer. If I were the member for Hume, I'm not sure I would have asked about energy prices or price rises, given the member for Hume signed a law to keep price rises secret before the last election. He intervened to sign a regulation to keep price rises a secret until a week after people voted instead of a couple of weeks before. That is something that is very much to the discredit of the member for Hume. The member for Hume asked me about new vehicular efficiency standards. He was a member of a cabinet which endorsed the member for Bradfield and others going out and consulting on new vehicle emission standards and then rolled the member for Bradfield and wouldn't let him implement it. We've taken the approach of consulting on the detailed design, as a good government should and would. We've been consulting on the detailed policy, as a consultative government would. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Hume has been interjecting constantly. He's warned. If he interjects once more, he'll leave. Mr BOWEN DZS That's what we've been doing. I look forward to joining the minister for transport to announce the results of that consultation. It'll result in a better outcome for Australian consumers and motorists, who've been grouped in with Russia for too long as the only motorists in the world without access to new vehicle efficiency standards. Women 58 15:19 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Women. How will Labor's tax cuts benefit Australian women, and why is it important to have women in the room when governments make these decisions? What happens when women are not included? 15:19 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Canberra very much for her question and for her continuous advocacy for policies that benefit Australian women. In just a little over three months Labor's tax cuts for all Australians will be delivered, helping with the cost of living for all taxpayers but particularly for women. Our plan will see Australian women taxpayers on average receive a tax cut of $1,649 from 1 July, and it 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's 5.8 million women receiving a bigger tax cut. And that matters. It matters that we have women in the room making those decisions to ensure that we have these policies that actually benefit Australia's women. That tax cut equates to a boost of over 630,000 additional hours per week worked by women. That is what happens when women sit around the cabinet table, when women are preselected and when women are in the majority in the party room. Delivering for women is in Labor's DNA. That's why we've delivered paid parental leave reforms. It's why we're so focused on closing the gender pay gap across Australia. It's why we want women's retirement income, making sure superannuation is paid on paid parental leave so that women's retirement incomes are not affected by their time out of the workforce having children. These things matter. All of these things are issues that the Liberal and National parties have been, frankly, absolutely incapable of doing. You have to wonder if that is because of their inability to preselect women and have women in the party room. Senator Hume— An honourable member: Do you think two is a big number? Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Two is a big number. Ms Ley 00AMN Point of order on relevance: the practice is clear. Ministers can be asked about matters within their own portfolio, not the affairs of political parties and not other political parties' actions or purported actions. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW There are two sections of the standing orders. One goes to what can be asked and the other goes to what can be part of an answer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is correct when she says that those particular issues can't be part of the wording of a question. Once a question is asked—and this question had the final part 'what happens when women are not included?'—the question is then: is the answer relevant to those words? I put that what is being said by the minister now is completely relevant to a question that was ruled in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question contained, 'What happens when women are not in the room?' I'm just going to make sure the minister is being relevant rather than just attacking any other party, to make sure she is within the standing orders. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR When women are not in the room, these decisions don't get made. We had Senator Hume, in her review of the Liberals' 2022 election campaign, find that the Liberal Party had the lowest number of Liberal women in their parliamentary ranks since 1993. Yet, when faced with the opportunity to do something about this, to preselect a woman in the seat of Goldstein, currently held by a very strong and accomplished woman, guess what? They went for the same bloke who lost the seat last time. In South Australia, when given the choice between a female shadow cabinet member and a far-right conspiracy theorist, what did they do? They choose the conspiracy theorist. In Western Sydney, the Leader of the Opposition has had to come in— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. We've already had one point of order on relevance. I'm just going to call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker, I simply seek your ruling as to whether the minister, having heard your previous remarks and then departing completely into the territory that she just did, is in order with her answer. I seek your ruling. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just give the minister one more chance. She wasn't asked about any other parties in her question. She was asked about women in the room. So the reminder of her answer won't be about any other political party; it will be about the importance, as she believes, of women in the room, not simply an attack on any other political party or any other part of the chamber. She has the call. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR They seem to have a bit of a glass door about this issue, Mr Speaker. I wonder why. I wonder why they are so sensitive about this issue. We on this side of the House know that it matters having women in the cabinet room. We know that it matters having women in our party room. We know that it matters having majority women in government, because that means that the decisions that we make—paid parental leave, improving child care, making sure we've got good retirement incomes for women—matter. It matters when women are in the room. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 59 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Catchpole, Mr James 59 15:25 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members leave, I have a short statement to make for the information of members. One of our long-serving senior parliamentary officers, Mr James Catchpole, will shortly retire. Many of you know James, who is currently Clerk Assistant (Table) and prior to that was the Serjeant-at-Arms. James joined the Department of the House of Representatives in March 1991. James spent many years working in the Committee Office and also in the Table Office, and as the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. In 2016 James was promoted to the department executive as Serjeant-at-Arms. During his time as Serjeant-at-Arms, James had the important role of enabling the House to keep operating during COVID-19—such as on members' travel, quarantine requirements and the changes to chamber arrangements. James has also made a strong contribution as Clerk and Deputy Clerk at the table in the House and Federation Chamber. He is here with us today in his final question time. As this is his last sitting week before embarking on his retirement, I know members will join with me in acknowledging James for his 33 years of dedicated support and guidance. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 59 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Administration 59 15:26 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I have a question for you, Mr Speaker, regarding the administration of this building. Last Friday afternoon, I referred to you a matter of significant concern. Earlier on that day, 22 March, an event was held in the Great Hall of the Australian parliament titled the National NDIS Review Conference. The event's organiser was Mr Devinder 'Dev' Singh of the company Communities of Practice. The event was promoted as having me providing the keynote speech and interview. However, this is despite the Department of Social Services providing advice to the organisers on 27 and 28 February, the month before, that I would not be attending, and then again, on 7 March, writing to the organisers asking that marketing materials be updated to reflect this. DSS noted in their correspondence that it was imperative that attendees and prospective attendees were accurately informed about speakers at the conference, and I will table that attachment. However, in subsequent promotional material for the event, the organisers continued to market my appearance, and I'll table that attachment, too, at the end of this. This event was branded as being about the NDIS Review, an official policy of the Australian government, but it was charging attendees $185 to attend online and more than $700 to attend in person at the Great Hall. My staff have also been told the vendors paid up to $4,000 to be provided space at the event, on the understanding that not only would I be speaking, but there would be direct access to me. As the Australian disability community knows, the government and I have been travelling around the country hosting NDIS Review town halls—all for free. My staff personally spoke to attendees outside the event on Friday morning, where many were still under the impression I'd be attending and giving the keynote address. The attendees understandably felt misled. This is also reflected in the multiple disappointed attendees who posted comments on my LinkedIn page. Many attendees justifiably feel misled and have sought refunds from this conference organiser, and they should be refunded, in my opinion. I've also made a complaint to the ACCC to this effect. Furthermore, other statutory speakers were advertised as attending, having told the organisers that they were not attending. On Friday evening, Channel Nine news ran a package that showed journalist Mr Probyn attempting to address the organiser about why they'd falsely promoted my appearance to conference attendees. At that point, Mr Singh evacuated the Great Hall and barricaded himself in a cupboard or a bathroom—I'm not sure which. For the benefit of the House, I table the transcript from that news package as well. The real issue here is this—and this could happen to any minister or politician— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll get the minister to come to his question to me. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG We're very concerned that a politician or minister could be used to promote an event, a month after he had made clear he wasn't attending, and as to the use of the Great Hall of the parliament for commercial purposes to mislead attendees. I'm very concerned because of the fact that the Great Hall holds great prestige. I'm concerned about the reputational risk to the Parliament of Australia to allow such events to be hosted on its premises. Would you please provide an update at your earliest convenience as to what can be done to prevent this happening in the future? 15:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the minister for his question. I have received his correspondence. I'm taking this matter very seriously. I've asked the Department of Parliamentary Services to urgently review the circumstances under which— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! While I'm addressing the chamber, the member for Barker will not interject. I've asked the Department of Parliamentary Services to urgently review the circumstances under which the event booking was taken. I stress to all members: I'm deeply concerned about these allegations, and I'll report back to the minister. STATEMENTS 60 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 60 15:30 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to be misrepresented? Ms LEY 00AMN Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Ms LEY 00AMN In question time today, the Prime Minister attributed a quote to me which was not correct. When asked by the Leader of the Opposition about his broken promise on energy prices, the Prime Minister said: … he might want to talk to his deputy, who said that the current energy crisis is not one that has been created 'since they arrived in power'. The quote he attributed to me is incorrect. The interview in question was with Pete Stefanovic on 22 June 2022. Tellingly, the Prime Minister did not provide this reference. I was making the important point that the factors impacting the energy market were well known when the Prime Minister promised Australians they would get a $275 cut to their power bills. This included the invasion of Ukraine. I ask that the Prime Minister correct the record, as he has misled the House. BUSINESS 60 BUSINESS Rearrangement 60 15:31 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kennedy from moving the following motion immediately—That this house (1) notes that: (a) The Coles and Woolworths oligopoly is having an appalling impact on farmers and consumers around Australia; (b) The people of Australia are being overcharged punitively by the supermarket giants whilst the nation's farmers are being paid prices which are below cost of production and do not provide them a liveable income; (c) Urgent action is required to level the playing field between the farmers and consumers on the one hand, and the supermarket giants on the other; (d) The Member for Kennedy and Member for Clark introduced the 'Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024' this morning which divests supermarkets of this market power specifically by setting market power limits with associated timeframe, providing significant penalties and establishing an oversight body; (e) The Senate's oversighting legislation does not in itself provide divestiture but leaves the onus of proof resting with another government authority. Such authorities have already proved to be ineffective; and (2) Calls on the Parliament of Australia to: Bring on the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 for debate immediately, and it be given priority over all other business in order to stop any further delay in providing affordability to consumers and fairness to farmers. The SPEAKER 53517 The member has moved a suspension. The member for Kennedy has 10 minutes. Mr KATTER HX4 I think that this battle is far from over. We may not win in the parliament today, but the government must be served notice that every element of Australia is screaming for this. The minute the gun went off, the Leader of the Nationals said he was going for divestiture. The Greens said they were going for divestiture. Whether they said that before or not, I don't know. All I'm saying is that this is a rolling thunder ball, and it's going to keep rolling until we get some justice on this issue. When these people had 50.1 per cent of the market, in 1991, we had 276,000 farmers in Australia. We now have 83,000. That's all that's left, and those that are left are in a pretty poor state. No country on earth has allowed this sort of concentration of market power—and it's in food; it's not as though it's in some commodity that is an indulgence. I want to make the situation perfectly clear. In 1991, Woolworths and Coles had 50.1 per cent of the market. By 2001, the ABS said they had 68 per cent and ANOP said they had 72 per cent—so let's say they had 70 per cent—so they've gone from 50 per cent to 70 per cent by 2001. This is the interesting part: their mark-up went from an outrageous 109 per cent to 196 per cent. We had to have a small basket because we're not a big research engine or anything of that nature. We just said, 'Put these items down. Go out and find out what price they are.' Whether you want to believe that or not, that's up to you. I don't care. I've held up constantly throughout this debate a picture of a potato. I've held up a potato. The potato on the day that I held it up last week was between 40 cents and 50 cents. That's 45 cents they paid the farmer. Their price here is $3.90. It's a mark-up of 800 per cent. Does this place do nothing about it? Don't we care that people out there are going hungry now, and they're missing meals? Doesn't anybody care? Really, if you don't do anything about this, you don't care. Don't give it to an authority. Nothing's going to happen. Canberra will never discipline a giant like this. Don't do that. That's just a waste of time. Have another inquiry? People are laughing at you and they are voting. Just understand this. There was a Tasmanian result. I can't speak for other parts of Queensland, but I know that in North Queensland, every incumbent went for a fall, almost every single incumbent mayor, because the people are getting more and more angry. They can't meet their house payments and they can't meet the cost of buying food for their families. This place is doing absolutely nothing about it. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, but I think all of my crossbench colleagues would share my view that the boys on the gravy train are on my right and the boys on the gravy train are on my left here. They're on the bandwagon. Snouts in the trough is a term we used, and that's an accurate term to use. Because there can be no other explanation for their blatant and continuous refusal to do anything about a problem which, when I did the figures some time ago, the worst country outside of Australia was Great Britain. In Great Britain the big six had 36 per cent. In Australia the big two—they're claiming they've got somebody in to do the figures for them and they're saying 65 per cent. Hold on a minute. You're going to two per cent a year up to 2001, and you've done two per cent a year. Do you suddenly stop and go backwards? No. In your own reports you were skiting around how your market share was growing, both of you, over the next 10 years. Now it's 20 years and you're telling me you've gone down to 65 per cent from 70 per cent. Well, the only people not laughing at you are the people that have to go into your store and buy food. They're the people that are not laughing. I repeat those figures. They had 50.1 per cent in 1991. In 10 years they had gone to 70 per cent of the market. They've been increasing at two per cent a year. So you can take the guess yourself. But I want my crossbench brothers and sisters to take cognisance of this, because there were two series. One was an ANAO P series and one was an ABS series. One said 68 per cent, and the other one said 72 per cent. Both series were discontinued two years after this place became aware of those figures. I rang up a person associated with the grocery world, who has long since left, and said, 'Why did you stop the series? He said, 'Why do you think?' That is all he said. They've even got the muscle to cover up their own success story, if you like. For those that are worried about divestment, I've got to tell you that when Theodore Roosevelt broke up Esso, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey under Rockefeller, he broke it up into 32 companies. The value of the shareholders went up. Rockefeller knew that, so he bought a whole stack of shares before the break-up occurred. To anyone who's a shareholder: don't be worried, because your share prices are going to go up, not down. I went to Coles the other night. It was about 11 o'clock at night, I think, and there was no-one there. You had to serve yourself. There are cameras on you. Are they looking after their employees? No. They're doing everything humanly possible to eliminate employees. That's how much they care about their employees, whilst paying themselves a salary of $10 million to $12 million a year—that they admit to. I just can't think of any situation in any country on earth where this sort of situation has prevailed. Theodore Roosevelt had the courage to stand up to the richest and most powerful man on earth, Rockefeller. Roosevelt's face is carved on Mt Rushmore, along with Abraham Lincoln's, and justifiably so. Would that someone in here had a tiny bit of spine to stand up to these giants. I've always had great faith in the Australian people. I take cognisance of the fact that there were two of us in here when I came in—just two of us on the crossbench—and now there are 17. In election after election those people that are in power are being knocked off. They richly deserve to be knocked off. We've got no manufacturing left in the country. We've got no industry in the country. Those industries that we do have have been flogged to death. As far as being able to buy something, well, no other country on earth has the concentration of market power that has occurred in Australia. What we're saying is: let's not muck around any longer. It's going to be Theodore Roosevelt time here and we're going to get there. We might not get there today, but we will get there. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? 15:42 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I second the motion moved by the member for Kennedy. I commend him for bringing it to this House. I also commend the member for Kennedy and the member for Clark for introducing the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2024 in this House this morning. Those members have been ringing alarm bells on this issue for 10 years. They are true trailblazers, and now others are finally starting to listen. We want Australia to listen and we want all parties—all members of this House and those in the other place—to listen and to support our bill. It's very clear to everyone that right around this great country of ours supermarket giants have way too much market power. As the member for Kennedy so eloquently stated earlier, they have their snouts well and truly in the money trough and they are wallowing in massive profits. Things have to change. Farmers are being paid a pittance and consumers are being price gouged on the way through. The member for Kennedy and the member for Clark recently dressed up as pigs in a lighthearted moment to draw attention to what is an extremely serious issue. It's an issue that just keeps getting worse. It's an urgent issue because we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and this bill would do something about it. It's no good having members of parliament wring their hands and shake their heads about how terrible the cost-of-living crisis is, saying something must be done. Today all members of this House will have a chance to do something—to vote for this legislation to be debated and get through this House this afternoon and this evening. This bill would make a real difference in reducing the market power of the supermarket giants, and it would limit the mark-ups they can put on goods like fruit and vegetables. In Orange, New South Wales, we once had hundreds of orchards around our district. Now we would have fewer than 30. It's because farmers have not been able to see a future in farming. Why is that? Because the returns have not been there for them; because they've been slowly but surely ground down by the supermarket giants. So we want all parties to support this motion and this important bill. Let's not just talk the talk about market power and how dangerous this great market power in the hands of the supermarket giants is; let's walk the walk and do something. Recently the member for Kennedy came to Orange in the Central West of New South Wales to draw attention to this very issue—and, yes, there were a couple of pigs there, too, holding up a sign! During our press conference we were disgracefully interrupted by a National Party senator, who yelled pathetic insults at us. It was appalling and it was very disappointing. The National Party should be backing us on this bill. The Liberal and Labor parties should be backing us on this bill as well, as should the Greens. Australia is sick of the talk. We need action. Parliament exists not just to hold inquiries, not just to feel everyone's pain, but to pass the laws and take the action that will make life better for the people that we represent. Today the member for Kennedy drew attention to the massive mark-ups the supermarket giants are putting on everyday items like potatoes. Our farmers are crying out for a fair go and a better deal, and so are consumers, who are at breaking point. Our communities have had enough. This legislation is a true game changer. It divests the supermarkets of their power, reducing it to 20 per cent over five years. It also limits the mark-ups they can put on those items like potatoes and cherries and everything else, as the member for Kennedy so eloquently spoke about. If you're not prepared to back your big talk with a vote in parliament—this is to the major parties—then you're all just about the hot air and the porkies. We want the parties to back up their words with deeds. Stop talking and start walking the walk. We want everyone to vote for the Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill and help get those supermarket snouts out of the trough. Vote for this bill and make— (Time expired) 15:47 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong We know that our supermarket sector is one of the least competitive in the world. Coles and Woolworths control 65 per cent of our grocery market, and in some parts of the country it's actually over 90 per cent. For every $10 that Australians spend on groceries, $6.50 or more of that is spent on the big two. Last year Woolworths' costs of doing business were flat, but its profit margin grew from 5.3 to six per cent. Coles saw a small increase in costs, but its profit margin was still 4.8 per cent. We know that the big two compete for customers, but there's often very little difference in their prices. In fact, we know that they often match each other. It's perfectly legal for businesses to charge prices far beyond what is considered reasonable or fair. That act itself is not illegal. But it is illegal for costs and prices to be coordinated amongst competitors. While no-one expects our supermarkets to go broke, equally no-one expects to be price-gouged on their weekly shop. Competition is the key factor which impacts costs for consumers. Rod Sims, who was the head of the consumer watchdog, the ACCC, for 11 years, has said that the lack of competition in our supermarket sector means that shoppers are losing out, that the extreme concentration of the supermarket sector is inevitably leading to higher prices for us all. The profits that have been recorded by the two biggest supermarkets in our country have been labelled by people—experts like Rod Sims—as price gouging. I've also heard from grocery suppliers and brand producers that they are being expected to fund specials and promotions of the supermarket as well as their in-house advertising and promotions, that the supermarkets control the supply chains and that the primary producers are effectively at their mercy and are struggling. We've also heard recently of the land-banking tactics of Coles and Woolies. This was one of the contributing factors to German supermarket chain Kaufland abandoning plans to enter our Australian market in 2020. We've heard from consumers that advertisements regarding 'locked prices' are misleading, that advertisements regarding discounts are inaccurate and that packet sizes are shrinking at the same time that prices are going up. This government currently has half a dozen inquiries running nationally on the supermarket chains and how they deal with both their suppliers and their customers. But in a cost-of-living crisis customers don't have time for those inquiries to report, and we've seen time and time again how many government inquiries go nowhere. It's been clear for some time that the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct should be made mandatory. Membership should be enforced for retailers, and the rules of the code should apply to all retailers. There have been suggestions from both sides of the political spectrum that the ACCC should be given powers as a matter of urgency to enable it to compel retailers to reduce their control of markets. Increasing supermarket competition won't necessarily improve farm gate prices, but it will improve them for consumers. The concept is worth exploring. I'm not at all convinced that divestiture, as being proposed by my parliamentary colleagues, is the answer. But we do need to find effective cost-of-living measures, and we need to find them as a matter of urgency. That's why I'm supporting my colleagues in this urgent motion to address this issue. 15:51 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne It's time to take on the supermarket giants, stop the price gouging and bring down prices for everyday people, instead of backing Coles and Woolies to continue to make billions of dollars of massive profits off the back of everyday people's pain. I commend the member for Kennedy for bringing this motion to the House. The government should have brought a bill here to deal with the soaring grocery bills that everyday people are facing while Coles and Woolies make out like bandits. But they're not. When the Greens brought a bill to say that it is time to break up the big supermarkets when they abuse their market power to get a better deal for consumers, the Prime Minister said, 'Oh, we don't do that kind of stuff, because we're not the Soviet Union and it's not a command-and-control economy.' Well, I can tell the Prime Minister this: it is a command-and-control economy in Australia. Coles and Woolies say what happens, and the government follows. Labor and Liberal—the Coles and Woolworths of politics—do whatever the Coles and Woolworths of the supermarket sector say. As a result, people are paying $20 a kilo for cheese. People are telling me they're having to choose between skipping meals and paying the rent, because they can't afford the prices you get at the supermarkets now. There is something the government can do about it. Governments can start regulating what these massive corporate behemoths get up to, making billions of dollars in profits while everyday people suffer. That is not right. Could it have something to do with the fact that the supermarket duopoly has donated over half a million dollars to the Labor Party over the last decade? Is that why the Prime Minister says it's hands off and the corporations can do whatever they want? Well, the Greens and the crossbench don't take dirty donations. We are taking on Coles and Woolies, because it is time to stop Coles and Woolies profiteering and make them contribute to this society. Food is an essential service, not an excuse for the supermarkets to make obscene profits while everyday people have to go without. We are dealing with a massive cost-of-living crisis in this country. Rents are soaring, mortgage repayments are soaring—all under a government that says 'hands off' when it comes to taking on the big corporations: 'No, we couldn't possibly do that.' Well, people have had enough of politicians in this place voting in favour of vested interests rather than voting for the public interest. This is an opportunity for us in the parliament do something. The reason people put us here is to go and do things that matter to them and that are going to make their lives better. As people watch the cost of groceries going up and up and big corporations price gouging, they ask, 'Why am I paying so much?' I can tell you one of the things we found out through the Greens-initiated inquiry: it's not going to the farmers; they're not making extra billions of dollars of profits as a result of this. It is going straight into the pockets of Coles and Woolies. And what do they then do? With a small amount of that money they give donations to Labor and the Liberals, and the whole system just keeps going on and on and on, and it's everyday people who suffer. Nothing could be more urgent for this parliament than to tackle the rising—the soaring—grocery bills that people are being forced to pay. One of the things I've heard said—I think it was by the Prime Minister—is: 'You can't take on Coles and Woolies, because they're large employers.' I'll tell you what, it comes as a bit of a shock to everyone who's now having to do their own check out every time they go that, all of a sudden, these big corporations suddenly care about workers. I'll tell the Prime Minister something else: we're talking about maintaining the size of the supermarket sector. People are going to need to buy food. We just need to break it up. We just need to take on these big supermarkets, Coles and Woolies, and the dominance that they've got. They're using their incredible market power to force people to pay higher prices. There will be jobs in the other supermarkets when they come on board. Again, we hear this furphy that we couldn't possibly break them up, because that is something that is apparently done in the Soviet Union. Well, that well-known socialist republic, the United States of America, has had divestiture powers for years. The UK, the European Union and other countries are using these kinds of powers all the time because they have the guts to stand up to the supermarkets, and so should we. I say this to Labor and Liberal: you want to know why both of your votes went backwards at the last election? You look at Tasmania and South Australia and wonder why you're on the nose? Why are people, in record numbers, putting third voices into parliament? It's because we've got the guts to take on the big corporations and act for people's interests in the way you won't. Take a lesson from the weekend. Take a lesson from the last election. Take on Coles and Woolies. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for the debate has expired. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Broadbent, R. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. (Teller) Haines, H. M. Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 52 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 65 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 65

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

Second Reading 65 16:04 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith As I was saying before, we're in a massive climate crisis. We should be in this parliament debating bills to phase out coal and gas. Instead, we're here debating a bill that will make it easier for large gas corporations to get approvals for their massive gas projects—in particular Santos with their Barossa project. We just saw the resource minister in question time give, frankly, one of the more bizarre answers to a question I've seen in this place. It focused, really quite a lot, on the length of court cases when it comes to groups opposing massive gas projects. She was talking about the idea that these court cases are going on for too long. Well, therein lies the point, because what has frustrated Santos, this large multinational gas corporation, is that it's taking too long, from their perspective, to get approval for their massive gas projects. It seems to me, from reading between the lines, that the intent is to speed up those court cases. What's clear is that the effect of this bill will be not only to speed up those cases and the approval time line but to make it easier and faster for Santos to get approval for the massive Barossa gas project. We now know, under a freedom of information request, that Santos wrote to the resource minister about exactly this point. We still have yet to have the government get up and explicitly rule out this making it easier for large gas corporations to get approval for large gas projects, and I think that's because they know in their hearts that this is exactly what this bill will do. Again, we've been told by the International Energy Agency and basically every leading climate scientist in the world that if we want any chance of stopping climate change then there can be no new coal, oil or gas projects. Here we are debating a bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, that will make it more likely that in the future we will see approvals for massive gas projects like the Santos Barossa gas project—which, by the way, will release 80 per cent of Australia's 2022 emissions, over 400 million tonnes. I don't know how the government can justify this, and it would be interesting, I think, for them to go to members for the public who have been victims of climate change fuelled natural disasters and say their response to that is to open up more coal, oil and gas projects and pass laws, like the one we are debating right now, that will make it easier and faster for massive gas corporations like Santos to get approval for massive climate bombs like the Barossa gas project. It might be one thing for the government to turn around and say, 'Oh, well, this will increase government revenue,' but it won't even do that, because the vast majority of the revenue generated out of these projects will go into shareholders' pockets and into the profit margins and revenue margins of gas corporations like Santos and Chevron. So what we have, in effect, is a bill that will allow for the opening up of massive new gas projects, driving the climate crisis and putting profits in the pockets of corporations like Santos, to no benefit to the public. What it will do is drive the climate crisis. The more gas projects are opened up and, in particular, the more methane and CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the more it will make the climate warmer and make floods, droughts and bushfires worse in the future—and heatwaves such as we've just experienced in Queensland and across the country as well. I think the government should come here and justify why their policy is not only to keep opening up new coal, oil and gas but to make it easier than it was under the Morrison government to get approvals for massive gas projects. I've said this before and I'll say it again, future generations will look back on bills like this and ask, 'What was this government doing?' When we're being smashed with future climate fuelled natural disasters—I say 'natural disasters', but I should say 'fossil fuelled disasters': more floods, more bushfires and more heatwaves—members of the public will rightly ask, 'Well, why did the government keep pouring fuel on the fire by allowing for the opening of new gas projects, new coal projects and new oil projects?' The government should be deeply ashamed of this bill. 16:09 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'm always very pleased to follow the member for Griffith, but it's astounding that I'm coming straight after him, because ordinarily on bills like this, especially government bills, you'd expect someone from Labor to jump up in between. Someone speaks for it; someone speaks against it. Not one single Labor backbencher or member of Parliament and the minister has had the guts to come in here and speak to this bill. I can tell you who has spoken to the bill: the Liberals. The Liberals got up and said, 'This is the bill we've been calling for, so we're going to vote for it.' This is a bill designed by Santos, the gas corporation, the fossil fuel industry and the Liberal Party, but drafted by Labor and put to parliament to fast-track gas projects and take away First Nations voices. I want to tell you about Dennis Tipakalippa. He is an elder and a senior lawman and a traditional owner of the Munupi clan, and he lives on the Tiwi Islands. Santos wanted to come and still wants to come and build a massive gas project in his clan's sea country. Mr Tipakalippa has been brave enough to take on the massive gas giant Santos and take them to court. He took them to court and won. The Full Court of the Federal Court, when it went on appeal, backed him up. They said 'Yes, you are right.' What was a court case about? It was about him on behalf of his people, the First Nations traditional owners, saying, 'If you want to do this, then under existing law you need to come and consult me.' Do you know what Santos said when it went to court? Santos said, 'No, he's not a relevant person under the law. We don't have to consult him.' That is what they argued. 'We don't have to talk to First Nations owners and listen to their voices.' The court disagreed. But then Santos went and complained to the minister and wrote her a letter and said, referencing this court decision, 'These terrible court decisions that these First Nations people keep winning are tying us up too much. You need to change the law.' They referenced another court decision from one of their mates in Woodside, where Raelene Cooper, a custodian of Murujuga in north-west Western Australia, took Woodside to court. They wanted to start seismic testing on her sea country. The court backed her and said, 'Yes, you can't just go ahead without properly consulting them. You've got to sit down and do it. Santos said that was terrible as well: these court decisions that these are First Nations and traditional owners keep winning, where, heaven forbid, they demand the right to be consulted, are slowing down our multibillion-dollar gas projects on their Country, projects that are huge climate bombs, that these First Nations people are saying they have the right to be heard about and to oppose. What does the minister do after getting this letter from Santos? The minister says, 'Sure; I am prepared to change the rules so that the consultation requirements can be weakened and First Nations voices don't have to be listened to in the way that the court has said they have to. You know what the minister said? The current consultation system is unworkable. The Full Court of the Federal Court said the rules are workable. They are working for the First Nations owners, who get to be heard. They're not working for Santos or the Woodside, because they have to go and talk to First Nations owners. The minister says, 'I don't care.' And the minister brings this piece of legislation to the parliament. What does this piece of legislation do? It says that even the weak consultation rights that First Nations people have, under a plan that was put in place by John Howard, can now be ignored if the resource minister says so. The resource minister gets to say 'You do not have to comply with the consultation and the other rules that were put in place by John Howard if I so decide.' The minister gets to decide that the basic rights of consultation no longer apply. Why? Because Santos has asked for it. This is from a government that said it wanted to hear First Nations voices, that took the country to a referendum. We campaigned together with the government for a successful 'yes' vote, and we shared the disappointment when we couldn't put into our Constitution a provision that said there will be a voice for First Nations peoples. We took the Prime Minister and the government at face value when they said they wanted to hear what First Nations voices have to say. It seems that promise was paper thin because the first piece of legislation about First Nations consultation and rights that the government is bringing to this parliament is one that takes away the rights that First Nations peoples have, because the big corporations have asked for it. It is no wonder the race baiters and climate deniers in the coalition are lining up to support the bill. Doesn't that tell you something, Labor—that the support you're getting for this is from the climate deniers in the coalition who spread misinformation to defeat the Voice in the first place? Why is Labor breaking an election promise and working with the climate deniers and race baiters in the coalition to weaken our environment laws, fast-track gas projects and take away First Nations voices? That's what this legislation does. I suspect a bunch of people in Labor didn't know about it when it was slipped through by the resources minister, because this is one schedule in an act that's about worker safety. The legislation we're debating here is about worker safety. The caucus was probably told that this is a worker safety bill, but buried in it is this provision that lets the resources minister write a great big exemption for the gas giants in this country to go ahead and do whatever they want to do. Even though the Federal Court has said it's illegal, even though laws John Howard put in place would have said it's illegal, they get a free pass and get to work around all that thanks to this Labor government. This is at a time when some people in northern New South Wales haven't been able to get back into their homes since the floods, when people in Queensland fear every time the weather gets hot or when there are reports of more storms because it could mean they lose their homes yet again to extreme weather events. It comes at a time when, over summer, in some parts of this country, the temperature didn't drop at night for consecutive nights in a row and parents struggled to get their kids to bed and elderly people suffered just as they did during the Black Summer, when more people died from the heatwaves than from the tragic bushfires. We are hurtling towards climate catastrophe. The UN Secretary-General has said we are in an era of global boiling. A 1½ degree target our Pacific island neighbours are pleading with us to meet may well be breached, and that means goodbye to their homes. As we are told, a bare minimum for tackling the climate crisis is to stop opening new coal, oil and gas projects because there's just not enough room in the atmosphere to put more climate pollution in it. What does Labor do? Labor brings a bill to this parliament to fast-track new gas climate bombs. Labor says: 'We care about climate. We're passing electric vehicle legislation.' I tell you what: even just one new big gas project approved under this fast-track law that Labor and the Liberals are ramming through will wipe out all the gains from the electric vehicle projects and legislation. Approving just one new gas project under this law is the equivalent of ripping solar panels off four million roofs in this country. We're saying to Labor very clearly: enough of the greenwashing, and enough of saying you want to put more electric cars on the road and solar panels on people's roofs, while quietly doing a dirty deal with the Liberals to fast-track new gas projects that cook people's future. There can be no new coal and gas projects for us to have any chance of having a safer climate. The decisions we make now will reverberate for generations because the thing about the climate crisis is that once we breach a certain threshold, and the planet gets too hot, climate change becomes runaway. Our kids and our grandkids won't be able to rein it in. It will be too late. The decisions that we make now, right here in this parliament, will determine what life is like for our kids and our grandkids. It will determine what life is like for primary school students alive today as to whether or not parts of this country become uninhabitable during their lifetime. Just think about that: the decisions that we make now will determine whether parts of this country are habitable for kids at primary school right now. This is an emergency. We need to be pulling out all stops. And what does Labor do? Labor brings forward a law to fast-track new oil and gas projects. Astounding! People will look back at this in decades and go: 'We can't believe Labor and the Liberals did that. What was Labor thinking to fast-track new gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis?' When we came into this parliament, when the Liberals were turfed out because of their climate denial and Labor came in promising climate action and we got more third voices in this parliament than ever before off the back of people wanting climate action, I thought, perhaps naively, that the debates we'd be having with Labor would be how quickly we were going to get there—and we'd want to go as quickly as the science demanded, and Labor wouldn't, and we'd have a debate and maybe meet somewhere in the middle. What I didn't expect was that Labor would do a dirty deal with the Liberals to make it easier to open new gas projects and put more climate pollution into the atmosphere. But that's what they're doing. The first step in tackling a problem is to stop making the problem worse. You can't put the fire out while you are pouring petrol on it. There's a reason the world's scientists are saying that we can't open any new coal, oil and gas projects. There's a reason the International Energy Agency said that a couple of years ago was the time we had to stop building new projects. There's a reason the UN Secretary-General is pleading with us to stop opening new coal, oil and gas projects. There's a reason our Pacific island neighbours are pleading with Australia to stop opening new coal and gas projects. It's because we are in a climate emergency, and the decisions that we make now will determine whether or not we get out of it. Labor, don't come here and pretend to care about climate change. Don't come here as climate con artists and say, 'We're going to put more solar panels on roofs,' and then rip the equivalent of four million roofs worth of solar panels off by approving one new gas project. There are 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline. Through safeguard negotiations and pressure, the Greens managed to stop about half of them by putting a hard cap on pollution. But what is becoming clear is that Labor is hell-bent on opening the rest of them. As we head towards the final year of this parliament, what you're seeing is this: you're seeing Labor work with the Liberals on migration, Labor working with the Liberals on discrimination, Labor working with the Liberals on climate. I've got a message for you: have a look at what happened over the weekend in South Australia and in Tasmania. Have a look at the fact that at the last election Labor's vote went backwards and the coalition's vote went backwards. People want this parliament to start acting for the public interest, not for the big corporate interests. Your vote's going to keep going backwards. Labor and the Liberals can prop it up by doing dirty deals across the aisle on political donations and the political system, to try to rig it in their favour, or on migration, in a race to the bottom, or to fast-track new oil and gas projects. The more you do that, the more people are going to see through you and demand what they demanded in Tasmania, what they demanded in South Australia and what they demanded at the last election. It is time to stop opening coal and gas projects, listen to First Nations voices in this country and ditch this bill. (Time expired) 16:24 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today to speak on this bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I'm feeling disappointed with a government that once again has put up incomplete legislation in this place which illogically merges two separate issues into one bill. This is poor governance, and I will not be supporting this bill. Like the Nature Repair Market Bill and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill last year, this bill is once again putting the cart before the horse. It's making changes that could greatly impact the natural environment before we've seen the long promised bill to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, under the government's Nature Positive reforms. My constituents dearly value our natural environment. They need to protect it and they want the government to help them do so. A recent community survey undertaken by my office asked, 'What do you love most about living in your local area?' Time and time again, consistently across hundreds of responses, my constituents say they love nature, they love the scenic environment, they love the natural beauty and they wish to protect it. When I was elected as the member for Indi, I was also given a clear mandate by the community to make meaningful action on climate change a priority and to protect the natural environment which we all hold so dear. I take these mandates very seriously and I carefully scrutinise any legislation that could impact how the government approaches fossil fuel projects and environmental protections. This includes the bill before us today. This bill has two purposes. The first is to improve safety for offshore resources sector workers. This will implement recommendations of a 2021 review into offshore oil and gas safety. It includes measures like strengthening the role of health and safety representatives, providing better protections against discrimination and improving protection for diving activities related to gas and oil projects. Of course I support these provisions of the bill. These are dangerous jobs, and I recognise the need to ensure that our laws offer the best protections for workers, particularly for those operating in dangerous environments, as with offshore resources work. However, the second purpose of the bill is entirely unrelated to worker safety and is deeply problematic. It is to make changes to the offshore environment management regulations to allow the Minister for Resources to make amendments to them—that is, to change how offshore petroleum and gas projects, which, let's be clear, are fossil fuel projects, which are contributing to climate change, are regulated. Currently, offshore projects are approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which I'll refer to as the authority. More than 10 years ago, the minister for the environment said that the authority's approvals for new offshore gas projects are taken to be compliant with the EPBC Act. This means that new offshore gas projects do not have to go through separate referral assessments and approvals under the EPBC Act. The government say the problem with this current system is that the approval authority's regulations have not been updated and improved over time, and this bill changes that by allowing the Minister for Resources to effectively change regulations that govern offshore gas approvals. One aspect of these regulations that the minister would be given the power to change is the requirement for companies to consult with impacted traditional owners, who have rights and important cultural connections to the waters on which these projects may be built. The government admits that this bill is in response to recent court cases, including one which found that the gas company Santos did not adequately consult with traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands for a proposed offshore gas project as required under the authority's regulations. The government says that, in response to this court case, both companies wanting to build offshore gas projects and the traditional owners who are impacted by the projects are unsure what the consultation standards are. They want clarity. The minister has tried to sell these changes as technical. Indeed, they're only referred to as 'other measures' in the bill's title. But I suggest that if you dig a little deeper you will see that these amendments could have serious ramifications. A major issue that I have with this bill is that it does not guarantee that these regulations will be of the same or a higher standard as the assessments under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act, let's remember, is there to protect and conserve our unique natural environment and minimise any harm to it. In addition, right at this moment the government is drafting important reforms to strengthen the EPBC Act. These include the creation of a national environment protection agency, which would make sure regulations for offshore gas projects are consistent with new and hopefully higher environmental standards. The laws in this bill may come into effect before these new environmental protection laws, and they may be at a lower standard. That is cause for concern; it is cause for alarm. Another concern is that this bill pre-empts the review of community consultation and engagement requirements currently underway, announced last year in response to the court cases mentioned earlier. The Climate Council has criticised this, stating: Introducing and seeking passage of this bill before this consultation process has concluded is very poor public policy practice, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Government is simply engaging in performative consultation designed to reach a foregone conclusion. It's scathing. I'm worried that this bill is a foregone conclusion because it's exactly what the gas companies want. A freedom of information request found that Santos—a major gas company I mentioned earlier—wrote an email to the minister asking for the changes to the laws that we are seeing here today in black and white in this bill. The Senate committee's inquiry into the bill similarly received evidence from the gas industry urging the parliament to pass it. I note that this committee was given less than a month to receive submissions and hold a public hearing, and that this rushed process fails to give adequate time to consider clearly controversial legislation, which risks subverting the independence of environmental regulations. So it leaves me asking the question: why is the government rushing this controversial bill through parliament, if not to appease the interests of the fossil fuel industry over good process and good governance? Many reputable organisations and academics have sounded the alarm that consultation standards in particular could be weakened. The Australia Institute have said that the changes proposed in the bill allow the minister to relax the rules imposed on offshore oil projects, including rules about consultation requirements. They warned of serious risks—that the bill 'risks bypassing traditional owners, local groups and tourism and fishing businesses'. Ensuring high standards for community consultation and engagement is critical. The Australia Institute, again, in criticising the bill, said: Given how disruptive and destructive offshore oil and gas projects can be, they should not be built unless they have a genuine social licence to operate from the people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected. Genuine social licence, achieved through community engagement and benefit from energy projects, is important. Communities have the right to have questions answered and concerns addressed. They must have the opportunity to benefit from a project that may impact them. I include this for fossil fuel projects, but for renewable energy projects too. In my own electorate, renewable energy developers are currently proposing massive solar and battery projects in small rural townships, but my constituents—some of whom will live next to these projects—are finding out about them through a letter in the post or under their door, or sometimes through a news report. Community consultation matters. Community consultation undertaken by companies is woefully inadequate. It leaves communities feeling disempowered; it leaves them feeling anxious; it leaves them worse off. This government must prioritise changing this. They must legislate best practice for energy projects, whether that be for a fossil fuel project or for a renewable energy project. I am concerned that, with this bill, the government is once again sidelining community engagement as just ticking a box—just an exercise to get developments off the ground. It's disingenuous. It is not good enough. The minister says that any changes to consultation requirements for offshore gas projects would go through separate policy processes with the appropriate scrutiny. This might be the case, but I want to see that in black and white. Right now, we have no certainty whatsoever. I urge the government to amend the bill, to strengthen protections against the Minister for Resources weakening regulations below EPBC standards, and to require the minister for the environment to agree to any changes in regulations proposed by the Minister for Resources. I understand amendments have been drafted by the Minister for Resources, but these amendments don't stop the minister from watering down consultation requirements. They don't allow the minister for the environment to veto the regulations if they don't comply with the EPBC Act. They simply don't address the concerns I have laid out. What a weak effort. Until I see these concerns adequately addressed, I will support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues the member for Warringah and the member for Goldstein, which would remove the provisions relating to the offshore regulatory system entirely. The parliament should pass immediately reforms to improve worker safety while allowing members of parliament adequate time to consider controversial changes to other parts of the bill on their merits. As an Independent I consider each bill on its individual merits, and I cannot support legislation such as this that has serious flaws for the environment and for the communities. I will not be supporting this bill. 16:35 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein It's becoming a bit of a habit, isn't it? Once again, we're being asked to rush undercooked legislation through the House and, worse, once again the government is packaging two utterly unrelated legislative objectives into a single bill. Now we're seeing the government make urgent twelfth hour amendments to its own legislation in light of significant interest group and crossbench concerns—and, it seems, the belated concerns of some of its own backbench, who initially took at face value the caucus briefing from the resources minister. It seems they only woke up to what was going on once crossbenchers raised the alarm after a similarly anodyne briefing from the minister. All the emphasis was on the safety element of the legislation and then, almost as an afterthought, 'Oh, there's a bit of a change to the approval process, but it's not a big deal'—or words to that effect. This reflects poor legislative practice and, arguably, a lack of good faith. The thing is that the crossbench reads legislation, so trying to slip this kind of thing into bills is also poor strategy. Did the government think we wouldn’t notice? My view on this legislation can broadly be captured by a single phrase: it's all in a name—or, rather, in this case, what is not in the name. By virtue of its title and how it's been presented to the parliament, one could be forgiven for mistaking the central policy objective of this bill as relating to workplace safety. Until now, I was yet to see a bill which so silently delivers more for the 'other measures' side of its name than its ostensibly principal safety side. 'Other measures' is being called on to do an awful lot of work here. Two principles underline my concerns with this legislation. The first, as I've already mentioned, is the principle of good legislative practice. The second is the substance of much of schedule 2, the 'other measures', and the risks that these proposals pose to environmental protection, genuine First Nations engagement and the importance of integrity in good governance. The genesis of this legislation appears to be what might politely be referred to as 'pressure' by Japan and South Korea. Earlier this month the Saturday Paper reported the Chief Executive Officer of Japanese resources company Inpex telling a function hosted by the resources minister that the government's decision to cap domestic gas prices and insist that supplies were not diverted offshore was 'damaging Australia's hard earned international reputation as a premium trading partner'. He demanded 'certainty in policy direction and a stable regulatory framework'. The government seems to have received that message loud and clear. First came the euphemistically titled Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. In fact, the legislation was little more than a sop to Santos, which had threatened to pull the pin on its Barossa offshore gas project unless the government agreed to allow the sequestration of vast amounts of carbon dioxide under the sea. All this, even though carbon capture and storage has not yet worked at scale anywhere in the world and, according to some experts, never will. There are also a range of open questions about its environmental impact. Now the second shoe has dropped with this legislation, also apparently designed as a sop to the resources sector. Let's be real. How much does this legislation have to do with the fact that the government depends for its majority on the four seats it gained in Western Australia at the last election, the fact that the resources sector has an outsize ability to influence public opinion in WA and the fact that that state's media are the most concentrated, if not monopolistic, in the country? The government has clearly heard the quite significant concerns voiced by me, the rest of the crossbench and industry-leading experts on the non-worker-safety related provisions in this legislation. The minister's introduction of last-minute amendments over the weekend is a clear sign of just how unacceptable the original legislation was, not only to the crossbench but also to elements within the minister's own party. It would be preferable if those backbenchers were prepared to stand up and be counted. But the fact that they've raised their concerns behind closed doors is positive. The amendments are a start, but the government would need to go much further to assure me—and the Australian public, I believe—that this legislation would not seriously undermine the integrity of Australia's environmental protection regime. I reject the government's suggestion that consultation between two ministers to determine whether regulation is 'not inconsistent' with ecologically sustainable development principles enshrined in the EPBC Act would be sufficient to uphold the integrity of Australia's existing environmental protection system. 'Not inconsistent' is legislative backwards gobbledygook if ever I've seen it. Why not simply make it 'consistent' with ESD principles? Unfortunately we don't know, because these amendments have been introduced without the opportunity of a briefing from the responsible minister. On the basis of the supplementary explanatory memorandum, it looks like the government wants us to believe that the environment minister is being brought back into the process. That's just where she's been under current law and where she should be into the future. The amendments go through a series of contortions worthy of Houdini himself to give the environment minister some role in this increasingly convoluted process. As the Australian Conservation Foundation notes: The changes allow for exemptions from Australia's environment law for offshore gas project approvals to be switched off by the Environment Minister if she is not satisfied that changes to the regs are not inconsistent with ecologically sustainable development principles. The double negative doesn't provide much confidence for people who value nature protection or First Nations' rights to say no to projects they don't want on their Country. The original legislation, before these amendments, would have given the resources minister significant ability to limit the powers of First Nations people to be consulted on resources projects and to raise objections. It is very difficult to see how the amendments as they stand overcome these concerns. All in all, this is an extraordinarily low standard for this government to hold itself to—a government ostensibly committed to delivering ambitious Nature Positive EPBC reform. Meeting such a definition—one steeped in vague and confusing double-negative language—is likely to be ineffective in imposing substantive boundaries on ministerial decision-making. The fundamental point remains: no consultation between ministers would be necessary if the government had acted with greater speed to reform the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As for the proposed sunset clause in this bill, it's good as far as it goes, because the carve out for resources project approvals is no longer permanent. But the provisions do not appear to be limited to the changes to consultation that the government says are the purpose of the amendments. The government was elected on a commitment to deliver ambitious environmental protection reform via the amendment of the EPBC Act. Numerous delays have left crossbenchers, including me, and experts and interest groups in suspense as to whether the final shape of these proposed reforms will correspond to those outlined in the government's Nature Positive Plan. With consultation and work actively underway, the government should resist carving out particular reforms and instead focus on delivering holistic reform to Australia's environmental protection regime as it promised to do. In my view, holistic environmental reform would at the very least include: a truly independent Environmental Protection Agency with zero ministerial capacity to interfere with decision-making, whether it involves three ministers, two ministers or just the one; ambitious and upfront protections for habitats of threatened species; no weakening of biodiversity-offsetting frameworks; consideration of how project approvals may worsen climate change; and genuine engagement with First Nations people. I began my speech by talking about patterns and principles. In the context of environmental policy, our nation needs less resort to the former and much more implementation of the latter. I want to make my position on this very clear. Australia currently stands at a unique political moment where historic reforms to the EPBC Act are now within reach. This has not been the case for many decades, and, if we miss this genuine opportunity, we may not get another for many more. Our environment, our biodiversity and, indeed, our future will be much the worse for it. On this bill, therefore, I stand by my stated position—that the EPBC carve out should be removed. As it stands, I will not vote for this bill. 16:45 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong This legislation is a line-in-the-sand moment for the Albanese government. It's ironic that that line in the sand is three miles offshore. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 should improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. Some parts of the legislation—the ones which are named in its title—are uncontroversial. Others are deeply concerning, and they speak volumes about the Albanese government's unhealthily close relationship with the gas industry. They should not be in this bill. This retrograde piece of legislation would actually weaken the environmental protections for offshore gas put in place by the Liberal Party's industry minister Ian Macfarlane when he approved the endorsed program in 2014. What sort of legacy would that be for Minister King? The regulation of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage in Australian waters is divided between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments. The states have responsibility for activities in the zone of coastal waters up to three nautical miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline. The Commonwealth has responsibility for offshore areas, those beyond the coastal waters, to the outer limits of the continental shelf. Offshore petroleum exploration and production and the storage of greenhouse gases under the seabed in offshore areas are regulated under this piece of legislation, the OPGGS Act. That act regulates all aspects of offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities, from exploration to production to decommissioning in offshore areas. It oversees two statutory offices with specific responsibilities, the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, which issues titles for offshore petroleum activities, and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA, which regulates offshore work health and safety, well integrity and environmental management. In 2014 the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, scrapped 9,500 regulations in one day, and it was at that time that the then Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, delegated responsibility for environmental assessments and approvals of offshore gas developments from his office to the industry funded regulator NOPSEMA. Since 2014 NOPSEMA has overseen a streamlined environmental management authorisation process for petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Not all such activities are permitted under this streamlined process. Actions which are not permitted under it and which therefore have to be assessed and approved in accordance with the usual processes under the EPBC Act include those likely to have a significant impact on the environment, on Commonwealth land, on the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef property and on the injection and/or storage of greenhouse gas—that is, those related to carbon capture and storage. The bill before us today contains several amendments which should strengthen the role, expertise and protections of health and safety representatives on offshore vessels and which should give NOPSEMA greater ability to monitor compliance with diving-related safety obligations on vessels. Those amendments seem entirely reasonable. More importantly, however, the bill also proposes a new section, 790E, to allow for amendments to the OPGGS Act, or regulations made under it, which are inconsistent with the endorsed program authorised by the EPBC Act 1999. By allowing further changes to the NOPSEMA approvals program, while still retaining those EPBC rubber stamps, the government is proposing to subvert the process of the EPBC Act and further reduce oversight of the offshore gas industry. Under this proposed legislation the Minister for Resources will have the ability to provide approvals for offshore gas exploration and mining and for sea dumping or carbon capture and storage under the seabed even where those processes are likely to have a significant impact on the environment or on World Heritage areas like the Great Barrier Reef, even where the prior approval of these projects was contingent on conditions imposed under the EPBC Act. The bill will concentrate an enormous amount of power, including the power to wind back First Nations consultation rights and environmental protections, in the federal resources minister, who, let us remember, is also responsible for promoting that resources industry. There is no guarantee resource ministers under future governments or even this government will use this power in the interests of the environment or of First Nations people. In the last 24 hours this government has added a milquetoast amendment purporting to limit the minister's discretionary powers. But section 1C(b) of that amendment effectively neutralises the limits that the amendment seeks to place on the bill. Sorry, Minister, but we can see through this appalling subterfuge. I remind the House that on 11 March 2024 we saw the hottest recorded daily sea temperature of the world ever: 21.2 degrees. This was just one of dozens of climate records broken in months in Australia and overseas. The Great Barrier Reef is already bleaching. Does the resources minister want it gone more quickly? We know that we can't trust NOPSEMA to act in the best interests of traditional owners or the environment. To recent cases in the Federal Court have cast a spotlight on this fact. In Santos v. Tipakalippa the Full Court of the Federal Court found that Santos had not properly consulted with the traditional owners. In Cooper v. NOPSEMA, Justice Colvin found that NOPSEMA had in effect trusted Woodside to determine the environmental impacts and risks as well as the value of the measures adopted to address those risks. NOPSEMA has a demonstrable track record of giving the fox free access to the henhouse. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is currently consulting on the major reforms to the EPBC Act that were recommended by the Samuel review. It is unclear whether or how this proposed section of legislation will interface with those reforms. That consultation process will continue for the next few months. The bill also fails to directly address issues raised in relation to the consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas developments under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023—for example, two specific amendments clarifying consultation processes. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources is currently consulting on those reforms. Submissions closed on 8 March 2020. It's extremely disappointing that the bill has been introduced while we are still in the middle of not one but two major government consultation processes. The bill has been provided with a very short time frame. It was introduced to parliament on 22 February 2024 and referred to an inquiry by the Senate on 29 February. The results of that Senate inquiry are still pending. There seems to be no rationale for this unseemly haste. The bill not only undermines the very role of national environmental laws; it comes from right field at a time when we're supposed to be addressing and, ideally, fixing those laws. The bill aims to pre-empt the major reforms we are participating in in this term of government by the EPBC Act and the nature positive reform package. The bill means to bypass the very reasonable standard set by the law, upheld in Tipakalippa: that First Nations communities have traditional cultural connections with the sea; that will they have reliance upon and a relationship to marine life and environment; that offshore oil and gas projects can pose a significant risk to First Nations communities, marine life and the environment; and that First Nations communities are put at risk by oil and gas projects and therefore must be consulted about those projects. The government's explanatory memorandum for this bill claims that it has consulted with major industry interest groups and with government departments. But the fact that this bill has been welcomed by the oil and gas industry tells us all that we need to know about it. FOI documentation has revealed that a joint letter was sent by Santos, JERA and SK E&S to Minister King on 6 October 2023, demanding changes to the approval process for offshore petroleum developments. It would appear that this bill is the minister's response to those demands. I would note that another concerned stakeholder is the LNP coalition, members of which are not speaking to the bill, because they're also pretty happy with it. This bill is part of the quid pro quo for the LNP's support of the government's piddling changes to the petroleum resource rent tax. The EM for this bill does not stipulate the extent to which to which the minister for the environment was consulted during the preparation of this legislation. One suspects the answer to that is: not very much. The Minister for Resources should be embarrassed that she has so clumsily slipped this amendment in with what are—let's face it—some important industry protections. I suggest that the relevant unions, those who are supported by this administration and these amendments, should see this and they should hold the minister to account for her behaviour. I note that the Treasurer has also spoken in favour of this bill to reassure fossil fuel companies not only that the government has their back but also that, extraordinarily, all changes under the bill will be grandfathered. The foreign minister has recently said yes to Santos, yes to Woodside and yes to Inpex in the other place. But we need to say no to this government's continued deference to and delegation of power to the gas industry. The environmental minister seems to have been bypassed both in the preparation and in the proposed operation of this bill. I would like to see her speak to it. She should hold her colleagues to account for this. Introducing important protections for workers in dangerous occupations is something that our government should do. But it diminishes those protections when they're used as a political shield and when they're used to take away the rights of First Nations people to appropriate consultation about things which are very important to them. They should not be introduced in the context of a sneaky piece of side legislation which substantially reduces the protection of our seas. This bill cannot be supported, and it should not be supported unless proposed section 790E(2) of schedule 2 is deleted. The bill has been prepared as a favour to the multinational gas industry to help it develop new offshore gas projects and to dump more carbon dioxide under our seabeds. Now, in 2024, the Albanese government is helping the gas industry to develop new fossil fuel projects. The people of Australia should know this, and they should remember it when they next vote in a federal election. I cannot support the bill. Debate adjourned. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 73 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Pensions and Benefits 73 16:59 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton This is a very brief explanation and the bill will resume after I speak. I seek to add to an answer. Today in question time, I was asked a question about the cashless debit card. I can confirm to the House there were no compulsory cashless debit card trial sites in Central Australia. BILLS 73 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 73

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

Second Reading 73 17:00 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today to speak against this bill in the strongest possible terms. One of the main reasons the people of Mackellar sent me to this place was that they wanted greater integrity and transparency from our politicians and in our political system. The way the Minister for Resources has tried to sneak through an amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, an amendment which would weaken the consultation obligations of offshore oil and gas proponents, is a masterclass in lack of transparency and lack of consultation. For nearly a decade people across Australia, including in my electorate of Mackellar, have grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of integrity in our political system. For nearly a decade they've watched on as former governments failed to put in place measures to combat corruption within their own ranks; pork-barrelling flourished, as did the jobs-for-mates culture; the influence of vested interests flourished; and there was a lack of transparency around political lobbying and donations. It seems that here the fossil fuel interests are once again pulling the strings. The Australian people sent a very clear message to this place at the last election: they had had enough of the lack of transparency and they expected better. However, the manner in which the resources minister has attempted to slip through an amendment to this bill lacks transparency and integrity. The minister is trying to slip in an amendment which would weaken obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with communities and First Nations peoples, thus circumventing our national environmental laws, and get it through unnoticed. It is couched as being among amendments to improve safety for workers on offshore mining projects, something that we of course support. But the way this has been couched—in amongst many other different amendments, in a 'nothing to see here' mentality—lacks transparency. This is another example of the vital importance of the crossbench in holding the government to account and calling them out when they don't live up to their own ambitions of being more transparent and collaborative. I was optimistic that that message had got through at the last election. I was hopeful that the new government would act with integrity and transparency. Unfortunately, on this occasion I have been disappointed. In fact, when it comes to laws to protect our environment, the Labor government have repeatedly failed Australians. The Labor government have greenwashed us over and over again. They are, quite simply, speaking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to the environment and climate change. The resources minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water are acting in direct opposition to one another, as in the case of this amendment. Just as the environment minister is holding in-depth consultations about how to strengthen our national environment laws, the resources minister is creating a pathway around them—a back door, if you like—for the fossil fuel companies. Despite all the rhetoric that followed the dire state of the environment report that was made public in 2022, the Labor government have done very little to actually protect our environment or halt the devastating effects of climate change. Of course they will claim otherwise, quite naturally. They are very good at tinkering around the edges and making the Australian public think they are taking action. They use phrases like 'signature climate policy', 'nature positive plan'. They're very good at spin. But once they've unveiled their signature climate policy or Nature Positive Plan they will very quickly and quietly introduce tricky pieces of legislation which subvert or negate the effects of what they claim they have set out to do. Let's go through some examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all the safeguard mechanism. This is the government's signature climate policy. It's a policy which deals only with scope 1 emissions and only those from Australia's 219 largest emitters. To put that in perspective: scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are controlled or owned by those 219 largest emitters. If we take the example of fossil fuel companies, that means the safeguard mechanism seeks to regulate only the emissions created from taking fossil fuels out of the ground, when they are being mined. It does nothing to cover emissions created from what happens next: the burning of those fossil fuels, which, as everyone knows, is where the devastation really occurs. Further, the safeguard mechanism does nothing to deal with emissions from transport or households. On transport, we are nearly two years into this term of parliament, and this government has still not legislated the vehicle efficiency standards. Yes, a proposal is on the table, but as of today Australia remains partnered with Russia as one of the only OECD countries without vehicle efficiency standards. Two years into the government's term, manufacturers are still able to treat this country as a dumping ground for heavy-polluting vehicles. But back to the safeguard mechanism: it was introduced with much fanfare, and I supported that piece of legislation. Like everything related to the climate or the environment that this government is doing, it wasn't adequate, but it was progress. I negotiated with the government on it and helped achieve a concession in relation to the new gas facilities, which as a result are required to be net-zero emissions from their commencement. Shortly afterwards, however, the Minister for the Environment and Water introduced the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Documents released under the freedom of information laws revealed that this bill was introduced so the government could help gas companies like Santos subvert the requirements of the safeguard mechanism. This bill allowed the import and export of carbon dioxide for injection into the seabed. That's right: Santos demanded an exemption from this provision in the safeguard mechanism, and they got it—inject carbon into our oceans or ship it to East Timor and inject it into their ocean bed. The safeguard mechanism, in this way, has been thwarted. Carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology at best, can now be used as a way for fossil fuel companies to expand their gas projects massively. And don't forget: our safeguard mechanism does nothing to address what happens when gas is actually burnt for energy. The next big reform the government boasts about is the changes to our country's environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. For this, the government has a Nature Positive Plan, but we have not seen the government's proposed amendments to the EPBC Act, despite having been promised that we would see them well ahead of now. There are even suggestions that some of the necessary reforms to the EPBC legislation will not be introduced in this term of government. But, to be fair, there was one necessary reform to the EPBC Act which the government did introduce late last year. That was to extend the water trigger in the EPBC Act to cover all forms of unconventional gas. In other words, as a result of that reform, where mining for any type of gas occurs onshore, it must be referred to the environment minister for approval if it is likely to have a significant impact on water resources. But—and there's always a 'but'—there are two current proposals for new gas projects in the Beetaloo basin which we know have not been referred to the minister under this expanded water trigger. The minister has written to the proponent, Tamboran Resources, informing the company of its obligations under the new laws but has not yet used her call-in powers to require the project to be referred to her for assessment. I asked a question about this in question time last week, and there was no indication that the call-in powers would be used. So the question arises: What happens if the proponent fails to refer projects to the minister under the new water trigger? Is there a consequence? The answer is that the water trigger is a law which essentially leaves the decision about whether a project needs federal approval up to the profit driven fossil fuel company, the proponent. Any penalty in relation to a failure to refer can only be imposed after the relevant fossil fuel project commences. The fossil fuel company may, of course, already have destroyed the water aquifer by that point. Once that's done, a maximum penalty of around $15 million can be imposed. This would be a drop in the ocean for a fossil fuel company that might make billions of dollars in profit from already having destroyed our water resources. They will consider such a penalty a cost of doing business. Another example of industries receiving exemptions from environmental laws is the logging industry. Where a regional forestry agreement is in place in a particular state, logging operations covered under that agreement are exempt from the EPBC Act. Again, as a result of a question I asked in parliament last year, the minister confirmed that the reforms to the EPBC Act would remove that exemption. But in subsequent dealings with the environment minister's office they have often sidestepped the question of precisely when the regional forestry agreements would lose their exemption. Some of those regional forestry agreements, after all, have up to 20 years still to run. Will it only be new regional forestry agreements that are caught up by these environment laws? Will others still have 20 years to log our native forests free from the restriction imposed by our national environment laws? With this bill and with the amendments to this bill, as we have seen but not yet been briefed on or even officially told about, we see yet another example of the government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. This bill is called the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and it is the 'other measures' bit where we immediately are concerned. In amongst the detail of new safety measures for offshore gas industry workers the government had hidden an amendment which basically allows the resources minister to sidestep the requirements of the EPBC Act when approving projects. The bill facilitates the weakening of current obligations for offshore oil and gas proponents to consult with interested communities and First Nations representatives about their projects. It empowers the resources minister to introduce lower standards than those that would be required under the EPBC Act. This is an incredible example of the government doing its level best to subvert its own environmental legislation. When it comes to projects as environmentally destructive and catastrophic for the climate as offshore oil and gas production, why on earth would the government weaken its own existing environmental standards? Not only that, why would it hide that it is weakening it in a bill which was otherwise about a very different issue entirely? Then we get to the procedural problems in the government's handling of this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for a truncated, some might say quick-and-dirty, review of the legislation. Lo and behold, that inquiry recommended no changes to the bill. The inquiry report noted: The committee notes that many witnesses have submitted that— the changes at issue— … may be applied in such a way which could potentially weaken environmental standards or consultation requirements. The report did not quote or analyse those submissions but went straight on in the next sentence to highlight evidence from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources: … that the bill under consideration does not change approval or consultation processes. It is only after the howls of protest from the crossbench and the entire environmental community that the government is seeking to introduce amendments to this bill. What do those amendments do? They basically establish an optional consultation process between the resources minister and the environment minister. The effect of the amendments is that when the resources minister wants to make a regulation bypassing the EPBC Act, she must be satisfied that those regulations are not inconsistent with that act. She must consult with the environment minister, and the environment minister must send the resources minister a notice declaring whether the regulations are consistent or inconsistent with the EPBC Act. But at the end of all that the resources minister may ignore everything and put through the regulations anyway, to use the language of the amendment, even if the environment minister thinks the regulations she wants to make are inconsistent with the environment laws. Even if the environment minister issues a notice to the resources minister declaring exactly the same thing, the resources minister may go ahead and make the regulations anyway. So at the end of it all, this bill and the government's amendments to it do nothing to resolve the reality of accelerated offshore gas approvals. Unfortunately, this Labor government has proven itself just as willing to approve coal and gas developments as the coalition government was. In seeking to pass this bill the government is making a complete mockery of our national environment laws. (Time expired) (Quorum formed) 17:18 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah It is great to finally see some backbenchers and members of the government in the House to listen to the debate in relation to this important bill. It is of importance that not a single backbencher of government is speaking to defend this bill. All these members of parliament that go to their communities with a staunch commitment to Indigenous voices being heard and action on climate change are silent when their own government is introducing bad legislation. At a time when the world is reaching record temperatures and unprecedented levels of risk from climate-fuelled disasters, Australia's most polluting industries cannot be permitted to carve out from climate or environmental legislation and make things worse. I wonder just how many members of the government are aware of the terms of this legislation, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It's those 'other measures' that are the sneaky little inputs that have come in from the Minister for Resources. This bill provides an unacceptable carve out for the offshore gas industry. It shows that the government, like the coalition, is completely captured by the gas industry. Australia is currently the world's largest exporter of LNG, exporting a record 80.9 million tonnes of LNG just in 2021. Gas is fast-tracking global warming, with methane 80 times more potent over its first 20 years in capturing heat. We do not need more gas. The very thing we should be doing is holding the gas industry to higher scrutiny—to more environmental controls, not fewer. And we certainly should not allow a carve out from the Minister for Resources essentially being a minister for gas. The Climate of the Nation 2023 poll found a clear majority of Australians, 55 per cent, support no approval of any new gas, coal or oil projects. Approving new gas projects is entirely at odds with our commitment to the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees, and it's against the International Energy Association, which states that we can have no more new oil and gas projects if we wish to achieve that goal. How many members of government have gone to their communities with a commitment around global warming, a commitment to action? Yet today on the speaker's list for this legislation there is not a peep. Not a single person is willing to stand up to defend this terrible legislation. Since 2014 the offshore gas industry has circumvented the direct requirements of the EPBC Act due to changes that allow approvals to be managed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, with a proposal to streamline offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas activity environmental approvals in Australia. This green-light approach to the industry was specifically flagged for reform by Graeme Samuel in the Samuel review of the EPBC Act and has been the subject of two recent Federal Court cases. The Federal Court cases confirm that consultation with First Nations people with a connection with the land is a requirement for NOPSEMA to accept environmental reports for offshore gas projects. But now, in the wake of those decisions, the government is presenting this current bill to, essentially, circumvent that. Today we see a bill that seeks to further water down the EPBC Act and the First Nation communities consultation requirements of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. I'm sure many members in this place didn't listen particularly closely, but, as we in the crossbench listened to the second reading speech of the minister and in our face-to-face briefing, you would think there was nothing to see here—'Move along. This legislation is all fine.' But the bill does so much more than what was first obvious. It contains part 2, schedule 2, which appears to be in response to the Federal Court decision that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act requires First Nations people with a connection to land to be consulted with. So the bill before us now is a deliberate attempt to placate gas companies by amending the law that requires First Nations communities to be consulted. It is quite incredible that the same party of government that brought forward a referendum for First Nations voices to be heard is now the party that has introduced legislation to circumvent those voices for communities. It's quite outrageous. It's quite incredible that we stand in this place knowing that so many members campaigned to their communities for First Nations people to be recognised in our Constitution and, through a Voice to parliament, to be heard and to be able to engage in legislation in a meaningful way. In Warringah, hundreds of volunteers doorknocked, campaigned and stood at a booth on the day for the referendum. I'm proud that my electorate, like the electorates of many of my colleagues on the crossbench, voted yes. But when the referendum failed, we, together with many other Australians, put the government on notice. It must continue with its commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and it must especially listen to and consult with First Nations people, recognising that listening to First Nations people is not only through a legislated voice but—in practice, every day—through every piece of legislation and decision that matters. It's quite outrageous now that when something doesn't suit the government's agenda it is seeking to circumvent that requirement, and it's doing it by stealth. It's hiding this dirty little section of this legislation to improve workers' rights. No-one disputes workers' rights. That has broad support. But we've seen too often from this government these sneaky little bits of additional legislation that come into play and undermine any kind of goodwill or good work. The agenda of gas companies is clear. The government, in delivering the agenda of gas companies, is hiding grossly inadequate petroleum resource rent tax reform in a tax integrity bill. Now we're seeing this sneaky little amendment. This approach lacks integrity. It's playing politics, and I share the views of Senator David Pocock and so many here on the crossbench that it is really unbefitting of this government. So I call on members of the government to speak up in this place, represent your communities, represent First Nations Australians and make sure those communities have a voice when it comes to these projects. There are many environmental concerns around this bill and around the current state of play. It's not only consultation with First Nations communities that the government and polluting gas industries are seeking to circumvent; it's also critical environmental laws. There are serious risks in regard to the application of new environmental laws once the government's Nature Positive Plan, which is currently under consultation, is enacted. Again, it seems incomprehensible. These are significant reforms that, in the government's own words, are outcomes focused decisions that are nature positive, involving better partnerships with First Nations people and conservation planning that targets resources to areas where they have the greatest impact. While the government says all those things that sound so good, while it promises environmental reform that is well overdue, through this bill it is seeking to give carve-outs to the very industry that puts the environment at risk. It is giving a carve-out to the gas industry. It's effectively giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry and its polluting projects—the very industry that needs the most scrutiny. It's really important that we understand why part 2, schedule 2 is so important. We know we are facing a climate and environmental crisis. This month we've had announcements around bleaching events at the Great Barrier Reef, the hottest water temperatures off the New South Wales coastline and, globally, the hottest year on record. The last 12 months have seen record ice deficits in Antarctica, fires ripping through Europe, weeks of non-existent snow and record glacier melting. In Australia we know we are on the front line of impacts. Climate change will impact all of our communities. Fifty per cent of the Australian population lives within seven kilometres of our coastline. What do you think will happen when all of this, all those predictions of what will happen, comes to pass? So many of our communities will be exposed to flooding, to coastal erosion and to extreme weather events. How is anyone going to afford insurance in Australia? What is going to happen to the safety of so many communities? You cannot, on one hand, be concerned about that and then give a get-out-of-jail-free card to the gas industry by providing only the resources minister with the right to approve activity, without having to go via the environment minister and the EPBC Act. We know that there is so much risk ahead, so it's incredibly important that we have proper scrutiny around offshore gas projects. These are putting everybody's endeavours at risk—all of the emissions reductions that people make personally through their rooftop solar and through their actions. It all becomes for nothing if we keep on approving offshore gas projects. These projects must be put under the highest scrutiny under the EPBC Act. Unfortunately, we're seeing none of that. Instead, we're seeing a carve-out at a time when there is great risk that our emissions profile is even greater than we think it is. It is highly likely that satellite data will reveal that Australia's emissions may be up to 60 per cent higher than we currently think they are, because of methane. Just stop and think about what that means. In the meantime, even with that clear warning bell for the resources minister and for the minister for climate change, we have before us legislation that seeks to carve-out an industry that is a major emissions producer with projects that risk our environment. It is a massive carve-out to ensure they do not have that highest level of scrutiny. It is just incredible. At the consideration-in-detail stage, I will be moving an amendment, with the support of the member for Goldstein and many here on the crossbench, to try and improve this bill. It is an absolutely shameful day for the Albanese government. 17:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. While the vast majority of this bill delivers what are arguably necessary changes to improve the safety of those working in offshore industries—that is, the 'safety' part in the bill's title—it is the 'other measures' part that I will focus on today. In this context, this amendment to Australia's offshore gas legislation would weaken oversight and accountability within the environmental approvals regime and accord broad new powers to the resources minister. While 'other measures' sounds innocuous, this legislation is anything but that. A more apt name, indeed, would be 'Offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage legislation amendment (safety and curtailing environmental approval) bill 2024', or perhaps 'Safety and reducing First Peoples' engagement and participation in decision-making bill', or, even further, 'Safety and allowing the resources minister unfettered discretion to approve offshore gas projects bill'. That's what this bill does; it seeks to permanently change the way offshore gas projects are assessed at the same time as Australia's primary environmental legislation is undergoing significant reform to strengthen the consultation processes—all just before some of the most contentious offshore gas projects in Australia's history, including Santos's Barossa gas project, are assessed. It curtails First Peoples' engagement in the project approvals and effectively grants the offshore oil and gas industry a free pass from national environmental laws. As we face this bill, the whole process is triggering for me as I cannot help but be struck by the parallels between the approach taken around this piece of legislation and the approach that was taken when the sea dumping amendment bill was rushed through the House late last year. At the time the sea dumping amendment legislation was presented to this House, many, including myself, sought reassurances from the environment minister that that piece of legislation was not simply a veil for fossil fuel companies to reduce barriers to progress commercially. We were assured then that there was no veil, that the reason the legislation was being pushed was to ensure Australia met its international treaty obligations. Yet, during Senate hearings only a short time later, we learned there had indeed been communication between Santos and our government, which, on review, made it difficult to believe the assurances given to us at the time of the legislation's introduction could really be trusted. Both that legislation and this have ultimately involved this government rushing a bill through, so it should not be surprising that many members, including myself, now fear this is yet again a veil for a commercial endeavour to achieve a desired outcome. I can't help but note the lack of government speakers in favour of this legislation. I acknowledge that, in listening to both my and others' concerns, the government has sought to amend this bill. But in my opinion these amendments do not go far enough to address the serious concerns this legislation raises, and, ultimately, perhaps cynically, I wonder if they have been suggested as a way for this government to try and build a case that it has somehow listened to concerns. Specifically, the amendments still do not require compliance with the EPBC Act or give the environment minister any kind of veto power over changes. I was elected on a platform of climate action and integrity in politics, and I daresay the Labor Party was returned for that very reason. It's not just the people of North Sydney that value these things; it is many people across this country. They're fed up with policy decisions made behind closed doors to enable vested interests. Legislation and processes like this are exactly what they are sick of. This bill lacks integrity. It lacks proper consideration of the impact it will have on our environment, on climate change and on First Nations people. As I said earlier, the bulk of the legislation is designed to improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resource sector's workforce. Unfortunately, this section of the legislation will not receive the attention it arguably deserves due to the government's decision to hide egregious changes to the consultation requirements for offshore gas projects within the same bill. This follows shortly after the passage of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, which combined inadequate changes to the petroleum resources rent tax with a legislative response to the actions of PwC, another entirely inappropriate bundling of separate issues into one bill. The contentious section of this bill is part 2 of schedule 2. Currently, some of the environment minister's responsibilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act are, in effect, delegated to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, or NOPSEMA as I'll call it, which regulates offshore oil and gas. This environmental authorisation process is set out in Streamlining offshore petroleum environmental approvals: program report, of February 2014, and it was endorsed by the then environment minister, Greg Hunt. In practice, this means that, with some exceptions, offshore oil and gas project proponents have only to seek an approval from NOPSEMA without needing to seek separate approval under the EPBC Act. Schedule 2 part 2 of this legislation essentially means that any action approved under the offshore petroleum regime, including the offshore environmental management regime, would be assumed to be within the scope of the original EPBC accreditation. So, regardless of any changes proposed, there would be no need for new EPBC accreditation, and the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage environmental management regime would be taken to be accredited forever. This section would commence the day after the bill receives royal assent. The bill should be amended to withdraw part 2 of schedule 2, and I thank the member for Warringah for her amendments that seek to do just this. I'll be supporting those amendments. This section should be deleted, not only because it weakens consultation requirements but also because it will adversely impact First Nations communities, and there are very real questions about whether this bill is compatible with human rights in this regard. It also curtails the EPBC reform that is currently underway and the ongoing review of the OPGGS environmental regulations. Many of these issues were unearthed by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, particularly through the dissenting reports of Senator Thorpe, Senator Pocock and the Greens, and I thank those senators for their work in shining a light on this murky piece of legislation. During the Senate committee inquiry, First Nations people and traditional owners expressed concern that, by carving out the OPGGS regime from the EPBC Act, part 2 of schedule 2 could weaken the consultation requirements that apply to the approvals process for offshore petroleum and gas activities. This raises serious questions about whether this bill is compatible with Australia's human rights obligations, specifically with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. The bill's statement of compatibility with human rights does not consider First Nations people or the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and there are several relevant articles of UNDRIP, including: article 11.1, which relates to Indigenous people's rights to practise and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs; article 11.2, relating to states providing redress with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without free and prior informed consent; article 18, relating to Indigenous people's rights to participate in decision-making matters which would affect their rights; and article 25, relating to Indigenous people's rights to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their lands, territories, waters and coastal seas. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I note Senator Thorpe's dissenting report to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, including recommending amending the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include consideration of UNDRIP so that no legislation is passed before proper consideration of its engagement and compatibility with the rights of first people. Standing here today, I can't believe I have to ask that of this government. I thank Senator Thorpe for her work in this area and support her recommendations. Furthermore, this bill impedes the work that is currently being done to reform Australia's central environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The independent review of the EPBC Act, undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel and delivered to the environment minister in 2020, recommended a fundamental overhaul within the EPBC Act, including provisions related to strategic assessments and accreditation. The government, in its Nature Positive Plan, has responded to these recommendations and has committed to new national nature-positive laws. Importantly, this includes a new requirement for strategic assessments and regulatory systems proposed for accreditation to be assessed against proposed new national environmental standards, including a standard for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making, a standard for community engagement and consultation, and a new national regulator, the environmental protection agency. Yet the Nature Positive legislation reforms are behind schedule. The December 2022 Nature Positive Plan committed to bills being introduced into the parliament by the end of 2023. But development of the draft is well behind its timeline, and all we've heard since is that bills are to be introduced as soon as possible in 2024. The government should be prioritising the development of the Nature Positive reform package, not pre-empting it through carve-outs to the EPBC Act as proposed here. Part 2 of schedule 2 is completely contrary to the government's commitment to reform strategic assessments to incorporate new national environment standards and ensure they are subject to oversight from an independent environmental protection authority. In the words of Dr Megan Evans, a senior lecturer in public sector management within the School of Business at the University South Wales—and I ask the members of the government to note these words—'The proposed amendment would render completely pointless any improvements made to environmental laws, since it carves out a loophole for just one regulated industry, which just happens to contribute disproportionate environmental harm.' Part 2 of schedule 2 also pre-empts the ongoing offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage environmental management review, tasked with recommending improvements to the environmental management regime to make sure it is fit for purpose in decarbonising our economy. Ultimately this bill shows us this government can progress legislation at pace when it wants to. Imagine if the same urgency had been channelled into progressing the EPBC reforms. Australia could be well on its way to fundamentally addressing the current integrity deficit in our environmental regulation and opening the processes up through transparency and accountability measures that ensure the strongest possible community participation. Ultimately this bill points to a much broader issue, one that looms large in this country. That is the influence of the fossil fuel industry still in this House. Correspondence released under freedom of information reveals the CEO of Santos asked the Minister for Resources for 'urgent action to deliver regulations which provide clarity and certainty for industry'. That correspondence came through on 6 October 2023, raising the question of whether the changes proposed in this bill have been added at the request of fossil fuel companies. No wonder this question has been raised. Between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023 the Labor Party received donations of $110,090 from Santos and $84,700 from the Minerals Council, not to mention the dark money, the millions from unnamed sources. This undue influence erodes our democracy The government has said the changes in this bill are necessary and aimed at improving the quality and clarity of consultations with third parties under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. Maybe they are; but the dodgy process around this bill suggests there is something to hide. There was no public consultation period on this bill to allow for feedback from stakeholders—only private, closed-door briefings with little information released about who was consulted and when. The Senate inquiry was rushed, with senators only provided with a half-day hearing to ask questions and scrutinise these complex changes. While the government has amended the proposal, stakeholders and experts have been given insufficient time to consider the amendments and they do not appear to rectify the significant issues I have outlined. While this may be a genuine attempt on behalf of the government to streamline consultation processes, I cannot help but feel that this is at best poorly executed and at worst a deliberate attempt to silence First Nations voices and fast-track offshore gas. Quite simply, we cannot risk any more dodgy environmental legislation. There has been a barrage of reports and broken climate records highlighting the dire state of the environment and catastrophic climate change. We are nowhere near where we need to be as a nation in our climate policy ambition. While much of that is due to the inaction of previous governments, this current government is responsible as well. According to the Australian Institute, in the 2022-23 budget the federal government provided $9.8 billion worth of subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Since May 2022 the federal environment minister has approved four new coal mines and expansions with 156 million tonnes of lifetime emissions. This is despite it being abundantly clear that to curb catastrophic climate change no new coal, gas or oil projects should be approved, as has been made explicit by the IPCC and by the International Energy Agency, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and many others. With Australia's emissions failing to decrease at the necessary rate, and report after report outlining the dire state of this planet, we must ensure the utmost integrity in our environmental decision-making and project approval process, and that is what the EPBC Act reform is meant to do. It is bills and processes like the ones that are in front of us right now that erode public trust and confidence in environmental decision-making. Part 2 of schedule 2 should be removed. 17:45 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I seek to leave to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the question for the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being put to the House for decision only when the Government's the Government's amendments to the bill have been considered by a Senate inquiry. Leave not granted. Mr BANDT M3C I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the question for the second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being put to the House for decision only when the Government's the Government's amendments to the bill have been considered by a Senate inquiry. We heard, very eloquently set out by the last speaker, about how rushed the consultation process surrounding this bill was. Of course, the bill is coming through primarily as a worker safety bill. Most people, and I presume many of the members of the caucus, would have been told that this is a worker safety bill. What is actually happening is buried in this bill in one schedule, and this one schedule is the one that is causing great consternation amongst traditional owners, amongst the environment movement, amongst the climate movement and among most of us here on the crossbench. What it does is effectively give the Minister for Resources the power to completely alter and remove the rights that First Nations people have to be consulted on these projects and, further to that, effectively allow a carve out of these projects from key environmental protections. In other words, under this bill, if the resources minister says that the provisions of the EPBC Act and the consultation provisions are not to apply then that's what happens. At the moment there's a requirement under the 2014 plan which sets out comprehensive albeit very inadequate requirements for consultation—it's Tony Abbott era stuff—which a full Federal Court has found to be workable. Under this bill that has been put forward, the resources minister is able to say, 'Well, they just don't apply.' The government have been called out on this dirty deal with the Liberals that they are trying to sneak through as one short schedule to a bill that has nothing to do with it—it's about work and safety. They've been called out. We got a Senate inquiry up into this. The coalition and Labor together did another dirty deal and graciously allowed a half-day Senate inquiry where hardly anyone had time to come up and give evidence. But what we did discover through that Senate inquiry was a great deal of consternation from traditional owners, climate groups, environment groups and, indeed, unions, who said: 'Hang on! This bit in the bill should not go ahead. It's not what the bill is about.' The government has said that they have got amendments that they are going to perhaps respond to some of that with. After being called out, the first reaction of the government was to say: 'No, you've got it wrong. You've got it completely wrong. All of those groups who have come up—the ACF, the Environmental Defenders Office, the lawyers and everyone who has looked at it—have all got it completely wrong. It doesn't do that.' Then they jumped to the next step and said: 'Well, maybe there's something in what you say. So what we'll do is use a fig leaf to put it through—pass some amendments.' I thank the government for the briefing on those amendments, but what we need to know is whether those amendments do what the government says they will do or whether they are just like the first bill, where, in fact, the government says one thing—'Just trust us'—but, as soon as you put the microscope on it, it becomes crystal clear that the amendments dissolve and the law dissolves. What becomes clear is that this is all about ramming through and fast-tracking gas projects and taking away First Nations voices. It is vital that we have the chance to examine amendments that the government says are going to fix some of these problems. I don't think they will, because the whole point of this bill is to respond to Santos's concerns. Santos raised concerns and said: 'Traditional owners are winning too many court cases. Those court cases are saying that they've got rights and that they're to be consulted. We need to get around that.' They wrote a letter to the resources minister. Santos said, 'Jump,' and Labor said, 'How high?' and they came in with this legislation. I don't see how you can move amendments to that that are consistent and that are in keeping with what the government wants to be the original purpose of this—namely, to circumvent that and deal with Santos's objection, which is, of course, that they didn't think that the First Nations people should have succeeded in court. Remember that Santos itself, when it went to the full Federal Court, said, 'We don't think we have to consult at all.' The government said, 'Firstly, here's this really broadbrush piece of legislation that has zero detail in it, but just trust us because we're going to issue new consultation requirements—they'll be okay,' even though we know they're doing it because Santos asked for them to be weakened. Then you apply a bit of interrogation to that and put a bit of sunlight on that and that falls apart. They briefed it out to the media this morning, saying: 'No, it's okay. We've worked up amendments that apparently deal with some of the problems.' Notably, one of the articles references the government as saying, 'We think these are amendments the industry is going to be happy with.' That should tell you everything about it; they probably wrote them. But, if they do those things, given how significant this bill is and given what the government says is the purpose of the amendments, let's test them. Let's send the bill to an inquiry to test whether it does what they say it's going to do. If it goes to the inquiry, we will be able to hear from the likes of the Climate Council, who came to the last inquiry and said this—and I'm talking specifically about the question of proposed amendments to the government's bill and why we need to have further scrutiny of those: On this basis, the Climate Council's strong preference would be to see this section removed from the bill in its entirety. That's the section that has this rogue schedule in it that's about removing consultation rights and undermining the EPBC Act, which has absolutely zero to do with workers' safety. They went on to say: However, if this section is to proceed for further consideration by the Parliament, Climate Council calls for it to be significantly re-drafted to clarify that: Changes to the OPGGS regime will only be considered consistent with the endorsed Program approved under the EPBC Act where they maintain or improve existing requirements on environmental protection, community consultation and other project delivery standards; The Environment Minister must be consulted on all proposed changes to aspects of the OPGGS regime covered by the EPBC Act authorisation, and provide written advice to the Resources Minister on whether or not these are consistent with maintaining a high standard of environmental protection for the offshore marine environment and other significant environmental matters. They went on to say: Adopting these amendments would provide some assurance that the bill is not seeking to weaken the OPGSS project assessment regime in order to give major proposed offshore gas projects quicker and easier passage through it. That's the Climate Council talking about the climate components of it, as opposed to the First Nations component of it, but the point they raise is a valid one. If it's doing what the government says, are there going to be amendments to that effect? If there are going to be amendments to that effect, then they've got to follow certain principles. We know now, from the rushed process that this bill has gone through, that we cannot just take the government's word that the amendments that they bring will do the job. We've seen legislation brought in where, at first, the government said it didn't do what we claimed it would. Then they're turning around and introducing their own amendments, by way of admission. But now what we've got to work out is: if these amendments are going to come, do they do what the government says they're going to do? We've only had half a day of Senate inquiry into this significant bill. What we're proposing is that, given the significance of the further amendments that the government want to bring—which they have foreshadowed in the media—they also need to be considered by a Senate inquiry. This is a sensible motion that I hope the government will consider supporting. Having any proposed amendments examined by a Senate inquiry would allow people to have confidence about what the government's legislation will actually do. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 17:56 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I second the motion. This flawed bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, cannot be fixed by amendments. We need to put it to a Senate inquiry. The Labor government and the Minister for the Environment and Water have absolutely failed to deliver on their promises to overhaul our broken environment laws, to make them stronger and to truly protect our environment. It's pretty clear that the government is siding with the gas cartels, making it easier for them to continue destroying our precious environment. We shouldn't be voting on this bill until we have a Senate inquiry. What's the government actually doing in the face of this crisis? It's shamelessly attempting to ram legislation through, handing the Minister for Resources unprecedented authority to fast-track new coal and gas projects—completely undermining the environment minister. We should not be voting on this bill until we have a Senate inquiry. It's pretty amazing stuff, really. The government is essentially trying to pass legislation written by the gas industry for the gas industry. Some wag said to me that it could be called the 'Santos bill'! The government gets a letter from a few gas company execs, and a few months later they cough up a bit of legislation that removes all of the headaches of the environmental approvals processes. Evidently that's what you get when you give big political donations to the Labor Party. It's a pretty good return on investment for those big political donations. The fact that the resources minister can make changes to regulation and not have to consider the environmental laws is absolutely reckless in an age where we all know the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, and many here in this House have spoken about it. That's why this bill must be voted on after a Senate inquiry. The Greens, environment groups and First Nations groups have been campaigning for a decade to expand the environmental laws to include a water trigger which effectively closed the loophole that gives gas fracking corporations a licence to drill without any federal environmental water assessment. On the back of this, the government is now effectively trying to legislate another loophole back in for gas companies to get the green light on environment-destroying projects. Basically, the government is allowing companies like Santos or Woodside to get around complying with the current requirements of environmental laws for gas projects. We simply cannot let this bill proceed without a Senate inquiry. With these provisions, gas companies will essentially be exempt from complying with certain environmental regulations under even the new amendments. This is why these amendments are not going to fix this flawed bill. The independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has an endorsed program for the requirements of any gas project, and the government is giving gas companies more powers than they've had to date to bypass this process or to rush it through altogether. Just at the moment, Santos has six approvals through NOPSEMA for the Barossa project, and they could all be exempt from any environmental approvals process in the next 12 months. The Barossa project, which would emit 401 million tonnes of CO2 pollution in its lifetime—that's the equivalent of 80 per cent of Australia's total emissions in 2020—that's the project they're trying to push through. The Australian population has gone through endless pain this summer—through multiple flooding events, a sweltering summer, outrageous humidity, heatwaves and fires—and we know this is only going to get worse as the planet gets warmer. We're in a climate crisis right now. We cannot afford to pay the price of any new coal and gas projects, yet this is what this legislation is setting up for our country. The government must not give fossil fuel companies any more power than they already have—and they already have an outrageous amount of power within this system. This bill must be considered after the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms have come into place. It needs to go to a Senate inquiry. These amendments will not fix this flawed legislation. 18:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The government—unsurprisingly—doesn't support the suspension motion, for two reasons. First, the House has already voted today on whether or not this bill would be delayed, and the House decided that it should not be. While the suspension motion that is in front of us uses different words, it effectively has the same effect. The second reason that we oppose it is—and it's not surprising—that the House is always reluctant to agree that when we proceed we'll be in the hands of a Senate inquiry. So, for those two reasons, the government is opposing the suspension, and I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.    

The House divided. [18:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

57 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:10 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.    

The House divided. [18:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 55 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:16 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.    

The House divided. [18:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

57 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:21 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.    

The House divided. [18:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

10 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 60 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The House divided. [18:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

58 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 87 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Question Time 87 18:31 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton During question time today, I was ordered to leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). Despite my extensive experience in such matters, I subsequently re-entered the chamber before that hour had concluded as I had not properly kept account of time. I apologise unreservedly to you and to all in the House for this error. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all members of page 536 of Practice and note the use of standing order 94(a) is taken as an alternative to naming a member. The direction to leave the chamber is a serious offence. While maintaining order is part of my responsibility as chair of this House, I ask all members to closely follow and observe all standing orders. Quorums 87 18:32 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I would also like to apologise for leaving when a quorum was called earlier this evening. I left to do quorum duty up in the Federation Chamber. I apologise profusely. BILLS 87 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 87

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

Consideration in Detail 87 18:33 The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Australian Greens, on a point of order? Mr Bandt M3C I am seeking clarification. Is it not the case that we are now at the point where divisions cannot be called further after this point? The SPEAKER 53517 Post 6.30, under the standing orders, any divisions will be deferred to tomorrow. 18:33 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Parts 2 and 3", substitute "Part 3". (2) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 62 (line 36), omit the Part. These amendments are important. Earlier today, I spoke in this House regarding my concerns in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The amendments I am moving remove part 2, schedule 2 from the bill. Part 2, schedule 2 is completely off topic when it comes to the primary purpose of this bill, which is to improve the conditions of workers in the offshore gas industry. Instead, it is a sneaky attempt by the government to include in an otherwise noncontentious bill significant carve-outs for the gas industry from environmental regulations and the requirements of the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage legislation and regulations themselves. It does this by providing, in part 2, a new clause, 790E, which enables existing projects approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, to undertake additional actions that may be inconsistent with future regulatory changes—a get out of jail free card delivered to the oil and gas industries. This get out of jail free card is being provided to a polluting and environmentally damaging industry in the midst of the government's major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act outlined in its Nature Positive reforms. This legislation is gaslighting the Australian public and making a mockery of the government's climate and environmental reforms. It undermines Federal Court decisions that have affirmed the need to consult First Nations people who have a connection with the land in environmental plans approved by NOPSEMA. It undermines the government's own referendum agenda to give a voice to and listen to First Nations communities. There is absolutely no reason or place for providing this carve-out. There is no justification for streamlining the approvals process for these polluting projects at the expense of our environmental and consultation laws and the improvements to them that we anticipate over the coming months. In what appears to be a response to the inquiry of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into this bill, the government yesterday circulated amendments. But it is understood that those amendments will not go far enough; in fact, they maintain this carve-out. They provide a sunsetting clause and a series of hurdles, it being at the discretion of the Minister for Resources and the Minister for the Environment and Water to determine whether future changes to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development—the irony of it, when we are faced with this legislation! In the event that the regulations are deemed not to be consistent with those principles, the get out of jail free card loses its currency, but if those regulations are deemed to be consistent then we remain in this situation. I do not accept that these amendments are sufficient to address my concerns. Firstly, there is too much ministerial discretion, particularly for the Minister for Resources, whose agenda often appears to be completely aligned with that of the gas industry and not with proper environmental protection. We need only remember the last parliament, when in fact the Prime Minister stepped in as minister for resources, which begs the question. It is not good environmental protection to hand this power solely to the Minister for Resources. Secondly, the clauses, particularly the sunsetting clause, are convoluted and contain far too many loopholes to instil any confidence that existing endorsed projects and plans will be subject to future Nature Positive plans. The government could easily commence a series of reforms on time lines that would effectively cause the sun never to set. Therefore, this amendment to repeal part 2 of schedule 2 is absolutely essential to ensure proper scrutiny around offshore gas projects and curtail this carve-out that the Minister for Resources is seeking for herself. It is telling that in this debate we have just seen the government gag second reading speeches from the crossbench. It is telling that not a single government member or backbencher has been willing to defend this terrible bill and its terrible provisions. It is telling that the minister for the environment has not stepped up to say that she is fine with the idea that the Minister for Resources will supersede her on offshore gas projects and that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has not stepped up to say she's okay with the voice of First Nations communities being silenced—especially in the aftermath of the Voice referendum. It makes a mockery of the government's position when it comes to climate action. It makes a mockery of its stated desire to listen to First Nations people. 18:38 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I acknowledge the member for Warringah and her contribution to this debate. The government will be opposing this amendment. Schedule 2, part 2 of the bill allows the Minister for Resources to amend offshore environmental regulations. We've clearly explained why this provision is needed in order to work within the inflexibility of the existing endorsed program in place between the EPBC Act and our offshore resources legislation and to avoid invalidating that existing streamlined arrangement. If we did invalidate streamlining, as has been asked for by the member, it would mean two sets of approvals, increasing the regulatory burden, particularly on traditional owners in the community as well as of course on industry. This is precisely what we've been asked to repair and what we are seeking to repair through amendments to the consultation provisions and regulations. Accepting the member's amendment would prevent the government from clarifying this system of optional consultation for the better—and better for everyone. But I do accept the genuinely held view of the member in relation to the potential reach of the power, notwithstanding that any regulatory changes I would make would be subject to parliamentary oversight, inclusive of scrutiny and disallowance. That is why the government has moved an amendment that reflects our longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime. This amendment will require any minister for resources to be satisfied that any proposed regulatory improvements to offshore environmental regulations are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as set out in Australia's environmental laws. The amendment will mandate that consultation on any proposed improvements occur between the minister for resources and the minister for the environment. As the member said, it will include a sunset provision in 12 months time. If I can speak to the various discussions relating to this amendment during this debate through the course of the day, the member for Ryan, the member for Melbourne, the member for Griffith, the member for Indi, the member for Goldstein, the member for Kooyong, the member for Mackellar and the member for North Sydney have all spent the day questioning my integrity and making imputations as to my motivations and those of the government. I note the hypocrisy of those members, who continually call for a better standard of debate but instead choose to assassinate my character in this place. They also continue to push the misinformation that has been spread by the Greens political party. Each of these members has, in their own special way and for their own electoral advantage, continued an egregious misinformation campaign about this bill and about the review of offshore environmental approvals, as well as the consultation process that was proposed in May of 2023. I entirely reject their assertions. I also reject the many assertions made through the course of the date by each of these members as to my integrity and the imputations they have made against me. I reject the absurd and untrue accusations that a single letter could somehow drive the policy of this government. What an absurd thing to say in this place and to say about me as the Minister for Resources! I reject the assertion made by the member for Ryan that somehow the tens of thousands of jobs in the gas industry are not valuable. These workers are valuable. Their work is valuable. Their jobs are important, and I value them. Of course, I value their safety, and that is why I'm moving the safety parts of this bill. I also reject the assertion of the member for Griffith, which has been followed by a number of people, about supposedly cancelling the export of gas in this country. That would, of course, be an economy-wrecking proposition, but it is not unexpected from the Greens political party. We are a nation with an economy built on trade with the world, and the size of our population means we can never consume all that we make. That includes the gas we extract. Without international investment to make sure those gas fields have been developed and will continue to extract gas for the use of our neighbours, we would not have the gas at all. These arguments that are continually put forward show staggering ignorance or wilful blindness to the economic reality of our export industry in this country. I might say that international investment goes the same for every other kind of export industry, whether in the agricultural sector, such as with grain, or with gold or iron ore. This is the case even for international investment in wine, and it will continue with critical minerals and rare earths. 18:43 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I stand in support of this amendment. I have three problems with schedule 2 part 2 of the bill: the timing of it, its potential to weaken environmental protections, and how it interfaces with the broader issue of a lack of adequate climate regulation. On the timing, in January this year the Department of Industry, Science and Resources commenced a consultation, which concluded last week, to clarify the requirements for regulatory approvals for offshore oil and gas storage. In other words, the government is currently considering whether we have the right regulatory approvals in place for these types of projects. Surely we should wait for the outcome of the consultation process before making changes. If the government's serious about consulting stakeholders, it can't jump to the answers before reviewing the submissions to that consultation. Also, as we go through the process of updating the EPBC Act, we should not be making piecemeal changes that add further complexity and exempt offshore oil and gas storage projects from evolving standards. The second issue is the watering down of environmental protections. These changes could mean that regulations could be quietly changed in a way that's inconsistent with the approved program arrangement between the EPBC Act and NOPSEMA relating to offshore oil and gas projects. In other words, it could be weakening environmental safeguards on those projects, which have a huge climate and environmental impact. I'm not comfortable with this. We can't afford to open the door to weaker environmental regulation, especially in light of an evolving regulatory framework with the EPBC Act review underway. Even though there's a sunset clause, decisions made this year under this bill would still hold. The third issue is much bigger than this bill. We don't have an adequate regulatory framework to consider climate impacts. Because we don't have an appropriate regulatory framework to make sensible decisions about projects so we can prevent climate bombs going ahead, we're shoehorning climate concerns into regulatory frameworks designed to address other problems. People are using every angle possible to create barriers to these projects: environmental, committee consultation—you name it. If there isn't a law that says projects that contribute to an unlivable planet shouldn't go ahead, people who care and think there should be use what they've got. The minister says these amendments will allow her to provide more certainty for offshore oil and gas projects. Unsurprisingly, fossil fuel companies want greater certainty, but anyone who knows that more offshore oil and gas projects are bad for the planet doesn't want to provide that certainty. There are many reviews underway, and I hope that these various reviews will recognise and reflect that climate impact is a huge factor that needs to be considered in our regulatory framework so we don't keep investing more money in projects that are bad for the world and ultimately will end up being stranded assets when we come to our senses. In the meantime, I can't support anything that gives greater certainty to these projects that have significant climate impacts. So, even though I'm supportive of the safety changes in this bill, I back the member for Warringah's amendment removing part of the bill, because it puts the cart before the horse, because it potentially weakens environmental regulation and because, even though the current lack of certainty is a weak tool, it's one of the few available when we don't have an appropriate regulatory framework to make sensible long-term decisions about projects that are, in effect, carbon bombs. 18:46 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Curtin to the debate on the amendment before us. Contrary to what has been incorrectly stated in this place—again, throughout the day and before—this bill does not give me, as Minister for Resources, sweeping powers to override approvals. It includes a technical amendment allowing the government to adopt future recommendations for the offshore environmental management review, and I would note that the private senator's bill introduced by Senator Cox, the Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill, would require precisely the same kind of amendment for it to go forward without damaging the streamlining provisions, which, as I explained before in the last portion of this debate, means that you don't have to go through, and therefore TOs and the community don't have to go through, two series of approvals processes. Again, streamlining provisions were agreed to in this place many years ago. Any changes made to offshore regulations are subject to the usual oversight procedures, including parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, as has always been the case. I repeat again: we've introduced a government amendment to further clarify that future regulatory changes are consistent with and will not diminish our national environmental laws. That's an amendment that is before the House and has been tabled, and you all would be aware of it, I'm sure. The amendment requires the Minister for Resources to consult with the minister for the environment and that the minister for the environment agree that any proposed regulatory changes are consistent with Australia's national environmental laws. Everybody wants certainty in relation to consultations. The member for Curtin mentioned, of course, that the industry does. Equally, as we heard from the Senate inquiry last week, those that would like to be consulted would like to have that set out in a stronger fashion, and that is what we are working toward through the work being done on the regulations. That includes notions that we have been told: that there should be more requirements around face-to-face interactions around how one communicates for consultations. That work is going on right now. In relation to the role of gas and various things that have been said about it, I would also note the view of the International Energy Agency, which has made it clear in its Net Zero Roadmap that, in all scenarios it has modelled globally, gas will play a role in firming renewable energy in the net-zero transition. They have stated: … natural gas-fired capacity remains a critical source of power system flexibility in many markets, particularly to address seasonal flexibility needs. Of course, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, have repeatedly warned of seasonal shortfalls on peak demand and structural shortfalls in gas supply in the east coast market emerging well before 2030. These very public reports have indicated that, at least in the short term, new supplies of gas are going to be needed to make sure we have reliability of supply. In the longer term, gas will help smooth the transition to renewables while guaranteeing high energy security, both for Australia and for our partners in the region. I spoke before of how important it is that Australians have access to affordable gas and that Australian industry has access to affordable gas. We all know that critical minerals and rare earths will be required for green energy technologies—I noticed there was some debate on this in the House this morning. Of course, to process those critical minerals and rare earths, we will need more gas—hence the increase in demand for gas in Western Australia, because there is no alternative as yet, although, as you would know, the government— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I would love to take that interjection, Member for O'Connor, but I don't think nuclear power provides the heat required for the processing of critical minerals and rare earths. I think the gas— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 It does. It absolutely does. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Anyway, let's not go down that path. The point is that right now we have an industry that does support the lives of tens of thousands of workers, does support our transition and does support how we process critical minerals and rare earths into the future, both for our own technology capabilities and for those of our friends and our partners. Our resources exports, particularly our energy exports, are very important to our international standing. Australia provides energy for a significant share of the power needed by the world's fourth biggest economy, as well as the Republic of Korea, Singapore and also China. It helps provide stability in the region, and it will help those countries and others on their transition to net zero by 2050, which, as everyone in this chamber knows, is a clear objective of this government. 18:51 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I would observe that this one bill tonight completely and utterly shreds this government's climate change credentials. It's as simple as that. I have some questions for the minister, to ask through you, Deputy Speaker. In many of the responses to the very brief Senate inquiry on this bill, concerns were expressed about the fact that it appears to be carving out an approvals loophole for one specific regulated industry. To be clear, that industry is the offshore oil and gas industry. This follows the government's awful sea dumping legislation last year, which the foreign minister appeared to admit was about the government saying yes to Santos, Woodside and Inpex. So, through you, Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister: why is the government so allergic to transparency and proper community consultation for fossil fuel projects, and will you explain why the government is cutting a special deal for the offshore fossil fuel sector that no other industry in Australia gets? 18:53 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand As I explained before, we are in fact seeking to improve consultation around offshore gas. The problem—and I've said this in the chamber earlier today and have said it publicly as well—is that right now we have what I call—and maybe it's a result of having been one—a lawyer's picnic around offshore gas approvals. That is no good for anyone, in my opinion and in that of the government. It is clogging up the courts, for one, but equally it is forcing those with interests and concerns to take their concerns to court—the traditional owners. That doesn't seem to me to be a sensible way to manage the approval system for offshore gas projects. What I would sooner do, and what I'm trying to do—and this is a technical amendment that enables that reform to happen promptly—is make sure that the consultation provisions of the offshore regulations are fulsome and appropriate and that they ensure various levels of consultation are there, at a bare minimum, for the gas industry, so that they actually do it. That is what the reform is ultimately about. I know this is a staged process. If, in a perfect world, perfect historical legislation existed where this was simple, we might not be in this morass of misinformation that the Greens political party and their allies have sought to propagate around the country. Yes, I would like it to be simpler. I absolutely would. But it's not because we have a situation where we have an offshore regime that is matching up to the EPBC Act, and the EPBC Act, as has quite rightly been pointed out by the member, does extend well beyond resources projects—roads, rails. Any kind of impact on any kind of environment is covered by the EPBC Act, as well it should. But right now in our country we are seeing traditional owners as well as other community members finding that they are not getting the privilege of the proper consultation for offshore gas projects. If we do not progress these reforms soon, that will last while we pursue the EPBC Act. It would be appropriate to make sure that the traditional custodians that are right now being forced to go through various parts of the court system do not have to go through the court system. Rather we should ensure that the gas industry and those proponents, no matter where they are, undertake a proper consultation process. That is my intention. 18:56 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I thank the minister for her response to my question. Obviously, I do not agree with the minister's characterisation of the current situation as a lawyers' picnic. I would characterise it as people exercising their fundamental right to challenge in the court things that they feel are illegal. Where the minister and I probably do agree is with the goal of improving health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers, and I think that is commendable. However, can the minister explain to the House why provisions likely to weaken environmental oversight and community consultation standards are attached to this bill if it's about health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers? And why on earth are we being asked to urgently pass these unrelated changes together in the same bill? 18:57 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for the question. I do want to clarify—and I'm sorry if there has been any confusion—I absolutely respect the court process. I don't object to people taking objections to administrative decisions, and I've always said that through other parts of my portfolio as well. We saw court cases about inadequate consultation around the storage of low-level radioactive waste, and I certainly do not mind the TOs going to court. What I think is objectionable is that it goes on forever. Instead of having a proper consultation process, which means you wouldn't need to go to the courts all the time to have your voice heard, we instead have embedded adequate requirements within regulations from the very start so that these consultations are undertaken not within the court system. But, again, if at the end of a fulsome consultation process someone is still dissatisfied and if that is a matter up for review, of course they would be most welcome to take it to the courts. I have a great concern that only a few are able to access the courts to have their voices heard. They are supported by other groups, of course, but that might not be the case for other TOs, other traditional owners, that are affected. I don't want anyone to think that I don't respect the court process or people's ability to go to court if they want to challenge decisions. With regard to different items being within this bill, it is because this bill is the appropriate place for them to be. The safety parts of the bill were the predominant parts of the bill for me, as the Minister for Resources, and for the workers themselves, of which there are tens of thousands. Those take up the bulk of the bill, so that's more of a nuance around nomenclature and nothing much more than that. Again I also reject a lot of other accusations that have been made about me 'slipping things through', or hiding things. But again I note all the spam email I'm getting on this as well, so I take that as part of the misinformation campaign that's generally running. There's no such thing as that. It's hard to 'slip through' something when you actually pop it in a bit of legislation that everyone sees and is tabled and can be read and on which you can get briefings. I've also had accusations about the inadequacy of the briefings provided. I take that on board. I'd thought that we, and my office, did a lot of briefings to a lot of people, trying to explain what was going on. As I said before, I know this is not perfect—I absolutely know that. And it won't ever be perfect, to be honest, because of the complexity of the bills and how they interact. So this part of the bill, to do with the technical amendment to allow for the consultation process to be improved, was the ordinary course of business in a bill that was about the offshore regimes. So it seemed the right thing to do—and I still think it is, as a matter of efficiency—for the parliament to consider it in this one bill. 19:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark To be absolutely clear: I'm not, for one moment, reflecting on the integrity of the minister. I have a lot of time for the minister. As to the appropriate place for legislation improving workplace health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers: I just genuinely don't understand for a moment how it is appropriate to mix that with completely unrelated legislation that has the effect of weakening environmental rules and safeguards for offshore coal and gas projects. So I would hope that the minister can go further than just simply saying, 'It's the right thing to do,' or, 'It's the appropriate place to do it.' 19:01 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Sorry, Member—I agree that you have not cast any aspersions on me today. But that is not the case for many people in this chamber. The bill is called the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill. It is the pathway. In government, one has to make choices as to how a legislative program can go forward. I accept that you might not agree with that choice, but that is the choice the government has made, so that, again, we can make sure, firstly, that the safety provisions of this bill—which I realise everyone supports, and which are very important—are passed, but also so that we can move forward with the reform of the consultation provisions in the regulations without invalidating the streamlining effects of the EPBC Act and the offshore environmental regime. 19:02 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark For the sake of the argument, if we accept the minister's explanation—that it's the right thing to do; that it's an appropriate thing to do—I suppose it's like accepting that a country that's called the Democratic Republic of North Korea is actually a democratic republic. But we'll put that aside, for the sake of moving on. Let's just dwell, then, on the environmental aspect of this. I have two questions for the minister. I think I might ask them separately, to make it easier for everyone to follow. The minister must be aware that changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' review into 'Clarifying consultation requirements for offshore oil and gas storage regulatory approvals' are both currently underway. Both are highly relevant to the proposed changes in schedule 2, part 2. So—and this is the question—why not remove these changes from the bill and await the outcome of both of those processes before proceeding? Why are we getting ahead of ourselves in this way? 19:03 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand The reason is: I believe that any legislation that comes before this House that has the words 'gas' or 'offshore gas' in it will go through the same process that we've been through—it wouldn't matter what it was about, Member. So we can keep doing this, time and time again. I don't think it's worth it, because I really am prioritising making sure that the consultation processes and rules are clear for everyone, particularly traditional owners and the wider community. Sadly, whenever there is a bill before this parliament with the word 'gas' in it, it turns into a theatre and an opportunity for the ideological debates that we've seen, with the three-word slogans from the Greens political party, to progress, that are thoroughly unrelated to safety or, really, the other measures that we're talking about, which are about ensuring the proper consultation rules for offshore gas projects for the benefit of the whole community. 19:04 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I thank the minister for her responses. And this is likely my final question for the minister. The community rightly expects transparency in development approvals. Can the minister explain how, under this proposed regime, the public will be made aware of the decisions made by the environment and resources minister in relation to projects and the reasons for those decisions? 19:05 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein With respect to some of the minister 's comments, I'd like to point out that I and the other crossbenchers are here as direct representatives of our communities, and the concerns that we have about this bill go to the concerns that are being raised by people in our communities about approval of new fossil fuel projects. I cannot tell you how many people in my community speak to me about their disappointment in a government that they thought came in with so much promise in regard to climate policy and is now giving with one hand and taking with the other. As I've said over the last couple of weeks about this bill, you can't fake it 'til you make it when it comes to getting to net zero. Really the crux of it is in the amendment from the member for Warringah, and that is that other measures that are sort of a sidebar to this bill are being called on to do a lot of work within it. The crossbench in this place calls things as it sees it, and the call was, and I think remains—and I don't want to speak on behalf of my colleagues, but certainly for me—that this other-measures piece is not a sidebar to this legislation; it's very central to it. That is the concern about putting something that is framed as a small thing into legislation that is about something else entirely and actually has the potential to have a big impact on our carbon emissions and our carbon footprint. At the end of the day, these other measures do pose risks to environmental protection, do pose risks to genuine First Nations engagement and do go to the integrity and good governance piece. Again, with respect to the minister, our job is to create accountability in this place. Unfortunately, that sometimes means pointing out hard truths. The hard truth about this bill is that this piece of it should be taken out, properly considered by more than a five-hour Senate inquiry and considered separately. Really, that is at the centre of the conversation that we've been having over the last couple of weeks and that we continue to have today. Those here in this chamber are doing our job by questioning the government about this bill. That's what we were elected to do. That's what we will continue to do. Sometimes that's a tough conversation, and it has to be had. 19:08 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I accept, Member for Goldstein, that that is the job of each of us here as representatives of our local community. I accept that. I don't think character assassination is necessarily part of that, but I guess everyone makes their choices in this House. I do reject the assertion you made during the second reading debate and just then that I've ever characterised any part of this bill as—I think these were the words you used earlier today—'not a big deal' or, just then, a 'sidebar'. I have absolutely not. Safety offshore is a big deal, as we all recognise, and enabling much-needed improvement in consultation for offshore projects is absolutely a big deal. As I have explained often and as remains the truth, this is so that we can improve consultations, and a technical amendment will be required to make it so. That would be the same for the Greens political party private senators' 'spirit of sea country' bill as it is for this. This bill enables improvement to consultation and enables more voices to be heard, and if the member for Goldstein and others would rather that their voices not be heard, we can progress on the path that they would like. Of course, I would not agree to that. The thing is, if we don't reform this, fewer voices will be heard because they will be limited in restraints or guidance or, in fact, absolute rules around regulations for offshore projects to adhere to. That is what I'm trying to get to. As I've explained often, it's certainly not simple, and if it were, I'm sure we would be in a different place, but I'm working within the legislation I have to work with for that objective. There is no diminution of environmental approvals or who they go to. I've explained amendments, and I'll explain the government's amendments later once this debate is finished on the member for Warringah's amendments. The case remains that this is not exempting the industry from Nature Positive reforms—the sunset clause that we've added in the amendment is, surely, indicative of that. As I have said all along, we welcomed any participation in discussion on this, and that is why I have moved the governments amendments. 19:11 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I wanted to concur with the sentiments of the member for Goldstein: we are representatives of our communities. I want to share some observations, and relay and echo some commentary, from my own community. The Labor government and the environment minister have failed to deliver on their promises to overhaul our broken environmental laws, to make them stronger and to truly protect our environment. This is from my constituents. In fact, they're continuing to undermine these laws every chance they get—basically, doing the gas industries' work for them. And they've tried to do it—and this is the point we were making earlier today—in an underhand way, without anyone noticing. We, the Greens, are not protesting the safety provisions in this bill; what we are protesting is the rest of it. Basically, what part 2 of schedule 2 of this bill does is, effectively, say that if an action is proposed by Santos or Woodside—for example—but doesn't comply with the requirements of the existing NOPSEMA-endorsed program for a gas project or CCS under environmental laws then, despite not meeting those requirements, the action is still considered to be compliant with the law. The amendments introduced today by the government do nothing to change the original intent of the provision. That's because they require only that regulations made are not inconsistent with the objectives of ecologically sustainable development—which, coincidentally, have been left to be very vague principles. More importantly, the government's amendments effectively changes nothing about the original draft because the legality of any regulations won't be affected if the rules aren't consistent with ecologically sustainable development, if the resources minister doesn't consult with the environment minister, or if the resources minister does consult with the environment minister and she says it is inconsistent with ecological sustainability. The only thing changed by the government's amendments is that the power to fast-track gas projects expires after 12 months, but anything approved within 12 months will be legally valid. That is why the entire schedule 2, part 2 needed to be scrapped. It's reckless. It's reckless that in a climate crisis—and this is what we're concerned about and what our electorates and our constituents are concerned about—Labor is effectively knee-capping the environmental approvals process to fast-track new gas projects. It's pretty clear that that's actually what's happening. Just over the weekend, there was a massive paddle-out to protest the Otway Basin mega-seas Mcblasting project—a project that would see underwater explosions every 10 seconds at more than 250 decibels. This is louder than the atomic bombs of the sixties. I'm sure none of us want to even try to imagine the impact on our precious marine ecosystems of blasting of that frequency across a landscape almost the size of Tasmania. These are the sorts of things that are proposed to happen. Labor is actually abandoning the environment; this is in the view of our constituents. Our very future, our grandchildren's future, is why we're here. By giving gas companies increased licence to destroy—as we mentioned before, the government gets a letter from a few gas company executives, and all sorts of other approaches, and then later offers up a bit of legislation that removes all the headaches of environmental approvals processes. Unfortunately, there is a link, we believe, between the levels of donations that are given to the Labor Party and the hearings they get. What could be the reason? This is irrational. The science says this shouldn't be happening. We can't just stop oil and gas production and consumption in Australia overnight; we know that. We do need some gas in our energy mix for the next decade or so in this country, but we already have far more than we'll need. We're not fabricating this; this is based on scientific reporting. Let me repeat that: we don't need a single extra gas well drilled and we don't need a single extra gas project approved. We just can't afford it. We can't afford the increasing devastation that comes from a warming world. In terms of the amendments of the member for Warringah, section 790E(1) says that even if a regulation made by the minister for resources under the offshore act is not consistent with the endorsed program, it is regardless considered to be compliant, and that is the issue— (Time expired) 19:16 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Warringah. I would have loved to have had an opportunity to speak on the bill itself but I was gagged from that opportunity. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 By the member for Melbourne! Ms SPENDER 286042 No—by the Leader of the House. My concerns are very similar to those raised by the member for Curtin. Let me talk to each of them. The first is a question of timing—I'm sorry, the minister is running away but she can still hear me; that's good! The point that has been made about timing is a sincere one. This is an important bill. There is real concern in the community, across the House and across the environmental movement. I give credit to the environmental movement, who, on many issues, are very willing to work with the government on issues of environmental protection as well as climate action. I think it is an issue that the environmental movement is, as a group and almost as a united voice, deeply concerned with this bill; I take that very seriously. I urge the government to consider some very thoughtful contributions saying: 'Take this part of the bill out.' We all support worker protections. Take this part of the bill out and make sure it has the inquiry and the consideration it really needs. The minister says this should give great opportunities for consultation of First Nations people. I say: if that is the case, that is certainly not the message any of the First Nations communities that have been consulted around this are saying to the community and to Independent and other members of this House. Either there is a deep misunderstanding or perhaps the bill is not right. On that first point, I'm saying: stop it now, take it out and reconsider. My second concern on the bill is about the environmental protections. I quote members of the Biodiversity Council, who spoke on the bill—and these are sincere, serious members from a wide range of our universities. They say the bill: … is wrong in principle because it would override, indefinitely, an important environmental protection in the … (EPBC Act). Second, the Part is inconsistent with the Government's wider environment policy, as set out in its Nature Positive Plan. This is the legitimate concern of myself and others on the crossbench. I do not want to see the environmental protections of our country overridden by this bill. The government is amending this bill. I think it indicates that there is some area of at least ambiguity in the original bill, and real concern that people sincerely hold about what this bill means and what protections this may stop the government or the parliament using to protect our environment. Thirdly, I'd like to raise the point that the minister made earlier in relation to new gas. The minister made the point that gas is a transition fuel, and I accept absolutely that gas is a transition fuel. But the IEA that the minister earlier quoted also said 'no new coal or gas'. New coal and gas are not needed if we're going to reach the environmentally consistent maximum warming of 1.5 to two degrees. New coal and gas are deeply concerning to our collective efforts to retain our climate. We know that retaining warming to the 1.5 degrees is going to have the biggest positive impact on nature. Any bill that is going to fast track the opportunities for new coal and gas—new gas in this case—to be moved forward is going to be of deep concern to the community, who cares about climate action. These are the very legitimate concerns that the community have, which are about the timing of the bill. If the best actions of the minister have not managed to convince the environmental movement and the First Nations community, if the minister is not addressing the legitimate concerns of the scientific community, then this is why I support the amendment from the member for Warringah. 19:21 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Whether or not the minister chooses to accept the emotions and concerns that have motivated the crossbench to speak out about this bill as we have today, those emotions are real and those concerns are real. I think I can speak for my crossbench colleagues when I say that none of us feel that we can support this bill in its current form, and we've been similarly concerned by the fact that no members of the government, other than the minister, or of the opposition have spoken to this bill. Our concerns have been met with some personal criticisms and blanket denials, not with factual or detailed responses. I think I can speak for my crossbench colleagues when I say that we might consider supporting this bill if we had a feeling of surety and confidence that all members of the government supported it. We haven't heard from the environment minister. We haven't heard from the minister for Indigenous affairs. We haven't heard them say that they feel comfortable about this bill, and I would ask the Minister for Resources why that might be. 19:23 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the question be now put. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day. Debate adjourned. Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 95

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

Second Reading 95 19:24 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before I get on to the substance of the bill, I will respond to the member for Kooyong's statement at the end there. The reason that the speaking list was free was to give the crossbench time to speak on the bill that was just before the House, and the member for Melbourne upset that by bringing on a suspension motion in the middle of the speeches of the crossbench. That's why their debate ended up being truncated. So I urge the other members of the crossbench: go and have a chat to the member for Melbourne as to why you didn't get to speak on that bill as you had hoped to do. I rise today in support of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-Siphoning) Bill 2023. This bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to introduce a prominence framework for connected TV devices and reform the antisiphoning scheme. These two measures implement two key election commitments of the Albanese government. One of these was to support access to local TV services and free sports coverage in the streaming era, and the bill also marks a significant step in bringing the regulatory framework for media services in Australia into the 21st century. We can't believe it, but we're 24 years into the 21st century, so it's high time this was done. As more people consume media online, there is a risk that our free-to-air broadcasters, who provide essential news, emergency broadcasting, sport and drama, and the many Australians who rely on them will be left behind. There's no doubt that the way Australians consume media is changing, and the options we have for what, when and how we consume now seem almost endless—and, can I say, also increasingly confusing. Some of us here might remember the good old days—not you, Member for Lingiari; I know you're the younger generation. But some of us remember the good old days of a remote control having one button for channels—ABC, SBS, 10, 9 and 7—and a volume button. They were the two buttons you had to navigate. Well, they're long gone. These days, I'm pretty you could fly a spaceship with the technology and complexity that are built into remote controls and TV menus, and navigating them can be an absolutely mind-boggling experience. I do admit to having had some empathy—I know you sometimes wouldn't find much empathy on this side of the House for corporate Australia—for Paramount vice-president Beverley McGarvey, who recently told the Senate that she had difficulty finding her way through the maze of options when trying to find her network on TVs. So our job as policymakers is to ensure that, as technology evolves in leaps and bounds, the public interest continues to be well served. It is a fact that what is in the best interests of shareholders is not necessarily always in the best interests of the public. We need to find ways to continue to encourage investment in media innovation. We want shareholders to continue to make money to keep making that investment, but without surrendering the public's right to access information and content. The government is confident that we've got the balance right with this bill. Australian families are enthusiastically incorporating streaming services into their TV-viewing habits. Mine is one of them, with five people in our household, subscribing to at least seven services, all of which come with a monthly fee—cha-ching! But the role of free-to-air TV is as important now as it's ever been. Free-to-air supports an informed democracy. It keeps communities informed during natural disasters, and it reflects our unique culture and perspectives by telling Australian stories to Australians. In a nation as sports mad as ours, arguably one of the most important roles of free-to-air is as a safety net for free access to televised coverage of nationally significant sporting events. The way we all collectively gathered around the TV to watch the FIFA Women's World Cup and cheer on the Matildas is a perfect example of why free, accessible sporting events matter to Australians—and wasn't it great, colleagues, to see the Matildas here in the parliament this morning? It was just fantastic to see. However, subscription internet streaming services that are relatively new to the Australian media market are not yet required to meet the same obligations as free-to-air broadcasters in terms of delivering these public policy outcomes. As a result, the playing field is not level, free-to-air broadcasting is disadvantaged and the public interest is at risk. That's why the Albanese-Labor government is addressing the challenge of these competing interests. We are as determined to ensure that all Australians can continue to engage in social, cultural and economic life and participate in our democratic processes, as we are to support the continued growth of and innovation in Australia's exciting broadcast and wider media sector. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order. The debate is interrupted and the member for Lyons will have leave to continue his remarks at a later date. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT Forde Electorate: Community Events 96 19:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As we, in this place, all know, we have a range of wonderful community organisations in our electorates. Normally, over the course of weekends, many of them are out and about doing really interesting bits and pieces around the electorate, and so it was with the weekend just gone. I had the joy of joining the team at the Ormeau Progress Association and the North East Albert Landcare at Rivermount College, to continue their efforts to revegetate the banks of the Albert River. Their planning day was organised with the support of Landcare and also Regen, and they encouraged people of all ages to join in the work to plant native tree species on the college campus grounds. Now, I will say that, on Thursday and Friday last week, they were also there with the students of Rivermount College, and our job on Saturday was made that bit easier because the students at Rivermount College had done an extraordinary job on Thursday and Friday, in getting the revegetation project well and truly underway. Revegetating our local environment can play a significant role in broader conservation efforts, particularly around our waterways. Without it, our riverbanks, such as those along the Albert River, can be at risk of soil erosion, leading to further losses of native plants and habitats for our native animal species. This is the latest in a series of projects along the Albert River around Rivermount College conducted by the Ormeau Progress Association and North East Albert Landcare. I'd like to thank Sue Durance and her team for the wonderful work they do in bringing these projects to fruition, through a variety of grants and supports by Gold Coast city council, and of course Rivermount College and Regen as well. These native trees and shrubs will greatly enhance the college grounds but also, as I said, go a significant way to revegetating our local environment. Last Friday night, I also had the pleasure of attending the Beenleigh Little Athletics AGM and their awards presentation night. Little Athletics is a healthy, fun and safe way for children aged five to 17, of all skills and abilities, to get involved in sports, across a range of track and field events. Beenleigh Little Athletics competed at various events throughout last season, including the Jimboomba carnival, and several of their athletes couldn't make it on Friday night because they were actually at the state titles. So congratulations to them. The season included some milestones off the track, too, with the completion of renovations to their clubhouse. It was a joy to join those athletes to celebrate their successes during the season. They also had some difficulties, and I'd like to thank Browns Plains Little Athletics club for hosting Beenleigh Little Athletics club while their facilities were out of action, particularly due to the rain and flooding events. Congratulations to all the award winners. You've done a terrific job. All the best for next season. Finally, on the weekend, I had the pleasure of joining the Australian Budgerigar Society for their AGM and the Oaks and Derby Show. It's always wonderful to go along and talk to my good friends at the Australian Budgerigar Society. Their enthusiasm for the breeding of budgerigars is infectious. I haven't succumbed to buying one yet, much to my wife's disappointment! But some of their members travelled several hours from northern New South Wales to come and be involved in the stuff that the club does. So congratulations to Barbara Kelly for winning the Champion Young Budgerigar of the show; to Wayne Robinson, who won the Champion Young Opposite Sex of the show; and to Alex Bell for securing the Champion Junior. A huge thanks goes to Henry George OAM, who was the national judge for the day's proceedings, along with the entire committee for putting on an amazing day. I want to congratulate the outgoing committee for the fabulous work they've done over the last 12 months and thank the incoming committee, very ably led by President Lucas Hendry, assisted by Vice President Wayne Robinson and Secretary Chad Siebenhausen. Congratulations to the two newest members of the committee, Kristen Cooper and Kaleena Meirs. Thank you to everybody for the great job you do for our community. Lalor Electorate 97 19:35 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The electorate of Lalor, my electorate, is home to Wyndham City, which is one of Australia's fastest-growing municipalities. It currently has a population exceeding 300,000 and is expected to double in size by 2041. Lalor is a very special place, as part of Wyndham City. It has a broad demographic. People are attracted to Lalor by affordable housing. We have a broad demographic in terms of educational outcomes, income and subsequent social capital. The average age in Lalor is 32, and 46 per cent of residents are couples with children. On Friday, I attended three very different local meetings in my electorate. The first was the community opening of our newest special school, Ngannoo Borron, which is prep to 12. I met their principal, Michelle Marcu, gave the school community flags, and helped to celebrate some of the most vulnerable children in the electorate. I want to thank the young people who assisted in unwrapping the flags and holding them up for the school community. It was a wonderful experience to be there for what was their first school assembly. The second was the Western Metro Mental Health and Wellbeing forum, an initiative of the state government in response to the royal commission. There we had many discussions about the current provision of mental health care and the need to create seamless referral systems between our local GPs, hospitals and mental health support services. In our diverse community, with its inherent barriers to accessing mental health care, these are important conversations. I wish the Western Metro Mental Health and Wellbeing team the best of luck in the decisions they make into the future. I hope that they bring care, concern and, most importantly, connectedness and connectivity in the mental health space for the people that I represent. The third event I attended on Friday was a meeting with Uniting Werribee to discuss their portion of the additional $14.4 million in funding for emergency relief and food relief to support our most vulnerable community members in response to the rising cost of living. I talked to them about the announcement by Minister Rishworth and the Albanese government on 14 February and heard their plans for how that money will be spent. Not surprisingly, I heard about the increased demand due to cost-of-living pressures and the humbling, sometimes humiliating, experience of walking in for the first time to receive food relief, whether you've been a member of the community for a short time or for a long time. I wish Uniting Werribee all the best in the work that they do and I look forward to working with them at a homelessness roundtable in the near future. Finally, and most poignantly, I attended a vigil for Chaithanya Madhagani—Swetha, as she was known. I joined Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand, and Matthew Hilakari, the member for Point Cook, at the vigil for a woman who was, devastatingly, taken from our community, her son and her loving family in India. In attendance were her work colleagues and former employer, who led the vigil and passed along condolences from his staff and the family. It was an incredibly poignant moment. I want to thank the Telugu community and, in particular, Shaqri and Raju, who assisted in organising the vigil and ensuring everything went smoothly. Social cohesion is what we work on hardest in the seat of Lalor and the city of Wyndham. It is achieved when we recognise who our most vulnerable communities are, when we work hard to provide them with as much support as we can so that they feel a sense of belonging and provide in their community. In my community this week we are celebrating Holi, Ramadan and Easter. We work, live and build a loving, harmonious community together. I am extremely proud of the community I represent for the way we do this work—for the way we come together to celebrate and support one another. So to all of those at home: happy Easter, Ramadan Mubarak and may Holi bring joy and love to every family. Economy 97 19:40 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Google Maps, pacemakers, medical penicillin and wi-fi: what do these life-changing innovations have in common? They were all created by Australians. It is undeniable that we were once a nation of innovation, betterment and growth. We were building a reputation around the world as a land of creativity, ingenuity and problem-solving, proudly inventing, making and packaging creations to then export to our friends across the globe. But today we're seeing a very different narrative play out. It is disappointing to see Australian businesses and manufacturers feeling left behind and forgotten. They are at their wits' end, knowing that they would be better helped and supported by moving their operations overseas, taking Aussie jobs with them. One of the latest businesses that has shut down their Australian manufacturing hub is Tritium Charging. Tritium is an international company home-grown in my electorate of Bonner. Until last year, it manufactured hardware and software for electric-vehicle chargers in Brisbane. I was fortunate enough to show my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the member for Farrer—and Brisbane City Councillor Lisa Atwood around Tritium last year. As the member for Farrer said so eloquently, Tritium represents the very best of Australian innovation and manufacturing. It is exactly the type of company we should be backing to transition to a low-emission economy. It is so disappointing to see that, owing to the lack of support from both the federal Labor and Queensland state Labor governments, this proud Aussie business will consolidate its operations in the United States. Two hundred workers, many of whom live in my electorate, have already lost their livelihoods, with a total of 400 jobs to be lost in advanced manufacturing. This government claim that they are on the side of people who want to work hard to get ahead, but in reality, instead of supporting home-grown talent, they are forgetting them. Their policies are just not working. How can mum-and-dad businesses operate with this government's complex industrial relations laws hanging over their heads? Their disastrous right to disconnect law could lead to fines of more than $18,000. This law just opens up another level of complexity for businesses at a time when they are doing it very tough. Tritium isn't the only business in my electorate that is feeling left-behind. Vuly, located in my electorate, develops and creates trampolines and outdoor-play equipment, and as a multimillion-dollar business, Vuly is proudly Australian-owned and -operated. For over a decade, they have pushed the limits of innovation and fun while making sure their products are safe for kids around the world. Like many Australian businesses, Vuly wants to expand and build to have greater manufacturing capabilities in Tingalpa in my electorate, but when it reached out for help and support from both the federal and state governments they were given the cold shoulder. I want to make it clear: Vuly wasn't looking for a handout. It wanted reduced bureaucracy—that means it wanted red tape to be cut—and for better incentives to invest in growing its Australian manufacturing capabilities. After being ignored, Vuly is planning to expand its operations overseas, taking jobs and future growth opportunities for Australia with them. That is so disappointing. I have had so many local-business owners in the area of hospitality and retail who have said that it is harder for them to operate under this federal Labor government. One local business owner, Matt, told me that last year alone, overhead costs for running his automotive dealership have increased by $1 million. This is owing to spiralling electricity prices, the new ute tax, wage rises and rent increases on top of 13 interest rate rises. But Matt is not alone. A local Bonner business cafe owner, Sam, told me the cost-of-living crisis has also resulted in a cost-of-doing-business crisis. He has now had to look at reducing his team—which is like a family to him—from 14 down to 10 just to keep afloat. Sam said that if things don't change, that 10 may be reduced to eight. Australians and Australian business owners deserve better. They deserve a government that will protect Australia's sovereign capabilities. They deserve a government that has an economic plan that will put downward pressure on interests rates. They deserve a government who will create a strong economic future, one full of innovation, growth and sustainability. They deserve a government who puts Australian businesses first. Right now that's not happening. Australian businesses have been abandoned by this federal government, and only a coalition government can get the country back on track and support Australian businesses. Cohen, Dr Hershal 98 19:45 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It is a privilege to have a platform in this place to spotlight the contributions of remarkable individuals in our communities. While they may not be widely recognised beyond their local areas, they often serve as the heart and backbone of their communities. Today I want to highlight one such individual: Dr Hershal Cohen, who served our community as a GP for over 50 years as well as at the Royal Southern Memorial Hospital, which is now known as the Caulfield Hospital. We estimate that throughout his medical career, Dr Hershal Cohen would have had about 200,000 appointments with patients. It was a remarkable career, and I pay tribute to him tonight. Sadly, Hershal passed away last Saturday. Not only was Hershal an exceptional doctor in Caulfield, in my electorate of Macnamara; he was also my grandfather. I was proud to say that I was the grandchild of Dr Hershal and Gerta Cohen. Whenever I did, it was usually met with the stories of the kind doctor of Caulfield. I was told stories by local people of how Hersh helped them in different moments and that Hersh was extremely precious as their family doctor. My grandfather had sore hips, and I watched my grandfather struggle to walk, yet he would carry coffee and breakfast up the stairs to my grandmother every morning. He spent Sunday mornings preparing lunch for our family together at his home. It was his way of telling us to come over and spent time with each other, mainly through his famous potato salad. I watched my grandfather get on with life despite obvious discomfort, but I never heard him complain once. He served thousands of patients over his nearly 50-year career, offering comfort and healing. I think that was the most remarkable part about him—that he had immense pain within himself, but he dedicated his life to fixing the pain and healing the pain of others. I'd like to share two personal moments for me that encapsulate Hersh's wisdom and kindness. The first happened in the aftermath of the 2022 election when the outcome of the seat of Macnamara was uncertain. I admit I was a bit stressed at that point in time. Seeking a bit of solace, I turned to my grandfather, who reminded me of the enduring importance of family and that some things outlast politics, things like making sure I care for my daughter, Tia, above all else. The second moment was at my grandfather's final bedside. He was surrounded by his children and his grandchildren, whom he absolutely adored. It was reminiscent of a long Sunday lunch at their place, a setting he cherished. And once again he showed us the way with his quiet and gentle wisdom. I thank the House for this small indulgence. My grandfather was a remarkable man and he was a great member of our local community. He was the doctor for Caulfield. He was a pillar of our community, a man whose legacy I pay tribute to. He leaves behind a legacy of kindness and compassion and an unwavering dedication to medicine and to the service of others. I hope now he gets to spend some time with his beloved wife, my grandmother, Gerta. I know he was very proud of his children, Susan, Janet, Leanne, Michelle, Geoffrey and Bruce; his 13 grandchildren; and his nine great-grandchildren. They were his tribe. He was a remarkable man, and I loved him very much. I pay tribute to the wonderful Dr Hershal Cohen. Health Care 99 19:49 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Firstly, I want to commend the member for Macnamara and pass on my condolences to him and his family. I have no doubt that his grandfather was very proud of him. This is a robust environment, but the member for Macnamara carries himself with integrity and good character at all times, which I have no doubt come from his grandfather and his family. I pass on my deepest condolences to you and your family. I am, ironically, going to be speaking about health. As the member for Macnamara said, GPs and access to health care are crucial for every community. In my community of the Yarra Ranges, we deserve and need affordable and accessible health care to make sure it's reachable and in close proximity to our regional towns and our suburbs. And we need a strong and reliable healthcare system that supports our community when we need it most. As we all know, we're in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and the Albanese government is overseeing the collapse of bulk billing, at a time when local families are struggling to pay the bills, let alone cough up for an unexpected GP appointment. Recent data released by Cleanbill shows that our community has seen an out-of-pocket increase of $4.25 for a standard consultation. Cleanbill's report states that over the last financial year there has been a catastrophic reduction in the number of bulk-billing options available across the country and that over 1.2 million Australians avoided visiting a GP because of cost concerns. In my community of the Yarra Ranges we have only seven bulk-billed clinics, with none in some of our largest suburbs and towns, including Lilydale, Healesville, Belgrave and many others—only seven bulk-billed clinics in a community that spans 2½ thousand square kilometres, and no hospitals in our community. A lot more needs to be done. We need to increase the accessibility of local healthcare facilities and improve the affordability and reliability of access to bulk-billing services in order to improve community health outcomes for my community. We need to stop minor issues becoming more serious. Time after time I have community members coming to me and talking about how they can't get access to health care and the flow-on effects of that. Disappointingly, the Prime Minister's decisions have been based on party, not people. Victoria has eight Medicare urgent care clinics. Of these eight, seven are located in Labor- or Greens-held seats. And many of these urgent care clinics are only a few minutes drive from emergency rooms, where it's far more accessible to access urgent care at the hospital. In the Yarra Ranges, in 2½ square kilometres, as I said, there is not a single hospital, not a single emergency department and not a single urgent care clinic. But almost every area where an urgent care clinic was awarded by this government is within five to 15 minutes of a hospital. The Yarra Ranges needs an urgent care clinic—a clinic that residents or family members can walk into and be bulk-billed for urgent care, a clinic that is open early or late every day of the week and of the year, a clinic that provides urgent care in a GP setting so you don't have to wait in the emergency department, helping to reduce pressure on our already stretched hospitals and emergency departments. When Prime Minister Albanese was speaking about urgent care clinics in question time on Tuesday 19 March, he said, 'There'll be more included in our budget coming up in May.' Now is the time for the Prime Minister to listen to the residents of the Yarra Ranges and of Casey. I'm calling on the Prime Minister to establish, in the upcoming budget, a Medicare urgent care clinic in the Yarra Ranges. I'll continue to be a strong voice for my community, which is in need of a more affordable, accessible, strong and reliable healthcare system. This is a test for this Prime Minister. First time in Victoria: seven out of eight to Labor and Greens seats. The question is: will he put the needs of my community over the politics and needs of his own MPs? Endometriosis Awareness Month 100 19:54 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It feels like only yesterday that I was standing in this place talking about endometriosis awareness last year. But as we come towards the close of Endometriosis Awareness Month I feel it important to highlight this important issue before the House adjourns tonight. It is an issue that stands above political lines and is a cause that garners support from across the chamber. It is important that we shed light on women's health and work in a bipartisan way to establish a path toward better health outcomes for women and girls. It is in this light that I want to thank those around this chamber who have spoken on this issue over the course of the month, helping to raise awareness. When giving a speech last year about my wife's battle with endometriosis, I wasn't prepared for the level of awareness it would raise, not just in this place but, more importantly, in my local community: 'We saw your speech in parliament. It helped start a conversation in our household with my daughter'—or 'my partner' or 'my mother'. There were so many positive conversations, all because of telling our story. Endometriosis affects one in seven Australian women and girls, or approximately 700,000 Australians. It is a crippling, chronic condition that can start at puberty and continue beyond menopause. It accounted for 34,200 hospitalisations in Australia in 2016-17 alone. The cause of endometriosis remains unknown. There is no known way to prevent it, and it remains without a cure. Symptoms can be treated with medicines or, in some cases, surgery, but this is all to varying degrees of success. It is important to acknowledge that the government is addressing endometriosis at a national level through the National Action Plan for Endometriosis, something introduced by those opposite in 2018. At its time, it was a world first. We are proud to be delivering 22 pelvic pain clinics around Australia, along with access to new Medicare funded MRI scans in order to assist investigations of infertility for those with severe endometriosis. I want to acknowledge the South Australian state member for Waite, Catherine Hutchesson, for her work toward establishing the Parliamentary Select Committee into Endometriosis to conduct an inquiry to examine the prevalence of endo, its effects on SA women, and how to improve treatments and supports. Whilst all this goes some way to delivering better outcomes, it is important to recognise that we need to do more to help women and girls who are suffering in our communities—people like Shae, who I met at the Munno Para shops recently and who spoke to me about the pain being experienced on an everyday basis. Living with endometriosis to such an extreme, Shae has had to all but completely withdraw from the community beyond the four walls of home. This is a story of debilitating pain that has been unsuccessfully treated with surgery on multiple occasions. What makes this worse is that Shae can't afford private health cover because she is unable to work and, having spent savings and money borrowed from friends and family, is now on a long waiting list for further surgery through the public system. Day by day, Shae's condition worsens. Pain increases, as does the need for stronger pain relief. Endo is working its way around, causing complications that continue to reduce quality of life. Heavy pain relief means Shae can no longer drive to work, to the shops or even to medical appointments. She was a young, bright star with a bright future, but her life is now on hold. She is hanging in limbo indefinitely until help arrives by way of surgery. This is the life that so many people live silently. People like Shae need people like us to speak on their behalf for the delivery of better outcomes for women's health. I would like to close by echoing remarks made by the member for Forrest, the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness, and encouraging women with endo to sign up to the Australian National Endometriosis Clinical and Scientific Trials Registry and become part of a research network made up of clinicians, healthcare providers, scientists, patients and consumer reps who are determined to fill gaps in endo research to improve patient care and provide better treatment options and more affordable medicines. You could help lead to a breakthrough to improve the understanding and, hopefully, one day lead to a cure. For people like Shae, my wife, Cassandra, and the thousands of women's and girls in my community back home living with the daily battle and pain that is endo: your bravery is something to behold. I will continue to fight for you and for a better quality of life. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 101 NOTICES Presentation 101

Monday, 25 March 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Archer ) took the chair at 10:29.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 102 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Linear Park 102 10:29 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's a pleasure to take this opportunity to keep the House updated on the work that we're doing in the local community around our vision for Linear Park. Linear Park is a great asset and attribute that stretches not only through my electorate of Sturt but right through metropolitan Adelaide. It runs along most of the banks of the River Torrens. The River Torrens has its source up in Mount Pleasant in the Adelaide Hills, and then runs down through my electorate. At times it's, in fact, the boundary of my electorate. It also goes through the electorates of Adelaide and Hindmarsh and out into the Gulf St Vincent. The Torrens River, like many of the great rivers that run through the great metropolises, is a great asset for Adelaide. But we are particularly lucky, thanks to Colonel William Light, who master-planned Adelaide city, that he engaged the river in a very special and unique way in planning the greater layout of the city of Adelaide. The famous Adelaide Park Lands have the River Torrens running through them, and Linear Park then runs both sides of the Torrens, in both directions of the parklands that envelop the city. We've got a vision for Linear Park with the parklands, as well, to become an even greater natural asset for our community. I want to see the Adelaide Park Lands listed as a World Heritage site. As someone who grew up living in a World Heritage site, on Norfolk Island, I've got a particular passion for the protections and the significance that World Heritage site listing will bring to the Adelaide Park Lands—an important protection of an important asset for the city. Then, of course, Linear Park runs through my electorate. I also have a vision to see that invested in, to further enhance it and, particularly, make it a greater recreational asset and a greater environmental asset for my community and for the people of all of Adelaide. There are parts of Linear Park that we've been able to secure funding for over the years. I'm proud of the progress we've made, but we want to finish the job. In particular, we want to work with all levels of government—local, state and federal—to co-invest in Linear Park so that we continue to get these enhanced outcomes and families have more recreational assets along Linear Park to better engage with that amazing natural asset. We also hope to see investment in environmental projects that will ensure that, where we've got pests and weeds and degradation, it is corrected and we have a great local community asset that is both of the highest environmental standards and also a great recreational destination for the families of my electorate and all the people of Adelaide. Maitland Woman of the Year 2024 102 10:32 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson It was with great pleasure that the Hon. Jenny Aitchison, the state member for Maitland and also the New South Wales Minister for Regional Transport and Roads, announced Evelyn Stonham as the esteemed recipient of the 2024 Maitland Local Woman of the Year. Congratulations, Evelyn. The award was presented at a dinner held on 1 March. Ms Stonham is a fervent advocate for football and a distinguished member of our community. She's been honoured for her exceptional contributions and commitment to the Maitland region on the whole. Her recognition comes amidst a formidable group of nominees, demonstrating the profound impact of her efforts. Among those acknowledged for their fantastic contributions were Jenny Cridland, Stacy Jacobs, Dr Sally Keir and Leanne White, each receiving highly commended honours. Congratulations to you. Additionally, the efforts of Judy Hicks, Emily Baitch, Judith Gargosky, Cheryl Lucas, Camilla Callinan, Melissa Chandler, Alanna Vial and Lynn Warner were celebrated, highlighting the depth of talent and commitment in our local community. I want to acknowledge this group of amazing women. Only one person can win the award on the night, but, when you hear about the CVs of this group of people and the impact that they're having across a vast array of projects in our community, you know we are certainly richer for their efforts. Thank you for that. The accolade that was presented to Ms Stonham during the ceremony was co-hosted by the Women's Network of Hunter New South Wales and the Maitland MP, Jenny Aitchison. I was so pleased to be able to extend my heartfelt congratulations on the evening. Ms Stonham's longstanding dedication to football, spanning over four decades, with affiliations to the Maitland Junior Football Club, the Newcastle Jets and the Northern New South Wales Football federation, has significantly contributed to the sport's growth and inclusivity across the decades. In 2023, the organisation boasted a membership exceeding 1,000 players, which is a testament to Evelyn's leadership and vision. Notably, Evelyn has been an advocate for gender equality within the sport, striving for equal participation among male and female members. We also chatted on Friday night about the Matilda's being a huge boost. This year's International Women's Day theme focuses on inclusion and aligns perfectly with Evelyn's efforts and achievements. Her role as secretary/registrar has been instrumental in fostering a welcoming and supportive environment within our sporting community, and I am so pleased about that. Housing, Social Media 103 10:35 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Never before have we seen a federal government so beholden to vested interests as we do in this Albanese Labor government. A quick look at housing and children's safety online and we see it on full display. In just two years of government, Labor have driven the cost of building to astronomical highs. The coalition, when it was in government, saw a record-breaking 415,240 apprentices and trainees access skill training thanks to JobTrainer, wage subsidies and the Australian apprenticeship incentive system. Thanks to HomeBuilder, we protected the building sector from the worst of COVID, with $2.52 billion driving the construction, or rebuild, of around 42,000 homes. And thanks to our Home Guarantee and First Home Super Saver schemes, young people, single mums and first home buyers had the chance to realise the great Australian dream for the very first time. Labor have now dismantled that progress. They've abolished the ABCC; they've stripped subcontractors of their independence and opened the door to union thuggery of the dark old days. Now we see that, in Queensland and across the country, we are in desperate need of skilled workers to build the homes and infrastructure that we need, all while slashing the $160 million committed to the life-saving Mooloolah River Interchange project on the Sunshine Coast. This federal government talks the big talk about housing and yet just slashed $160 million from one of the most needy infrastructure projects on the Sunshine Coast, resulting in 130 homes being demolished for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It is a crime. Labor are beholden to the unions—they talk the big talk, but they never actually walk it. Now Labor are beholden to big tech and big porn. We've called for age assurance in online pornography, but Labor said no, siding with the porn industry lobby. Today, we're calling for action to outlaw criminal post boasting. Will Labor side with big tech, or will they come to the table? And I'm reiterating my call for the most common-sense solution to our social media problems. I'm calling on this government to legislate for social media ID verification and age verification. Anonymity is costing lives and livelihoods. Let's peel back the covers and expose those who would do our most vulnerable harm. Let's make social media a safer place for Australian families, children and our communities. Motor Neurone Disease 103 10:38 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Last week, parliament was visited by an amazing and inspiring individual. Warren 'Woz' Ascott was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, MND, in July 2023, and he has made it his mission to mow down MND by riding his lawnmower from his home in Toolleen, in my electorate, to Parliament House in Canberra. I say 'my electorate' because Toolleen is one of those areas that is half in Nicholls and half in Bendigo, so the member for Nicholls and I are both claiming Warren Acott. But he is somebody who is larger than life and somebody who came here with a mission. Warren has asked the government to make MND a notifiable disease. At the age of 66, prior to his diagnosis, Woz worked as a truck driver, but, in just seven months, MND has made a significant impact on his health. On his journey to Canberra, he briefly stayed in a hospital in Wagga Wagga. At the time, he spoke to the media about how this is just MND and what you live with. Woz said this about his journey, to the Bendigo Advertiser: Hopefully we can achieve something out of (this trip) for the people in the community and for future generations (affected by MND) so they can come see this place. Woz did complete his 12-day journey, arriving at Parliament House last Thursday. It was 800 kilometres from Toolleen to Canberra, and last Thursday, 21 March, he was met by the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease group, Senator Carol Brown and the member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke. I thank them both for their generosity and their welcome for Woz. In the Prime Minister's courtyard, Woz was met by the Prime Minister, who thanked him for his amazing effort to raise awareness of MND. MND is a devastating disease that affects nerve cells. These cells carry messages to muscles via the spinal cord. Severe MND gradually leads to weakness in muscles, swallowing and speech disturbances, respiratory failure and, ultimately, death. The cause of MND is not yet understood, and there is no cure. But all of us would know somebody, or at least someone high profile, who has been affected by this disease. In Australia it's estimated that, at any one time, there are around 2,100 people living with MND, and we wish to acknowledge them today. Every day, two people are diagnosed with MND and two people die from the disease. I commend Woz for his inspirational journey to 'Mow Down MND' and for the practical way he brought this about. It was a long journey, and he did well. I also really want to acknowledge the way he has put a spotlight on this terrible disease, and I want to acknowledge the people living with the diagnosis and those who've already lost their battle to MND. Durack Electorate: Services Australia 104 10:41 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to express my deep concerns regarding Services Australia's unacceptable and extensive delays with claims and processing times. This situation is progressively getting worse at a time when financial assistance for Australians is of the utmost priority. This cost-of-living crisis under the Albanese Labor government has hit hard, leaving many families in Durack struggling to make ends meet. Basic necessities, like simply putting food on the table, fuelling up the car and sending children to school, have become overwhelming challenges. Many Durack residents do not have the capacity or adequate communication services available to navigate this new world where services are now online, be they Medicare card applications, Centrelink payments or child support. In Geraldton, which my electorate's largest population base, the Services Australia office previously had approximately 60 staff members. You could simply walk in and talk face to face with staff who were able to support you in applying for the assistance that you needed. Now, however, I understand they only have six team members. That's six staff members—staff who are overworked, whose hands are tied and who can provide only limited advice and often only a phone number to call for help. It's simply unacceptable. My office has been inundated with calls, visits and emails from fed up Australians who are tired of being treated like second-rate citizens. They are tired of waiting for half a year for the help they require urgently. I heard recently from Phillip, a 75-year-old ex-farmer from the Wheatbelt region of Durack, who applied for the age pension in October and, five months later, is still waiting. My office has also been in contact with a 60-year-old cleaner from Northam who applied for the disability support pension and had to wait six months for assistance. A Centrelink staff member said to this Northam local: 'The delay in processing your claim is due to the lack of staff. Staff who've left Centrelink over the past year have simply not been replaced.' Now, to be clear, I believe that Services Australia staff are working hard—the ones that still work for Services Australia's Centrelink office. They're doing the best they can to look after the needs of Durack constituents. The agency claims to have a benchmark of 49 days to complete a claim and issue funds to the claimant. However, my constituents are experiencing double, and sometimes triple, that amount of time, often waiting up to six months. Labor's disregard for my constituents is incredibly disappointing and frustrating. They must do better. It's time for action, not just words or promises. Cost of Living 104 10:44 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Constituents in my electorate of Gilmore can be assured that my No. 1 priority, as your member for Gilmore and as part of the Albanese government, is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures. I know that a lot of people are doing it tough, and that's why I'm glad that Labor's tax cuts on 1 July this year will deliver a bigger tax cut for Middle Australia to help with the cost of living. Eighty-seven per cent of taxpayers in Gilmore will receive a bigger tax cut under the Albanese Labor government. We want Australians to keep more of what they earn, and our bigger tax cuts for more taxpayers will help make that happen. Peter Dutton and the Liberals want to take those tax cuts away. Peter Dutton wants Australians to work longer for less. Over the past 18 months, Peter Dutton's Liberals have consistently opposed any action to help ease the cost of living. Peter Dutton and the Liberals are all negative—zero plan. On coming to government, we cut coal and gas prices and provided targeted energy bill relief, with eligible households receiving $500 towards their energy bill and businesses $650. Just last week, the Australian Energy Regulator was clear that our energy price relief plan and pumping more renewables into the grid have been successful in bringing down wholesale prices, substantially lowering costs for households, including through the default market offer. It's up to Peter Dutton to explain why the Liberals voted against— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Can the member please refer to members by their correct title. Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 It's up to the Leader of the Opposition to explain why the Liberals voted against easing power prices for Australians and businesses. Instead, with the Liberals you get an expensive nuclear fairytale, which would mean looking at 15 years at least with no nuclear in the grid and power stations shutting down because they're too old to operate. That is a recipe for disaster. Where will the Liberals build one of the new nuclear power stations? Jervis Bay? As I said my maiden speech, I will never accept a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. We've made medicines cheaper through 60-day dispensing of scripts, which the Liberals opposed. We've made it easier and cheaper to see a doctor by tripling the bulk-billing incentives for pensioners, concession cardholders and students. We've opened a Medicare urgent care clinic at Batemans Bay. We've made child care cheaper for around 4,800 families in Gilmore. We've expanded paid parental leave. We're getting on with building more social and affordable homes. Our fee-free TAFE has removed cost barriers, helped apprentices, trainees and students and assisted local businesses with skill shortages. Wages are rising at the fastest rate for a decade, including for minimum-wage and aged-care workers. We've done all this as we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years. Education: Rural and Regional Australia 105 10:47 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Last Friday, I attended the Isolated Children's Parents' Association annual general meeting in South Australia. Quorn is about 340 kilometres north of Adelaide in my electorate, and I try and attend these meetings most years. They have not a huge crowd but have some people that look after some of the most beautiful parts of Australia. They are the caretakers, if you like. But, increasingly, the difficulty of getting anyone to live in the outback regions, because of the state of education, is becoming a very real matter for them. For instance in South Australia we have just recently, as the other states seem to have done, split primary and secondary schooling into two six-year segments. Consequently, the School of the Air has discontinued year 7 lessons. Now people who live in the outback are faced with the reality of having to send their children to six years of boarding school. I don't know if any of you have looked at boarding school rates recently, but generally speaking the average boarding rate—not the high end of town—is about $23,000 a year in South Australia. On top of that you can put another $18,000 to $20,000 worth of tuition. You're pushing up towards $50,000, and you're not in the best school—far from it. Imagine if you had three children. I called in on a property between William Creek and Oodnadatta last year, and the manager was there. The manager of the station had just contacted me and said, 'We'll have to pack up and leave.' Imagine if you were a leading hand or a jackaroo or whatever and that you had a family. There isn't really another option. You've got the School of the Air, which is a fabulous service, and we should be proud of it in Australia. And then it just chops off, and you've got to go to distance education. For a couple running a property or doing whatever out there, that means virtually that you've only got one income, because the other income has to be inside the house being the child-minder and the schoolmaster. While distance education works well for those who are extremely motivated, I challenge anyone to keep a 13-year-old boy inside out on a sheep station—with all the activity that's going on—to try to keep his education up. So, clearly, you're back to one income and, even if you're well paid—you'd might be in the low $100,000s—it's $50,000 a year for each kid for six years. In South Australia, the state government offers a living-away-from-home allowance. It's sub-$5,000, and has been for many years. It's 10 per cent. So if Australia wants people to live, care and work in our outback regions we simply have to come up with a better model and be more generous to these parents who are facing these incredible difficulties. Newcastle Electorate: Cost of Living 105 10:50 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Kahlia is a Newcastle small-business owner—a beauty therapist and mother of three. Thanks to fee-free TAFE, Kahlia is now nine months into her certificate IV in assessment and training. This course will enable her to achieve her goal of being a vocational education and training beauty teacher. Kahlia told me that with three kids, including one with special needs, she doesn't have a lot of free time on her hands, but the flexibility offered by an online free TAFE course, and not having to worry about that cost, has allowed her to back herself in, take a leap and finally do that course. Kahlia is one of many Newcastle women who have generously shared with me their stories of forging new career paths thanks to fee-free TAFE. The Commonwealth, states and territories fee-free TAFE initiative is continuing to exceed targets, removing financial barriers so that more Australians can learn new skills in areas where the economy needs them most. National data has shown that women make up 62 per cent of TAFE enrolments. Students from regional and remote areas make up more than 66 per cent of total enrolments; 23 per cent were jobseekers, eight per cent were people with a disability and seven per cent were First Nations people. In total, over 355,000 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE across Australia during 2023, smashing that initial first target of 180,000. This included 182,124 students in New South Wales. And fee-free TAFE is not going anywhere! The Albanese Labor government is providing a further $414.1 million to the states and territories over the 2024-26 period to fund delivery of at least another 300,000 fee-free TAFE places. It's just one example of the targeted cost-of-living relief we're delivering, while not adding to inflation. And, of course, Labor's cheaper medicines policy helped Australians save over $250 million on medicines in 2023, with more to come in 2024. Changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the introduction of 60-day prescriptions are reducing everyday cost-of-living pressures for Australians. The good news is that the Albanese Labor government is now doubling the number of medicines that are available on the 60-day prescription list. My constituents are extremely grateful for these reforms, like the person who wrote to me saying, 'As someone with health conditions that require ongoing medication, it'll make a real difference in my life and to my wallet.' There are 184 medicines now available for a 60-day prescription, meaning Novocastrians can now access twice the medication for the single cost of a single prescription. This saves both time and money, and also frees up GP visits for others. Between 1 September last year and 31 January this year, more than 12,000 60-day prescriptions were dispensed in Newcastle. That's a great outcome for my community. Corangamite Electorate: Tourism Industry 106 10:53 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My electorate of Corangamite in Victoria is a beautiful place. It's home to the Great Ocean Road, the stunning Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula. Our hospitality and excellence in tourism are well known. Our message to visitors is: come and experience our unique natural beauty; taste the flavours and quality of our food and wine; and of course meet our people. This is a message that's reflected in the extraordinary achievement of three local businesses, who won gold, silver and bronze at the recent Australian Tourism Awards in Darwin. As chair of the NDIS joint standing committee, I was thrilled to congratulate the silver medal winner, Kerry Williams, who took out the accessible tourism category. This result reflects Kerry's hard work, determination and excellence, not only in enhancing our region's tourism industry but also in leading the way in creating tourism accommodation that is inclusive and accessible for all. Her award is well deserved, and I'm confident her success will inspire others to create innovative, accessible accommodation that supports people with disability. It's a great business opportunity that addresses growing demand. Australia's tourism and travel industry delivers more than $60 billion to the economy and supports more than 650,000 jobs and 350,000 businesses across the country. The Australian Tourism Awards is an opportunity to recognise the significance of this sector, and, importantly, it shows the work of business owners and staff who work hard each and every day. I'd also like to congratulate Stephanie King, who won gold in the self-contained accommodation category for her stunning cabins set in the Ocean Grove bushland, while Searoad Ferries won bronze in the major tour and transport operators category. Searoad Ferries CEO, Matt McDonald, said that the prestigious national award was a credit to his team, who continue to show great resilience, innovation and dedication. Only last Thursday, these values were put to the test when Searoad Ferries rescued a group of students from a smoking charter boat in Port Phillip Bay. I'm pleased to say that no-one was harmed in the incident and all 22 passengers were evacuated from the boat to the ferry within minutes. I dropped by Searoad Ferries on Friday to congratulate Matt and his team for their swift response in the face of danger—a response which serves as an inspiring example to others of bravery, kindness and a willingness to step up and help others in a time of crisis. I'd like to give a particular shout-out to the captain, Percy, who is always calm in a crisis. Thank you so much for your 37 years of service to the people of my region. Young Australians 106 10:56 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Young people are going backwards. They've been going backwards for the last 20 years, and we're only finally cottoning on to it, but we need to act. Governments of all persuasions and at all levels have been letting them down. They're going backwards in terms of their wealth. If you look at a household held by a young person, it has basically gone nowhere in terms of its wealth for the last 10 years. A household held by somebody over the age of 65 has increased its wealth by 50 per cent. That's what's happening. Older households have increased their wealth by around 50 per cent in the last 10 years, while younger households have gone nowhere, and it feels like that when you're out in the community. A young guy called Hugo came to my office, and he said: 'Look, I did everything right. I studied hard. I went to uni. I've got a good job. I've got a $50,000 HECS debt, and I don't know if I'm ever going to be able to buy my own home.' He feels trapped, and he's not alone. This is where we, all of us in this parliament, need to be a parliament that makes a difference on this, because parliament after parliament has kicked this can down the road and it's not good enough. Absolutely, the key issue that young people are facing right now is housing, but it's also tax and HECS debt. In terms of housing, we know that young people have been priced out, and we know that the things that the coalition promised over the previous 10 years did not deliver. They're back now saying that they care about young people and getting people into homeownership and that young people should use their super. Well, I ask them: where were you for the last 10 years, in terms of making a difference to those young people so they could actually get into affordable housing, housing that they could actually afford? They were absolutely missing in action. The evidence coming out today suggests that letting people access their super is only going to benefit a very small number of young people and not the majority, who are completely locked out of housing right now. But, also, it's not just housing that is the problem. It is also about HECS and tax. For instance, on HECS, in the last two years, young people have been paying around seven per cent or five per cent on their HECS debt. Even on top of money that they have already paid back, they're still being charged seven per cent and five per cent on their HECS debt. They're watching their HECS debt grow higher and higher because of the way that it's been indexed. Other crossbenchers and I wrote to the government last year saying, 'fix this'. They didn't. They must fix it in this budget. Finally, on tax, we know that there are issues, like the way that we tax younger people and workers versus how we tax asset holders. We know we need to fix that, and this is again something that we need to do in this parliament. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 107 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Student Debt 107 10:59 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) in the 2023 financial year the Government collected more money from HECS/HELP debt than it did from gas companies; (b) millions of Australians with student debt were hit with a 7.1 per cent indexation increase last year; and (c) many federal politicians received free university themselves; and (2) calls on the Government to wipe student debt and make university and TAFE free. If you've got a HECS or HELP student debt and you want to know how badly you're being screwed, look no further than Norway, where they provide free university education, funded in part by the fact that they properly tax their gas corporations. In fact, the opposite happens in Australia, where we tax our gas corporations so poorly—we let them get away with often paying no tax at all—that, in the last financial year, this Labor government made more money off student debt than they did off their special tax on gas corporations. What's happening in Australia is that students are being asked to pay more so gas corporations can pay less. Meanwhile, in Norway students are given free university education and no student debt at all, funded by making gas corporations pay their fair share in tax. I think most Australians would agree that it would be much fairer if we made those gas corporations pay their fair share in tax so we could scrap student debt and make university and TAFE entirely free—the way it used to be in Australia, by the way. Not only is it especially young people and people graduating from university getting smashed by skyrocketing house prices, to the extent that a vast majority now are giving up on ever being able to buy a home, and not only are they stuck paying exorbitant rent increases, leaving many of them financially crippled, but, once you get past all of that, they're also left with massive student debts that are often increasing faster than they can afford to pay them off. We have a situation basically where, if you're a student and you graduate with, say, a $30,000 or $40,000 student debt, even on a good income you know that you're probably never going to be able to buy a house on your own. But, even if you do apply for a mortgage, the bank will look at your student debt, and they will make it less likely that you're able to buy a house. On top of that, even if you pay a little bit off on your student debt every year, last year the government effectively charged an interest rate of 7.1 per cent on that student debt. They call it indexation, but, just to be clear, a lot of mortgage holders paid less on their mortgage than students paid on their student debt last year. What that means is that you effectively cop a wage cut. Every year, out of your tax, comes money from your wage to pay your student debt, which is often increasing faster than you can afford to pay it off because the Labor government refuses to properly tax gas corporations to fund what people in Norway get right now—free university education so that people get to graduate completely debt free. I mentioned before that it happened in Australia as well. In fact, a lot of politicians in this place got free university education, including the Prime Minister, who graduated from university without any debt at all and then was able to go and buy a house for about three to four times the average income. Now a student graduating from university graduates with a $24,000 debt, on average, and, if they want to try and buy a house in a capital city, sometimes those house prices can be 30 or 40 times the average income. That's how badly young people are being screwed in this country. We have the wealth in this country to bring back free university and TAFE. We have the wealth in this country to forgive student debt and finally let people have a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel and stop this grossly unfair situation where gas corporations are paying less on the PRRT than students are paying on their HECS debt. We have the wealth to do that. We could do that right now. But what's happening right now is that we're being held back by a political and economic system completely stacked in favour of large gas corporations, big multinational corporations, one-third of whom, by the way, often get away with paying no tax at all. This would not just be of benefit to students. How many people right now—in particular, from working-class backgrounds—are choosing not to go to university because they know they'll graduate with a massive student debt that they probably will never be able to pay off? How many people in the later stage of their lives who want to go back and retrain to become a teacher or become a nurse are choosing not to because they know they can't afford to cop the massive student debt? There is a broader social benefit that comes with providing free university education. There are countries around the world that recognise this. If the choice is between making Chevron and Santos pay a little bit more in tax so people don't have to graduate with massive student debts, and letting Chevron and Santos, who also happen to be significant donors to the Labor Party, particularly Santos, get away with it— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is the motion seconded? Ms Watson-Brown 300127 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:05 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Taxing mining companies that use Australian resources is not the same as money for Australian students' university degrees. It's just not the same thing. There are some points in the motion moved by the member for Griffith that I want to highlight. Indexation is not a tax. Some years—most years—it's low; some years, like most recently, it's high. Inflation is high. It's a broader challenge that this government is looking at tackling, but I want to repeat: indexation is not tax. When someone incurs a HECS-HELP debt for their university studies, they are asked to pay it back once they reach a certain income threshold, and each year a level of indexation is attached to that amount, but it is not interest. The system of HECS-HELP, originally HECS, was introduced first in 1989, which brings me to another point I want to pick up on. The majority of politicians in this place did not get a free university education, because the majority of politicians in this place did not start university prior to 1989. It is a fallacy to continue to suggest that. Yes, some did, but the debate has shifted. The majority of people in this place started university after that date. I myself had a HECS debt, but I have been fortunate enough to pay it off. Some have paid it off, and some are continuing to pay it off. Others don't have a university HECS debt and have instead entered parliament through a trade or some other means. What is important to say here is that this system has led to an increase in the number of Australians with a degree, from 7.9 per cent to more than 33 per cent, in the three decades since it was introduced. I want to acknowledge that fees have shifted since Hawke first introduced them. I can remember being at university in 1999 and protesting against the Howard government's plans to tier HECS, charging those studying a science based agreed more than those studying an arts degree. We have seen the impact of the tiering of HECS: people are paying more. Then the previous government flipped that, making it more expensive for people to study arts and law than to study science. As a result we have seen fewer people enrol in the arts and we've seen people on lower salaries having a higher HECS debt. I do have some sympathy when we talk about student debt and HECS, and part of it goes to the way in which universities have marketed to people. Some people sign up to multiple courses and finish university without a degree or without a clear direction for where they want to go, but still having a debt. I understand that there is anxiety and frustration towards this in the community, but what is being proposed here today isn't a solution for the need to reform the sector and make sure it is more targeted and means based. Indexation ensures that the HECS-HELP loans maintain their real value over time, ensuring the long-term financial stability of the scheme. The government currently holds a $78 billion HECS debt. If we were to waive that it would break the system. It would see so many not get the opportunity to go to university, effectively closing the door to many. It's a reform that the sector could not cope with, and it's the taxpayer that would have to cover the cost. The government's budget is targeted at supporting students through boosting Austudy, Abstudy and youth allowance as well as rent assistance. The Universities Accord, which is the first significant review of the higher education system in 15 years, has released its report, and it makes 47 recommendations, including how we can improve and build on the success of the HECS-HELP system to make it simpler and fairer. There is sympathy for making HECS simpler and fairer system, but it needs to be done in a methodical way that doesn't cause the sector to collapse. As the education minister has said, the government will consider all these recommendations and respond in the next few months. I acknowledge that debt is an issue, but what's being proposed isn't the solution to ensuring that more people can get an opportunity for a good education and that we don't collapse the sector at the same time. 11:10 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Not only did many of the people in this place, including me, get their university degrees for free; they also had far better prospects for buying their own home, starting a family and living a good life. Now, if you went to uni to try and get a good job, as punishment you have a HECS debt that is growing faster than you can pay it off because of indexation. Last year the indexation rate was 7.1 per cent. That's almost double what it was the year before and almost 10 times the amount it was in 2021. It's more than a standard mortgage interest rate. Let's look at that in numbers. If you have a debt of $40,000, that's almost $3,000 for indexation in one year. If you earn less than $62,000 a year, you wouldn't have even made a dent in your debt. In fact, you will have more debt now than when you finished your degree. Student debt rose by $4.5 billion last year and, instead of offering any relief, what did the government do? Shocker! They gave gas corporations, which make a collective $164 billion in profit, billions of dollars in tax handouts. Australia collects more in HECS than it does in taxing fossil fuel resources. Instead of tax breaks and subsidies for coal and gas corporations, the government should wipe HECS debt and make TAFE and university free and fund things that let people live a good life, like putting dental health and mental health into Medicare. What about the rorts students experience when they are doing their degrees? They pay thousands of dollars and get stung by the indexation rate every year on their HECS debt while also paying for the pleasure of doing free labour for hundreds of hours across their degrees. For Australia to thrive, we need teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, midwives and early childhood educators, but young people are turning away from these important professions. Nursing enrolments have dropped by almost 30 per cent and teaching enrolments have dropped by almost 20 per cent. It's no surprise that people are looking elsewhere or leaving these degrees. Unpaid placements are crushing students. They endure long hours and weeks without pay, with no appreciation. Some even have to pay out of pocket to get a placement. Young people are having to choose between attending placements or paying their rent. Some are working 12-hour days for free and not eating because they only have enough money for the bus fare that day. Youth allowance doesn't even cover the cost of rent in any capital city in Australia. So students are having to move back home or work dangerously long hours to keep a roof over their head. The government is doing nothing to relieve the pressure crushing young people. Just today the Guardian reports on a generation left behind. In their words: With rising house prices, a decade of wage stagnation and ballooning student debt, young people … are living through what— the Guardian— … describes as "a series of broken promises". It reports on how millennials have become 'the first generation to be worse off than their parents'. Shame! Is this really the Australia we want? It doesn't have to be this way and it is up to the government to fix it. They could be getting rid of negative gearing and capital gains tax, making buying a house or renting more affordable. They could break up the supermarket duopoly, wipe student debt and tax the coal and gas companies that are burning up our future. 11:13 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta It is a great pleasure to discuss this issue that has been put forward by the Greens, because student debt is an extremely important issue in Australia. Many Australians are facing the challenge of having to pay off large debt after their university degree has finished. But the most important thing on this issue is to understand the fundamental underlying reason for that increase in cost. That is the rising inflation that Australia has experienced over the last several years. The Albanese government was left with extremely high inflation, and that inflation has caused Australia to have a period in which many elements of our indexation system have increased significantly. Student debt is one of those areas. This is an issue that the Greens have jumped on. Make no mistake, what the Greens are doing here is seeking to shift their party from a party that traditionally has focused on environmental issues to a party that now focuses also on economic issues, specifically the economics of grievance. There's just one problem with this strategy from the Greens, which they've prosecuted in the areas of housing, supermarkets and now student debt. That is that, for all the proposals they have to spend more money, they don't have any proposals to create any wealth that would fund the programs they propose. On issue after issue the Greens are prosecuting an economic agenda that involves more spending, but with no proposals for economic growth or to promote economic growth. In doing so, they make the underlying issue they are trying to solve here, which is inflation, even worse. Let's take a quick look at some of the issues that the Greens have been discussing in relation to their new economic agenda—firstly, supermarkets, and the previous speaker mentioned this as well. In the last couple of weeks, the Greens have been running around suggesting that we should have divestiture powers in Australia that break up the big supermarkets. This is just one of the great examples of the Greens' policies which are harebrained and half baked. They have put no thought into the actual consequences of forcing supermarkets to split up or divest. Where is the evidence that doing so would reduce grocery prices at all? We'd suddenly have a situation where, instead of having one supply chain, we'd have to have two supply chains. Instead of having one head office, we'd have to have two head offices if we force the supermarkets to split up. There's almost no evidence that the Greens have been through any process to actually understand the consequences of the proposals they are promoting, and, where these types of divestiture policies have been used around the world, they have not been successful. Secondly, the Greens have been making proposals on housing. They've suggested that we need rent controls, but they haven't looked at the fundamental problem of lack of supply in Australian housing. In fact, they've been blocking the government's proposals to expand supply. Again, on issue after issue, the Greens come up with a thought bubble that sounds terrific but actually makes the underlying problem that Australia is struggling with worse. It's true in supermarkets, it's true in housing and it's true in the subject of this motion, which is student fees. The most important thing we can do with student fees is reduce the rate of inflation so that that indexation cost comes down. That is exactly what the government has been doing. We've more than halved the rate of inflation that we inherited from the previous government, we have a range of policies to support people with the cost-of-living crisis without stoking inflation and, in doing so, we're getting that indexation cost down. Now, the easiest trick in politics is to hypothecate—to find some pot of money somewhere and say that it should be used for something way over there on the other side of the political landscape, and that's what the Greens love to do. They hypothecate money from any particular tax they can think of or any industry they don't like to some cause that they do like. The problem is that they end up spending that money many times over. This is yet another economic topic the Greens have jumped on, but their solutions are half baked and will make the underlying problem worse. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. International Women's Day 110 11:19 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That this House: (1) notes that International Women's Day is celebrated annually on 8 March and that the theme for 2024 is Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress; (2) acknowledges that the Government has made significant investments in areas to improve the lives of women by delivering more tax relief to women and making it easier to work, making childcare cheaper, expanding the Government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme and paying superannuation on this leave, investing in women's safety, improving how the industrial relations system works for women and improving pay and conditions in the care economy; (3) welcomes the difference this is already making, noting that: (a) the gender pay gap is now at a record low of 12 per cent; (b) Australia has jumped up 17 places from 43rd to 26th in global gender equality rankings in the last 12 months; (c) 60.4 per cent of women over the age of 15 are now employed, compared to 59.9 per cent in 2023; (d) for the first time in history, Australia has a majority female Federal Government; (e) women's wages are up; and (f) the Government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme will be expanded to 26 weeks, with a 12 per cent superannuation contribution being paid to help boost retirement incomes for millions of mums; and (4) congratulates the Government on releasing Australia's first ever strategy for gender equality Working for Women, which sets out a path to get us there over the next 10 years, with a focus on driving action in five priority areas: (a) gender based violence; (b) unpaid and paid care; (c) economic equality and security; (d) health; and (e) leadership, representation and decision-making. I'm very proud to be able to talk today about the significant investments by the Albanese Labor government to advance gender equality in Australia. The struggle to achieve gender equality is by no means new. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the strong women who came before me, to those who have been fighting for change long before I was born—women like the suffragettes Mary Lee and Mary Colton, who fought to change the prejudicial views that society and the law held against women, like not being able to vote. Or women like Alice Henry, a socialist who fought for women's hospitals, labour reform and disability care. Alice yearned to enter politics but couldn't, simply because she was a woman of the time. And there was Jessie Street, the great Australian diplomat, suffragette and campaigner for Indigenous rights. As Australia's only female delegate to the founding of the UN in 1945, Jessie ensured the inclusion of a clause in the UN charter forbidding gender discrimination. What incredible foresight! And I want to recognise the strong, smart and staunch Labor women who continue to fight for equality today and every day—and, indeed, all women in this parliament. However, we have lost two formidable sisters in recent months, and I pay special tribute to our colleagues Peta Murphy and Linda White. Past women have paved the way for change and we're so grateful for the opportunities they provided for women today. Australia is now ranked 26th internationally for gender equality, up from the 43rd place we were in in 2023. We can be very proud of that. The gender pay gap is now at a record low of 12 per cent, an historical first, and we now have a majority female federal government. Sixty per cent of women over the age of 15 are now employed, compared to 59.9 per cent in 2023. These statistics speak about the progress we've made in advancing gender equality in Australia, but our progress isn't fast enough. Women are still being paid less, they retire with less and they experience high rates of violence. We can't just hope that this gets better; we need a plan and we need to focus our energy on it. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is determined about this. This government has just released Australia's first-ever strategy for gender equality, entitled Working for Women. It outlines a 10-year plan to achieve gender equality and how this government is going to get us there. The strategy focuses on targeted action in five priority areas. Gender-based violence is the most heinous crime, with women so significantly skewed to being victims. In this year alone, 19 women have been killed in Australia by acts of violence, according to Australian Femicide Watch, and we're only in March. We've committed $2.3 billion in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and will continue to support Australia's National Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission to support and amplify the voices of people with lived experience of domestic, family and sexual violence, and to reduce violence against women. Caring for children and those who need assistance is a job that falls disproportionately on women, taking many out of the workforce and into poverty. That's why we're also focused on unpaid and paid care. We've increased paid parental leave up to 26 weeks and, for the first time, women will soon be paid super on that leave. That struggle has been far too long. We've made child care cheaper, we've increased wages for aged-care workers and we're developing a national carers' strategy to deliver a national agenda to support Australia's carers. We also know that women want economic equality and that they need economic security. That's why we've given every woman taxpayer a tax cut. On average, 6.5 million women will receive an average tax cut of $1,649. We've made gender pay reporting mandatory and we're supporting more women who are raising children or who are going through change with changes to parenting payment single and the child support system. And we won't take our eyes off structural reform; we're doing a lot of work in health, leadership representation and decision-making. I call on the House to support this motion today. We should never sit still whilst gender inequality exists in this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is there a seconder for the motion? Ms Sitou 298121 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:24 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this motion regarding International Women's Day, which is celebrated annually on 8 March. I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this motion to the House and for drawing attention to the very important day that is 8 March each year. In my electorate of Hughes I was delighted this year to host a morning tea for more than 120 women who came together to celebrate International Women's Day. We also had quite a number of men in the room, which was great. It was an opportunity for us—the women of Hughes, the women of the shire, the women of southern Sydney—to recognise the achievements of women locally and how those achievements then feed into us progressing nationally and globally. The theme this year for International Women's Day was 'Count her in: invest in women. Accelerate progress.' I took that as an opportunity to look at where we have come as a country and where we are currently placed. I will just mention a few stats, numbers and years. In 1902 Australia become only the second country to give women over the age of 18 the vote. Unfortunately, Indigenous women were not included in that number for decades to come. But we were the second country in the world. In 1943 Senator Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons became the first women elected into federal parliament. Women currently make up 51 per cent of our great country. Seventy per cent of carers in Australia are women. I actually checked that number, because I thought it might have been a little bit low, but it is apparently 70 per cent. Our national pay gap is 12 per cent. Women still retire on significantly less than men—about two-thirds. Among G20 nations, Australia ranks eighth for rates of domestic and family violence against women, but Australia has jumped up 17 places from 43rd to 26th on the global gender equality rankings. We're in a position in 2024 where there is both a lot of good news but still a significant amount that we need to do. I thought therefore this would be an opportunity for me to mention particularly the range of different achievements of women across my electorate. As I said, the contributions that women make locally, which are often not recognised, feed into our contributions nationally, and that is how we can change things globally for women. I've mentioned before in this parliament the four women who were awarded my Hughes awards this year. A posthumous honour was given to Kim Livingstone. Young Woman of the Year was Tash Ransford. Woman of the Year was Paula Smith. Senior Woman of the Year was Jane Bell. But I will take this opportunity to mention just some of the women who were also nominated. They included Sandra Hillyer, for salvaging food that would otherwise have gone to waste and delivering it to over a hundred needy families weekly for the last few years; Rachel Moore, for her commitment to education around First Nations people and culture; Claire Walsh, for revitalising the Holsworthy unit of the Girl Guides; Leanne Fretten, for her advocacy for disability rights, through Mikarie child care centre and Sylvanvale; Kellie Stubbs, for founding a local women's support group as well as actively promoting mental health through the Gotcha4Life program; Sue Kelly, for fostering more than 200 children and running a support group for foster carers; Kathryn Brennan, for her 12 years in a foundational and instrumental role at charity group Dandelion; Brooke Jensen, for raising over $400,000 for breast cancer research; Jillian Critchley, for her roles in Scouting, coral societies and educational institutions locally; Debbie Jin, for her commitment to classical music and her pivotal role as a concertmaster and soloist with the Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra; Bronte Hendricks, for working with young adults with special needs and coordinating and co-founding the group Stellar Experiences; Kynwyn Thompson, for her role in the Wearne Bay Scout group at Illawong; Cheryl Scott, for her role over nearly four decades with Engadine District Girl Guides; Indiana Brown, for her contributions at the University of New South Wales in the mechanical engineering society and her role as ANSTO's engineering cadet; and Ashleigh Daines, from the Family Co., who has supported over 15,000 community members each year, particularly in the domestic and family violence area. And the list goes on and on. Across my electorate, this is just a small sample of the women making fabulous contributions, often unrecognised, day after day. These are the sorts of contributions we see that progress women both nationally and globally. 11:29 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid We all know women whose opportunities and contributions were limited because of the constraints placed around them in the time that they grew up in. For me, it's my grandmother, my ama. She was the most extraordinary woman, a widow and single mother of eight. What is even more remarkable about her story is she had to uproot her life twice, first from China to Laos and then from Laos to Australia. Because of the circumstances she grew up in, my ama had so few choices in life. She didn't get to choose a career. She didn't get to choose where to live. While her contributions in life were constrained, they were extraordinary. I am here because of her. If my ama were alive today, I think she would have been astounded to see her granddaughter elected to our federal parliament, a feat made even more extraordinary by the fact that this is the first majority-female federal government in Australia's history. Of the 103 federal Labor parliamentarians 54 are female, and a record 10 cabinet ministers are female. This has not come about by accident. It was due to a decision by the Labor Party to introduce quotas. We see the fruits of that decision not just in the make-up our federal government; we see it in the policy decisions Labor governments have made. It was during the Rudd-Gillard years when Labor governments introduced the country's first national plan to reduce violence against women and children and Australia's first government paid parental leave. It was the Paid Parental Leave scheme that my family directly benefited from when we had our son more than seven years ago. The first year of his life was really hard, with lots of things to feel anxious about. But we were really lucky because we didn't have to worry about our finances. That was, in large part, because of the paid parental leave schemes from my employer and the government. It meant I didn't have to rush back to work. I could make the choice to take a full year off to look after my son. It makes me so proud that I am now part of the Albanese Labor government that is improving that paid parental leave scheme. We are expanding it to 26 weeks by 2026, with four of those weeks reserved for the second parent to encourage both parents to participate in the care of their child. From 1 July 2025, superannuation will be paid on that leave. This is on top of all the work we are doing to improve gender equality, including making child care more affordable, funding a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, introducing paid family and domestic violence leave, making gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act and legislating to improve transparency and reporting of the gender pay gap. I am proud to see our work is paying off. In 2021 on the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index Australia had slipped to number 50 in the world. We were sandwiched between Georgia and Suriname, a long way behind the United States, ranked 30, Canada, ranked 24, and the UK, ranked 23. I am so glad to see that with the changes from the Albanese Labor government we have seen significant improvement on gender equality. Australia has jumped to 26 on the global gender equality rankings. ABS data released in February this year showed the gender pay gap was at its lowest level on record under the Albanese Labor government, at 12 per cent. It's still too large, but it has fallen by 2.1 per cent since we came to government. That is the Labor legacy I get to be part of. Labor women have come before me in our federal parliament. They pushed through important policy changes that had a direct impact on my life. They inspired me and helped pave the way for my own pathway into politics. What excites me most is the knowledge that Labor women will come after me, building on the legacy the first majority-female federal government has made. That is something that I feel exceptionally proud to be a part of and something I'm really looking forward to seeing: young women getting involved in politics because they can see there is an opportunity for them to make a difference, as those women who came before me did and as we are trying to do now. 11:34 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to speak in support of the member for Newcastle's motion to recognise International Women's Day, noting that its theme in 2024 is Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress. In doing so, I acknowledge several recent pieces of legislation which have addressed gender inequity in this country. These bills have lowered the cost of child care, invested in women's safety, improved pay and conditions in feminised industries, increased paid parental leave and, most recently, added a 12 per cent superannuation contribution to PPL for the first time. Along with my independent colleagues, I've been pushing the government to act on gender equity in this country. We have all been extremely supportive of this legislative program. However, the residual gender pay gap of 12 per cent is still 12 per cent too much. We have to continue to work to place men and women in this country on an equal economic and social footing. Around the same time that the HECS student loan program was introduced, in 1989, several traditionally feminised professions, like teaching and nursing, were absorbed into the university system and immediately became much more expensive to study. Furthermore, degrees like teaching, nursing and social work often require hundreds of hours of unpaid work placements to complete. In contrast, male dominated trade apprenticeships, which remain in the vocational education and training system, are paid. In fact, they often attract government subsidies and even fee-free places. Thirty-five years on, more and more Australians have a HECS debt which they are struggling to pay off. Those challenges are greater for women. While the average male HECS debt is higher than the average female HECS debt, most men earn higher incomes as soon as they graduate and repay their HECS debts much more quickly than women. To make things more difficult, in 2019 the Morrison government lowered the salary threshold at which compulsory HELP repayments kick in. Sixty-four per cent of those newly required to pay their HECS debts were women, and because repayments are calculated as a percentage of total income, not as a percentage of income above the threshold, those HECS repayments increase significantly even with small increases in income. The challenge is then exacerbated by the loss of supports like the family tax benefit at around the same time as the higher tax rates, HECS repayments and the Medicare levy kick in. That's not to mention that APRA now recommends that HECS debts be taken into account when assessing suitability for car and home loans. How this ends up is that, of those with student debts, 60 per cent are women, and women hold 58 per cent of the total debt. Teachers and nurses, both female dominated professions, carry the biggest repayment burden of any group in our society. Women generally have lower paying jobs. It takes us longer to repay our HECS debt, and our repayment periods are often extended by parental leave periods. The indexation of HECS debts during those extended repayment periods adds insult to injury. Futurity, an independent finance company, recently reported that more than two thirds of university graduates have HECS debts into their 30s and 51 per cent are still paying off their HECS debt in their 40s. Almost 60 per cent of people report that their debt affects their ability to buy a home, and 16 per cent of young adults say that they are unable to afford medical and dental treatments because of their HECS debt. The HECS-HELP system is actively exacerbating structural financial inequities in this country. We know what needs doing. Firstly and most urgently, we have to modify how HECS debts are indexed. We have to ensure that HECS repayments are based on the marginal income, like our income tax system, and we have to stop banks from considering them in the same light as other forms of debt. If this government is serious about addressing and remediating gender inequity, it needs to ensure that our tax and education systems don't disadvantage women who are trying to nurture their careers at the same time as they're trying to nurture their families. 11:39 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Since assuming office in 2022, the Australian Labor Party has championed women's economic empowerment as a fundamental pillar of our national agenda. For the first time in our nation's history, we boast a majority-women federal Labor caucus, with a record number of women occupying seats in cabinet. This milestone isn't just symbolic; it's transformative. Having women in positions of leadership isn't just about representation; it's about driving tangible change. This can be seen by the legislative actions undertaken by the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, who in March 2023 signed into legislation a law which made it mandatory for companies to release their gender pay data. This marks a systemic shift in how we measure and address gender parity in the workforce. This year, that data was released by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. For far too long, gender pay gaps have silently existed, hindering women's full participation in the economy. The unveiling of this data reveals a stark reality. Across all sectors, half of employers show a gender pay gap exceeding nine per cent, with some of the largest entities recording discrepancies of over 40 per cent. The public naming and shaming of companies with significant gender pay gaps serves as a powerful incentive for change, compelling companies to confront and rectify gender pay disparities head on. The average national gender pay gap still stands at 12 per cent, translating to women earning $252 less per week than their male counterparts. Even though this is the lowest gap in history, we need to recognise that these aren't just numbers. They represent the lived experiences of millions of women across our nation. Through successive budgets, Labor has made significant investments to boost support for women in various aspects of life. Through increased child care funding, extended paid parental leave, enhancing women's safety measures and advocating for equitable wages, we have seen more women join the workforce than ever before. This has meant 60.4 per cent of women over 15 are now in the workforce, up from 59.9 per cent in 2023. By prioritising gender-sensitive policies, we not only advance the economic interests of women but also foster a more inclusive and equitable society for all. For instance, Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts will directly benefit 90 per cent of taxpaying women, putting more money back into their pockets. The expansion of superannuation to paid parental leave will also help close the retirement wealth gap between women and men. With women taking time off to raise children, they take valuable time out of the workforce during vital, early years of saving. This policy will contribute an extra $2,700 towards their retirement savings. For a woman in her late 20s who takes the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave under Labor's extended scheme, this could result in an extra $55,000 of retirement savings. Looking ahead, Labor is committed to developing a comprehensive national strategy for gender equality. This strategy will serve as our roadmap—a blueprint for building a future where every woman has the opportunity to thrive and succeed unburdened by the constraints of gender bias and discrimination. It is upon all of us to ensure that every woman is accorded the same opportunities, rights and dignities as their male counterparts. Together, let us strive towards a future where gender equity isn't just an aspiration but a reality for all Australians. 11:44 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak to the member for Newcastle's motion, which identifies this government's investment in areas to improve the lives of women. While there have been some positive developments during the time of this 47th parliament, systems in this country remain riddled with gender bias, which perpetuates inequality for women. Every day, women are having to choose between violence and poverty. Single mothers are navigating debts from the weaponisation of child support. Mothers are staying home to care for their children because not working is more affordable than child care. Female employees are watching male counterparts receive promotions to senior leadership roles that should be theirs were it not for the fact that they are likely to have children in the near future. Women affected by intersectionality, including culturally diverse backgrounds, variability, health disorders or low-socioeconomic backgrounds, are experiencing these issues disproportionately. In recent months, we have seen some positive news, including Australia's first ever strategy for gender equality, and I thank the government for that work. I believe we are seeing a commitment that simply has not existed under previous governments, and I am truly grateful for that. But the news that this government intends to legislate for the payment of superannuation on all forms of paid parental leave is particularly exciting. Yet I note this reform is only provisioned from July 2025, which means this government will need to win a second term for it to be realised. Despite all of this progress, the fact remains that women in Australia face broad-ranging gender inequality despite the fact that, under article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—to which Australia is a signatory— everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security. Systematic gender bias continues to leave many women facing precarious economic situations, and misaligned systems trap women in cycles of poverty and compound exclusion from economic participation. In fact, if current working patterns continue, the average 25-year-old woman today who has at least one child can expect to earn at least $2 million less over her lifetime than the average 25-year-old man who becomes a father. At the same time, women would need to work an additional 44 days to earn the same as men. For many women, it costs less not to work and stay home to care for their children, while paid care work, which is often performed in feminised sectors, is undervalued. This is true in my electorate of North Sydney, where child care is some of the most expensive in the country and where many who work in the care sector are struggling to balance their budgets. This is despite the government's cheaper childcare package and recent increase in the award rate for aged-care workers. To this, I say: care work must be properly valued in this country. I also want to take this opportunity to advocate for universal access to early childhood services and benefits for Australian families and for the extension of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to 52 weeks, boosting the quantum of payments to reach a replacement wage. The national gender pay gap in this country still stands at 12 per cent. While being at an all-time low, it's nothing to be proud of. In addressing women's economic security, we must also acknowledge the undeniable links to women's safety. In the 12 weeks since this year began, 16 women have already lost their lives to domestic violence, with the shocking truth that intimate partner violence is the main cause of illness and death in women aged 18 to 44 in this country. In my own community of North Sydney, everyday crisis services are stretched beyond capacity, and the need for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program has never been greater. Yet this program is not funded in any of the local government areas on the North Shore or the northern beaches. I reiterate my calls for statewide funding of the Staying Home Leaving Violence program in New South Wales and the equivalent in all other states and territories. While I make this call, women continue to be gravely underrepresented in senior leadership roles across the country, and I fear that the ears that need to be listening may not be open. It is heartening to see the government strengthening targets for women's representation on Australian government boards and advisory bodies, but we must see women offered at least half the seats at every table. In conclusion, women's rights are human rights. Everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms that fall from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without distinction of any kind, including sex. However, that is not the case in Australia. Without a human rights legal framework, human rights are minimally protected here. If Australia had a human rights act, it would ensure that the federal parliament would consider the different needs of women and others from diverse backgrounds when designing law and policy. Personally, I don't think that reform can come soon enough, as it would benefit not only women but all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Services Australia 115 11:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That this House: (1) notes with concern that during a cost of living crisis: (a) call-wait times at Services Australia remain unacceptably high; and (b) processing times for key claims, such as the Age Pension and Disability Support Pension, continue to blow out; (2) acknowledges that this is a result of the Government's: (a) failure to embrace digital service delivery; (b) inept mismanagement of Services Australia's workforce; and (c) failure to commit to a top-to-bottom customer service mindset; and (3) expresses its support for a root and branch review into Services Australia. This is the third motion the opposition has moved in this parliament concerning the woeful state of Services Australia under the custody and stewardship of the member for Maribyrnong. I want to focus my remarks today on subclause (2)(a) of the motion, which goes to digital service delivery. Two recent decisions taken by the member for Maribyrnong are examples of the digital drift under this government. One of the reasons why call and claims-processing wait times at Services Australia have blown out is that Labor quietly paused automation processes some 12 months ago. We've learnt through Senate estimates that Services Australia, in their second Annual Performance Statement, blamed the pausing of automation processes as a key factor in the massive claims backlog. Secondly, Services Australia has opted not to participate in the trial of Microsoft's Copilot artificial intelligence tool, the pilot announced by the Prime Minister last year. It's mystifying that Services Australia, one of Commonwealth's largest public sector agencies, has chosen to sit out this important trial. I raise these two decisions because they illustrate this Labor government's inherent mistrust of and lack of interest in digital transformation. With appropriate safeguards, automation and artificial intelligence can be important tools to help deliver better customer service. Look at what the coalition achieved in government: we implemented the Single Touch Payroll process, which is an example of automation. This allowed Australians who engage with both the Australian Taxation Office and Services Australia to use prefilled information to meet their reporting obligations efficiently. It also, therefore, allowed the government to increase payment accuracy, thereby helping to reduce instances of fraud and noncompliance. As evidence of the success of this initiative, between 1 July 2023 and 31 December 2023 more than 7.9 million Single Touch Payroll pay components, such as salary and wages, leave payments and allowances, were prefilled. This benefited citizens and allowed Services Australia to deliver better services. When in government we also invested in the responsible use of artificial intelligence—again, to serve citizens better. As part of our $200 million investment in myGov, we rolled out digital assistance using Microsoft Cortana software. It's important to look at what the myGov user audit, commissioned by the member for Maribyrnong, had to say about the coalition's enhanced myGov investment: 'The Enhanced myGov program has shown what a well-crafted and -implemented development program can achieve.' Digital assistance comes in many forms, but in the case of Services Australia this meant that any citizen using the Services Australia website could ask questions of a bot and receive simple and straightforward information. As with any example of artificial intelligence, the Services Australia digital assistant learns more over time and can now handle increasingly complex questions about claims. Australians have embraced this functionality. In 2020 there was a 600 per cent surge in the use of digital assistance. One of the obvious benefits of digital assistance is that it allows customers to have their questions answered immediately, without having to call up Services Australia and wait. Certainly, when you do that under this government you have to wait a teeth-grindingly long period of time. These kinds of tools—prefilled data and digital assistance using AI technologies—have been readily embraced in the private sector. Banks, telecommunications companies, large retailers and a whole range of other businesses are using these technologies to improve the service they offer to their customers. Services Australia really should be learning from the private sector, as, frankly, should the rest of government. In the work of improving services delivered by government, there is clearly a place for understanding and applying best-practice innovation from the private sector. The case studies I've given are evidence of the benefits that can be realised when you have a government that's ready to look at what's done in the private sector and adopt it. Unfortunately, the member for Maribyrnong has chosen to take a very different approach. He's pulled up the drawbridge; he's not interested in learning from innovation in the private sector. That's not the way to improve service delivery, and it means that Australians who are engaging with Services Australia are suffering and receiving poorer service. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Stevens 176304 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:54 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I acknowledge the member for Bradfield for moving this motion in relation to the cost of living and Services Australia. Let's start with some facts. Services Australia hosts a staggering 9.5 million customer contacts every week, helping Australians access critical services like Centrelink, child support, Medicare and much, much more. The government acknowledges the struggles faced by Australians accessing Services Australia, but let's not dance around the root cause of this issue. The member for Bradfield has, conveniently, departed—but the blame lies squarely at the feet of the former Liberal government of which the member Bradfield was a member, a part. It was a direct result of their slash-and-burn approach to our social services. Instead of nurturing this institution, the former government—the member for Bradfield and his mates—chose to decimate it. Three thousand eight hundred hardworking Australians lost their jobs at Services Australia on the Liberal Party's watch. Why? The member for Bradfield talked about automation. Why? To make way for their malicious profit driven program, robodebt. Robodebt is perhaps the greatest failure of the Liberal government, and there are a lot to choose from. But that tells you everything. The scheme was so flawed, so callous, that it inflicted untold suffering upon countless vulnerable Australians. Families were plunged into false debt, individuals faced harassment and intimidation—all at the hands of a government that had long forgotten the meaning of 'empathy' and the meaning of 'responsibility'. The former government said that robodebt was only going to affect a 'small cohort'. You know what their definition of a small cohort of Centrelink recipients was? That small cohort turned out to be 443,000 Australians. A significant number of these cases involved constituents in my electorate, and my office worked tirelessly to try to assist these people who found themselves targeted by this betrayal. At least 3,000 honest people in my electorate of Wills, people facing hardship, were victims of that Liberal government scheme. They had false debts under robodebt. I'm just going to give you one example. A young man who was on youth allowance approached my office. He had received an incorrect demand notice for $12,377. For a young person, $12,000—he was absolutely shocked by it. He did not know what to do. It was just lucky that he spoke to his foster parents and said, 'What do I do about this?' and they said, 'Why don't you go to your local MP?' We intervened and we had that debt cancelled. But that's just one case. More than half a million Australians were affected. It's impossible to quantify the kind of suffering that was inflicted upon them. The previous government made victims feel like criminals. Many people suicided, tragically. So it is particularly galling to hear the party opposite suggest that there has been a failure to embrace digital service delivery. Of course we are committed to utilising data and digital technologies to improve our service delivery and decision-making. The Data and Digital Government Strategy, the final version released at the end of last year, clearly lays out that commitment, while consulting carefully with Australians to ensure everyone's experience with the government is inclusive, accessible and responsive to need. Given the $1.8 billion robodebt scheme relied on a hit-and-miss approach, backed by a single piece of internal legal advice based on a 'vibe', I think that careful consideration and consultation on the impact of digitisation is something worth embracing. Now, we have taken some action. We've introduced 3,000 new recruits to work in regional centres across Australia, an important first step in replacing all those people who lost their jobs and an important first step in correcting the inept mismanagement of Services Australia's workforce by the previous government. These workers aren't just statistics; they represent a return of humans to government services and the return to a people centred approach. They're going to work in regional centres across Australia, they're going to help reduce call wait times and they're going to speed up claim processing. You're going to actually hear a human being on the other end. There is a huge boost to funding which will support frontline staffing and operations at Services Australia, and it's the first step in getting us back on track. We have an unwavering commitment to restoring integrity and humanity to our social services, and we're taking tangible steps towards rebuilding Services Australia and putting people back at the centre of service delivery. 11:59 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I thank the member for Bradfield for bringing this motion to the chamber and for the opportunity to talk about digital government and government efficiency. I think we all want taxpayer funding that goes into service delivery to be going directly to the coalface at every opportunity. Whilst we recognise there's a cost in administering programs, every dollar that is spent in these different departments—a percentage of it—is hopefully being maximised in terms of the purpose of those departments. In the case of Services Australia, we clearly want to see the budget of that department being used as directly as possible towards Australians that deserve and need the support that it provides. So taking any opportunity to improve and increase the efficiency of government and get the cost of administering programs down will mean that the savings can be put into direct support to Australians. What the member for Bradfield is importantly highlighting here is that there are huge opportunities for government to create more significant efficiencies around digitisation, through embracing automation and artificial intelligence, and around ways to ensure that Australians who are waiting for decisions from government, particularly for decisions from Services Australia, are provided with support from government that they're appropriately and duly entitled to. When there are long waitlists and long backlogs for processing people's applications and claims, it brings about hardship on people, and, if they're duly entitled to something, the quicker the decision is made, the better. It's important because we're talking about very vulnerable people who are in limbo while they're waiting for these decisions to be made, and, if the decision is ultimately made that they're deserving of support, they have suffered beyond question because of these delays. It's a very straightforward concept, to embrace ways to reduce backlogs and reduce waiting times. As the member for Bradfield pointed out, we now hear that projects around automation have been cut in Services Australia. These are projects that could lead to a dramatic reduction in the wait times for people to have claims and other issues assessed by the department. We know that last year the Prime Minister made a point about the opportunities through Microsoft and Copilot—their AI tool and capability—which is extremely exciting. Obviously we've all got a degree of apprehension and nervousness about artificial intelligence, but it's got enormous possibility. We want to gently engage its potential benefits and do it in a sensible and measured way, and we thought that the commitment the Prime Minister had announced last year with Microsoft may well have been a sensible way of doing that, but now we find that Services Australia won't be participating in that. I think that's very disappointing. Investigating the application of AI to speed up some of the processes that are currently causing these backlogs and delays would be transformative for the human beings that are impacted by these delays. We have to be looking at ways in which we can make government more efficient, and the most important government efficiency for the average Australian is quick decision-making. That quick decision-making means that, when someone believes they've got a particular entitlement and they're applying for something from the government, the government gives them a decision on that as quickly as possible. That's the missed opportunity, with Services Australia turning their back on automation projects and artificial intelligence projects and not looking at ways in which decisions that are currently being delayed can be made more quickly. We believe that this is going to be a growing part of government—a growing opportunity for government—and something that is going to deliver real and tangible outcomes and benefits to Australian citizens, because their interactions with government will be quicker, and that means they'll get decisions. And, hopefully, in the majority of cases, those decisions are to the benefit of the person seeking that decision to be made. While they're waiting for a decision and suffering through backlogs and delays, in many cases they're not getting the support that they deserve. This needs to change, and that's why I strongly urge the chamber to support this important motion that the member for Bradfield has brought to the chamber. 12:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton The member for Bradfield moved this motion, which talks about problems with Services Australia. This is an MP with the hide of a rhinoceros rather than the memory of an elephant! I was so surprised—so shocked, in fact—that he raised the matter here in the chamber, given the former coalition government 's track record with Services Australia and the fact that Labor is still dealing with the mess that his mob left behind! And it is a huge mess, one that affects my constituents today. It's one that's affecting many Australians every day, especially with the increased cost-of-living pressures. The fact is that the former coalition government, that Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison progression of horrors, left Services Australia understaffed and undersupported for those who were employed. The coalition decreased the number of Services Australia staff by 3,800—3,800! That's 3,800 fewer people to answer the phones or deal with claims processing—more waiting, more delays and more frustration. The ratio of staff members to members of the public increased from one for every 700 to one to 1,000, while the Australian population grew. Not surprisingly, these measures led to lengthy delays in dealing with claims as well as increasing unhappiness with services amongst the public. Australians actually have a right to access government services in a timely manner. We understand that people are frustrated when they face a delay, and we're working hard to get through the backlog of claims that we inherited. Services Australia, that is—Medicare, child support and Centrelink—is also managing changes in eligibility, leading to an increase in customers, seasonal peaks, surge activities and three current emergency activations. These services are provided via face-to-face, digital and telephony channels for millions of Australians. The average number of customer contacts per week is 9.5 million. That's why the Albanese government announced, for the first time in a decade, 3,000 extra staff for Services Australia in November 2023, spread across capital cities and regional centres. The core purpose of this staffing boost was to address those horrific call wait times and to speed up claim processing immediately. We know there's still a job to do. Today, even with the 3,000 additional jobs, staffing levels are more than 3,000 fewer than they were a decade ago. Obviously, technology provides some opportunities for rationalisation, but during this time the Australian population actually grew by 17 per cent. Labor understands the urgency; this is the fastest recruitment process on such a scale ever undertaken by Services Australia. The Albanese Labor government's focus is on getting humans back into human services, especially important for those amongst us who are unable to use digital services. To these people I say that I understand your reticence, particularly during times of crisis like those in my electorate, where we had massive floods in 2011 and 2022. Unfortunately, the internet often goes out for almost an entire suburb at such times and access can become problematic. For many Australians, the wounds from the previous coalition government's cruel, heartless robodebt policy are still raw. For 4½ years, the coalition perpetrated the absolutely disgraceful robodebt scheme, where unlawful debt notices were sent to nearly half a million Australians—Australians who had done nothing wrong. The debt notices were false—what a debacle! But, worse than that, for all affected it was highly stressful and traumatic and, for some families, it became a cruel tragedy. It also badly affected the dedicated Services Australia staff who were required to roll out this cruel system. Let's keep in mind that these frontline staff already experience stress due to unacceptable levels of abuse. It's a fact that when Services Australia staff pick up the phone they're immediately dealing with someone who is highly stressed, has probably waited a long time and who has a problem that needs a solution. While this may help explain the aggression that Services Australia staff have to deal with, it doesn't ever excuse it. The 30,000 hardworking Services Australia employees who turn up every day to help their fellow Australians deserve better than that. And I agree with the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services when he describes his employees as 'highly motivated and wanting to make a difference'. I'm so glad that we've negotiated an updated enterprise agreement and that they've finally secured a long-overdue pay rise. 12:09 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this motion and thank the member for Bradfield for again bringing this important matter about the performance of Services Australia to the attention of the House. In a cost-of-living crisis, more and more Australians are turning to Services Australia. However, unfortunately, while those working at Services Australia are doing the best that they can under the stewardship of the minister, Minister Shorten, the system is struggling and, in many cases, failing Australians. I point particularly to the processing times for claims, such as claims for the age pension and the disability support pension. These processing times continue to blow out. I'm hearing it in my electorate and many on the other side are also hearing this in their electorates. Processing times for Centrelink payments aren't getting better. People applying for the low-income card are now waiting five times longer compared to two years ago. This is a direct result of bad decisions that have been made by the Albanese Labor government since taking office and, particularly, bad decisions made by the minister in charge. For example, the current government cut a major contract with specialist call-centre operator Serco in June 2023. This then resulted in some 600 call-centre jobs being cut. The only conclusion that can be drawn from 600 jobs being cut is that waiting times will blow out as fewer staff are available to perform the work needed by more. For months the coalition has been calling for there to be a root-and-branch review of Services Australia's operations so that we can determine the agency's underlying problems and take steps to improve its performance. This is what the minister would be doing if he were serious about this problem. A review would put politics aside and put the needs of Australians first. Given the vast number of other reviews currently being undertaken by this government, it is very surprising that it does not want a review of the very important organisation that is Services Australia. I was here in the chamber when the member for Moreton said that the Albanese government was very proud to announce it had recruited 3,000 extra staff. What the member for Moreton did not say is that this came on the back of one of this government's first acts when it came to power, which was cutting staffing by nearly 1,000 people. So we are still behind by at least 1,000 jobs. One thing the government has also not said much about is that the funding for these new staff runs out at the end of this financial year, and there does not seem to be any plan in place to replace those staff. In those circumstances, why isn't Services Australia doing more to use technology? Why hasn't it taken the lead of the former coalition government in New South Wales and properly digitised Services Australia? But, before we even get to that point, there must be a clear diagnosis of the cause of Services Australia problems. Only then can there be a road map to fix all of the problems. I just want to draw attention to some of the new data that's just been revealed about how long Australians in different communities across our country are waiting for a range of vital Centrelink payments to be processed. For example, in my electorate of Hughes within the Sutherland shire local government area, Australians are now waiting 75 days on average to receive the age pension. I know this because my office is now receiving far more calls than it ever has in nearly two years about this delay. It's taking over 82 days for people in the Sutherland area to receive the low-income card. This is a very grim picture of a vital government service that is not coping during a cost-of-living crisis. So communities in every corner of Australia are being plagued by these payment delays. Australians need these payments fast. They need them efficiently. This is not occurring under Services Australia at the moment. If we turn now to the processing times for the age pension, for example, in my electorate in the Sutherland local government area, it's now taking 78 days to process an age pension application. In the Liverpool local government area, it is taking 68 days. This is simply not good enough. In a cost-of-living crisis, people are necessarily turning to Services Australia. Services Australia under this government and under this minister is so far failing to deliver. Australians deserve better. 12:14 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I thank the member for Bradfield for introducing this motion today. It is good—surprising but good—to have the party of robodebt talk about the importance of Services Australia! The reason I say it is surprising is that it is very clear from the royal commission findings on robodebt that those opposite had absolutely no respect for the work of Services Australia. If you read the royal commission's report, it is very clear that those opposite during their nine years in government put Services Australia in a terrible position, where it was in fact responsible for implementing an illegal program that targeted the poorest of the poor and sent people into spirals of depression. In some cases, it even contributed to people taking their own lives. If you read the royal commission report, it is clear that at times people in Services Australia—those working with people on the frontline—tried to raise the alarm about those opposite's cruel, illegal robodebt program. And they were ignored by the Liberal and National Parties when they were in government. I do say that it is surprising to have this motion brought forward by those opposite, given their track record, but perhaps it means that they do finally see that there is a benefit in resourcing Services Australia, in making sure that it is there to support everyone in our community and in it being supported as it should be. Certainly, in contrast to the failures of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years, this government has been getting on with putting people back at the centre of government services—as it should be. In fewer than two years, our government has created thousands of new jobs to improve Centrelink and Medicare services. We are trying to ensure that, wherever people are accessing Services Australia, whether this is face to face, digital or over the phone, the people who are interacting with the agency through Centrelink, be it for child support, Medicare or other government services, are getting the support they need. There is still work to be done. Services Australia is managing significant pressure, and, again, a lot of that is a legacy of how we saw the agency and government services for people who needed them most treated by those opposite during their nine years in government. To help address a number of these issues, in November last year, the Minister for Government Services announced a significant frontline staffing boost to Services Australia of 3,000 new recruits, 500 new staff into Medicare and 2,500 into Centrelink. The contrast is to those opposite, who during their time in government cut 3,800 staff, leaving fewer frontline people to do the work. The cohort of recruits our government is putting in is aimed at providing additional support as soon as possible to reduce call wait times and speed up claims processing. We do know that those opposite have never seen a government service they liked. As I've outlined, over their nearly decade in office, they decimated Services Australia, making way for malicious, profit-making programs like robodebt, in which people were absolutely an afterthought. As I said, during their time in office, those opposite gutted 3,800 staff from Services Australia, so fewer people were on the frontline doing the work that we needed. Despite the significant investment that our government is making in recruiting 3,000 new staff to Services Australia, we do acknowledge that there is more to be done and that it takes time to build up from that decade of inaction and damage. In that decade, we saw programs like robodebt. In my electorate of Jagajaga, there were as many as 1,862 people affected by robodebt. That's in one electorate. Think about the impact across the country. Read about the impact, through the royal commission, that that had on people's lives, on how government was run and on how Services Australia in particular was run. I highlight it shows that those opposite had absolutely no regard for this agency during their time in office. They had absolutely no regard for the very important face-to-face work that it does with people who need support and who are waiting for their aged pension. There was absolutely no regard from those opposite to the incredible stress that the illegal robodebt scheme put on so many of those people during those opposite's time in office. I'll come back to where I started: it is good to hear the importance of Services Australia acknowledged from those opposite. It would have been better if they had acknowledged it during their time in government, but we can only hope for better from them in the future. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:19 to 12 : 28 12:28 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Anybody listening to the last contribution in this debate, the one by the member for Jagajaga, would think the coalition years were all bad and that we cared not for Services Australia. I want to be a little bipartisan—I do. For the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, the member for Maribyrnong, I will give him one thing: at least he returns correspondence. His door is open, which is more than I can say for some of his ministerial colleagues, some of whom can't ever seem to sign a letter to another member of parliament, and that's disappointing. What's more concerning is the fact that they just don't seem to take meetings, whether with another member of parliament or, perhaps even more worryingly, with stakeholders. This is about the cost of living, this is about Services Australia, this is about delivery and this is about people. At the core of this debate, it is about people. All politics is local. When I look at my Riverina and Central West communities, they are not getting the delivery, when it comes to Services Australia. I do not blame the staff. They are hardworking, they are stretched and they under pressure. Just take some of the benefits that are distributed and the waiting times that are occurring in my Riverina electorate. For the family tax benefit, every local government area—I represent 12 local government areas, or 13 if you take into account the fact Cootamundra and Gundagai are soon going to be demerged—is outside the 80 per cent claims process benchmark of 31 days. That ranges from 8.2 days in the Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council's case to 29.2 days in Coolamon shire. For parenting payment partnered, every LGA is outside 80 per cent of the 28-day benchmark, ranging from 16.3 days in Cowra to 45½ days overdue in Weddin. Weddin is centred on Grenfell. Regarding the age pension, Lockhart is the only LGA which receives the age pension in the 80 per cent in 49 days parameter. Every other one of the LGAs that I represent is overdue. For JobSeeker, Cowra is the only LGA to process JobSeeker payments in the 80 per cent in 16 days time frame. The other LGAs range from two days to 14.4 days overdue. You might say, 'It's just a fortnight, from a minimum of two days,' but it's people's money. It's people's lives, and in a cost-of-living crisis they need every dollar that is due to them, when it is due to them. With regard to the seniors health card, Weddin is the only LGA to receive those payments within the time frame allotted. For paid parental leave, three LGAs are within the 21-day parameter for that particular payment, and the rest are overdue by up to five days. Other benefits, including Austudy, carer allowance, carer payment, disability support pension and youth allowance, are a mixture of being within and outside the parameters, but none of them should be outside the parameters. I hear the Labor members say in their contributions that they've put more staff on. Labor took office saying that they would do better, and they have not. They have failed. They are failing to deliver. For the carer payment, if you live in Bland shire—that's based on West Wyalong—you're waiting 49.3 days over the time frame that should be the norm. It's just too much. It's people's lives we're dealing with. With reference to the disability support pension, if you live in Coolamon shire you're waiting for 41 days over the allotted time frame. It's simply not good enough. Youth unemployment is now running at 9.3 per cent, which is higher than when we left office, and real disposable incomes have collapsed by 7½ per cent per capita since Labor came to power. When you take just those two figures alone—real wages and real disposable income—as well as youth unemployment and everything else that's exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis, the message should be clear to Labor: start delivering; start doing what you said you were going to do. 12:33 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I am very pleased to be able to speak on this private member's motion from the member for Bradfield on the topic of the cost of living and Services Australia. There's always a sense of irony when those opposite come to this place to talk about Services Australia—which they absolutely gutted over their 10 years in office—and the cost of living. Since this government has been in office, it has supported higher wages, particularly for aged-care workers. We've promoted energy bill relief. We've brought in cheaper medicines. We've brought in cheaper child care. The member for Bradfield voted against all of that—all of those cost-of-living measures. Of course, we've just put through tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, which those opposite, including the member for Bradfield, talk about as being Marxist and say would be on the chopping block, before, of course, voting for the measure but leaving open that window whereby, if they were to ever get back in government, those tax cuts for more working Australians would also be on the block. I'm sure that the member for Bradfield and members of the opposition would be happy to listen to how the Albanese Labor government is simply trying to fix a service that had been left to rot and fester for 10 years under his watch and the watch of other former coalition ministers. All members of this place, hopefully, know the vital role that Services Australia plays in the everyday lives of all Australians who need it. I was pleased to hear the member for Riverina's contribution, where he paid tribute to the hardworking staff of Services Australia. I say to the member for Riverina: where were you when you were in government? How were you supporting the staff of Services Australia when they were being belittled and derided by those opposite, when jobs were being casualised and contracted out and more than 3,000 staff were being let go? Where were those opposite for Services Australia then? Life can throw us all curve balls. That means people need to rely on Services Australia for financial help or to access government services. We know from contact with our constituents on a weekly basis that Services Australia is a real lifeline. It hosts 9.5 million customer contacts every week and is currently managing significant pressure on the service delivery network. High volumes of work on hand and longer than desired call wait times are due to several factors, including changes in eligibility leading to an increase in eligible customers, seasonal peaks, surge activities and three current emergency activations. On this side of the House, we know how important it is for this service to work at its best. Our Services Australia workforce is our front line help for the most vulnerable people in our community. It's a challenging and highly rewarding role, but, for over 10 years of failed Liberal government, more than 3,000 Services Australia staff were lost. The former Liberal government gutted 3,800 staff from Services Australia, resulting in the agency having fewer frontline public servants, despite a population increase in Australia of 17 per cent over the same period. Just think about that—3,800 fewer staff with a 17 per cent population increase. It's no wonder it's under such stress. We acknowledge the stress, and we're doing something about it. Of course, those opposite also presided over robodebt. Services Australia's reputation was trashed by those opposite with that illegal Liberal robodebt. As many as 11,000 people in my home state and, indeed, in your home state, Deputy Speaker Payne, and 2,500 in my electorate were illegally targeted and made to feel like criminals simply for having accessed income support at one stage in their lives. It is rank hypocrisy from the member for Bradfield and those opposite. It certainly is from the member for Bradfield, who had a fleeting tenure in 2018-19 for nine months as Minister for Family and Social Services, to come into this place now and profess some sort of care about Services Australia. The member for Bradfield oversaw the dying embers of robodebt. He ignored calls for it to be scrapped, prolonging the pain of tens of thousands of innocent Australians. Before I finish, I want to say as the member for Lyons how proud I am that one of my election commitments in 2022 was for the delivery of a new Services Australia centre to be built in Sorell in my electorate. That plan is on track. It's before the council. I think the council has now approved it. The shovel will be going into the ground soon. That's going to create local jobs, but, more importantly, it's going to create a local service for people in the south-east of my electorate to be able to get to Services Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Multiculturalism 121 12:38 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Today I rise proudly to speak on the Albanese Labor government's strong support for multicultural communities and the importance of our wonderful and diverse communities in McEwen. Of course, we are all part of the story of multiculturalism in Australia. There are only two kinds of people in this country: Indigenous Australians and migrants. Some have come by choice; some have come by chains. However, the values that we share, such as mateship, fairness, equality, justice, inclusion and compassion, continue to write the story of what it is to be Australian. We see this in our daily lives in our towns and suburbs, and rather than just merely accepting diversity, we wholeheartedly embrace it as an integral part of our national identity. However, we must remain vigilant and not become complacent; reserving the fundamental values that have fuelled our achievements is imperative. The foundation of our successful multicultural society is our immigration system. Since coming to government, we have spent significant time and energy cleaning up the mess left to us. We devoted more staff to address the visa backlog, with more than 650 additional staff in visa processing since May 2022. We prioritised key offshore case loads—temporary skilled, and student visitor. So many people who travel to Australia contribute to economic growth and assist with our labour shortages. We will continue to prioritise skill visas in the health and education sectors to help fill critical shortages in both those industries. We have cut processing times for citizenship on average by 34 per cent since we came to government, and 62 per cent of people are now waiting less than three months to attend a ceremony, removing the anxiety and stress of the extended wait. Those listening would know the Labor Party has always recognised the contribution and value of our diverse and amazing multicultural communities. We are considered one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world, with everyday life in Australia being a melting pot of cultures, experiences, beliefs and traditions. Our success is built on the foundation of 300 different ancestries, from our First Australians to the newest arrivals. That is a consensus among most Australians. The Scanlon social cohesion report in 2023 found that 89 per cent of Australians agree that multiculturalism has been good for Australia and that 85 per cent of Australians agree that immigrants improve Australian society by bringing new ideas and new cultures. In the 2023-24 budget, the government continued to implement a strengths based approach to build on the success of Australia's cohesive and inclusive multicultural society, including a multicultural framework review to ensure Australian government policy settings and organisational arrangements are fit for purpose in supporting our multicultural society. We have committed $18.2 million to fund community language schools so that more Australian children will have the chance to learn a second language. There was $4.9 million allocated to 61 local multicultural projects to strengthen multicultural communities across the nation and $5.6 million was allocated to 83 projects across Australia in the 2022 round of the Fostering Integration Grants program. The budget also included $20 million for the Adult Migrant English Program, supporting individual English-language learners with flexible delivery of classes and case management. We see the benefits from multicultural communities every day. Every town, every suburb and every sporting club in our nation has success stories: people who have worked hard and dedicated themselves to establishing a better life. We should celebrate these millions of immigration success stories. Local communities across Australia are reaching out and embracing new members of their communities who have chosen to make Australia their home as they work together to build vibrant and sustainable towns. Our community of McEwen is no different. Across the electorate, 16 per cent of constituents speak another language at home and 20 per cent were born overseas. We have thriving multicultural communities in our area. They have been recognised. We have a local Sri Lankan Lions Club and Australia's only Sikh Lions Club. My electorate is full of multicultural events and community groups. Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Sri Lankan Association of Mitchell Shire Harmony Day barbecue, organised by Sali and Champi. Indeed, later this year we'll see the Mitchell Multicultural Community Association host another multicultural event, funded in part by our election commitment of $20,000 for this important work. Community events like this bring us together, where we can enjoy delicious food, fantastic entertainment and lovely people. We are so lucky to live in a bright and beautiful multicultural nation. The Albanese Labor government have upheld their promise to protect that. We know it's pretty easy for others to jump in. Let's refer to the Leader of the Opposition, who said, 'The criminal behaviour of some second- and third-generation Australians is the fault of migrants who came here. It was a mistake to let them in.' That is an appalling statement that should be condemned. What we saw in the Dunkley by-election was that the Liberals ran a dirty text campaign that the deputy opposition leader should resign for, but I guarantee she will be back by the next speaker. 12:43 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I have the great privilege every single weekend of going to many multicultural functions as shadow minister for multicultural affairs. On Saturday, I had a Cardinia council citizenship function, where again I reminded all the new citizens of something. There were so many countries represented. There were people from 30 or 40 countries who wanted to become Australian citizens. It was a very proud day for them. The first thing I say to these citizens is that the language they speak as their mother tongue is the language they should speak to their children at home because they will pick up English at school. I noticed something in this motion which I was very proud of previously, where $10 million was committed through the Community Languages Multicultural Grants Program. This stemmed from the report of the migration joint standing committee, which I actually chaired. At that time there was a limit of 510 hours for migrants to pick up English. The great news was that the cap was removed so that people of whatever age who come from overseas and need to learn English now get the opportunity to learn English. That's so important, in particular, when it comes to getting jobs—obviously, when an employer is looking at someone and it comes to safety regulations. Something else that I was also very proud of was the program we had for women's cafes—women's friendship cafes. So many multicultural women would come together and meet at schools while dropping off the children. They would support each other with some very serious issues, such as when it comes to family violence, but they would also just get to know each other. It was a great initiative. Sadly, Labor and the Albanese government cut that funding program, believe it or not. I thought it was a fantastic program. Then, also in the 2022 budget, the Albanese government cut $50 million from the safer community funding program. This program was put in place after the awful atrocity of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. We made funding available to make places of worship safer. I was very proud to go to so many various community groups and see them able to put up more safety measures, whether those be closed-circuit TV cameras or security guards. The sad reality is that places of faith are targeted. To have that program in place gave parents more comfort when their children were going to school or to various community centres, and it was something we were very proud of. In 2023, Prime Minister Modi of India actually had to raise with Prime Minister Albanese why such an important funding program had been cut after incidents which happened in Hindu temples. Under pressure from foreign leaders like Prime Minister Modi, the Labor government put the funding back in place. I welcome that funding; it's so important to have that funding back in place. Another one that has upset me greatly is the funding cut to high-risk youth when it comes to the safe community funding programs. I know that 133 various groups around the country, whether they be multicultural or others, were recipients who this year alone lost their funding. Many of these were in the Indigenous community, but there were many multicultural communities too. It's a crying shame that when this government came into power they cut this funding—why would they do that? We have a very good Afghan community, and I acknowledge that they have all their amazing events coming up. They're celebrating some at the moment, and I acknowledge that it's Ramadan now and we've had Holi. But now is such a stressful time for the Afghan community because of their visas. It has taken the Albanese government and the home affairs ministers—especially the immigration minister—a long time to come back to families who are waiting desperately to find out what's happening. The sad reality is that women in particular are being targeted in Afghanistan. They're not allowed to get an education and they're not allowed to work. So I would ask the government, when they're trying to pat themselves on the back, to make sure they're doing something to help our wonderful Afghan community to get their visas approved much quicker. 12:48 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It give me great pleasure to rise to say a few words on the motion moved by the member for Bennelong. It gives me an opportunity to talk about multiculturalism within my own electorate and across Australia more broadly. It's no secret, as all in this debate so far have commented, that Australia has a rich immigration and multicultural history. It is one of our greatest strengths. It will help equip us for a future where everybody can be part of our social and economic life. Quite often when I'm speaking at events in Bendigo I talk about our culture in Australia being many cultures woven together—that rich tapestry we bring to this country and share with each other. It comes as no surprise to many of us that at the last census, in 2022, just over 7.7 million Australians indicated that they were born overseas. That's about 30 per cent of our population having been born overseas. Many, many more have at least one parent who was born overseas. This is part of the statement that we all read at citizenship ceremonies. I am one of them. I'm the first in my family to be born in Australia, but I do recognise that I am often not asked about my history or my culture or when I came to Australia, because of the colour of my skin. That is something that we need to continue to address as a society. Those of us who were born here, regardless of the colour of our skin, are all Australians and all have something to contribute. It is good to know, though, from the statistics and research that has been done, particularly by social cohesion reports, that the majority of Australians agree. Eighty-nine per cent of Australians say that multiculturalism is a good thing. Eighty-five per cent say that immigration improves Australian society by bringing in new ideas and new culture. Ninety-one per cent of Australians agree that someone born outside of Australia is just as likely to be a good citizen as somebody born in Australia. I do find this statistic a bit troubling because we are talking about exclusion, but it is good to see that 91 per cent of Australians do agree that someone born outside of Australia can be a good citizen, if they choose to become an Australian citizen. The government recognises and welcomes the extraordinary, positive contribution that we can all make and that successive generations make. That's something, too, that is important to recognise about multiculturalism. It doesn't matter whether you yourself migrated to this country or whether it was your great-grandparents or your great-great-grandparents; all of us have part of that culture to share—that Australian story. Whilst I am the first in my family to be born in Australia, my partner and my children are part of a long multigenerational legacy. My partner's great-great-great-grandparents emigrated to Australia from Ireland and from Germany back during the gold rushes. That's part of the history of my home town of Bendigo. Many people migrated to Bendigo in central Victoria during the gold rush era. Whether they were from Afghanistan, China, Germany or the US, or whether they came from England or broader parts of the continent, they migrated to try and strike it rich in, or to support, the goldfields. In more recent times, we've had a resurgence, with many people choosing to make Bendigo their home, and at our citizenship ceremonies, where there's that proud moment to recognise their countries of origin, quite often there are 15 to 21 countries that people have come from—and I know that our citizenship ceremonies in Bendigo are quite small compared to some of those in Greater Melbourne, like Greater Dandenong and Wyndham Vale. It really does demonstrate that rich tapestry that we have across our country. Our government is getting on with supporting, where we can, that rich diversity and celebrating the many ways in which migrants and multiculturalism have strengthened our country. I've mentioned citizenship. We've also started to expand support in terms of education opportunities, English-language opportunities, and we're building to make sure that the next generation has the same opportunities. As I've said, in my town we celebrate our diversity. It is our greatest strength. 12:53 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I just attended the Assyrian National Council's celebration of the 6774th new year over the weekend, and it was a vibrant and rich celebration joined by communities from Cambodian background, Italian background as well as Vietnamese background and Filipino background. That showcased to me the wonderful and diverse community in Fowler. As the federal member for Fowler I take pride in and am humbled to be the face and voice of this great community that I serve. I don't believe anyone does multiculturalism better than my community in Fowler. We have about 170,000 people of 150 different ethnicities. I cannot imagine that any other electorate can beat that. As the member for the most multicultural electorate in the country, I strongly support initiatives that will uplift my constituents, especially in terms of funding, resources and programs that will build on the culturally diverse talent that we have in our community. For far too long, multicultural communities in Fowler have been taken for granted by Labor governments and ignored by Liberal governments, such as when it comes to funding for Medicare, dental health, public transport, aged-care facilities and housing needs, just to name a few. We have been ignored and left behind. I'm glad the member for Bennelong highlighted the government's $20 million allocation to adult migrant English programs. From my personal interactions with the Fowler community, I don't believe this amount is sufficient to address the breadth of needs. Many elderly members find it challenging to participate in these programs, especially when faced with language barriers and a lack of tailored support. That's besides their medical conditions, including both physically and mentally. Moreover, there is a need to ensure that the allocated funds are utilised effectively, with a focus on hiring qualified instructors and implementing comprehensive curricula that meet the diverse needs of learners. One recurring issue is the insufficient funds allocated for English language courses. Many individuals, particularly refugees and migrants, express frustration over the limited options available beyond the usual Navitas and TAFE programs. These programs often struggle to cater to the diverse linguistic needs within our community of Fowler. For instance, some refugees find it challenging to engage in language learning or discussion when instructors themselves struggle with proficiency in English, creating barriers to effective communication and learning experiences. We need to ensure funds are targeted and allocated equitably. Investing in targeted programs that empower youth to contribute meaningfully to communities can foster long-term social cohesion and inclusivity. Often, the government of the day would allocate a number to the program without considering various factors, including effectiveness, target demographics and adequacy of funding. For instance, investing in professional development for educators within English language programs is essential to ensure quality instruction and student engagement. Additionally, addressing the trauma experienced by refugees from various regions is paramount in fostering inclusivity and participation in community initiatives. Providing culturally sensitive counselling services tailored to the diverse backgrounds and experiences of constituents can help address underlying barriers to engagement and interaction, which can later prepare them mentally for any programs or initiatives. Another pressing issue facing our community is prolonged processing times for citizenship applications. It's disheartening to see cases languish for years, with some individuals waiting for over a decade for a resolution. This not only makes them feel excluded but also limits their rights. I'm glad to hear the government is proposing to reduce citizenship processing times by 42 per cent, and I welcome this. However, let's ensure that applications are thoroughly studied in given time to maintain the integrity of the process. The backlog of these applications also presents another significant challenge that demands our attention. I've consistently emphasised the importance of welcoming refugees and recognising their valuable contributions to our nation. However, the government must carefully consider various factors such as housing demands, service provision and cost-of-living challenges when addressing this backlog. Simply clearing the backlog left by the previous government without thoughtful consideration could exacerbate existing problems. So I welcome the funding mentioned by the member for Bennelong, and I urge the government to ensure its allocation of funding and resources to communities is done fairly and equitably, without leaving communities like our multicultural community of Fowler behind. 12:58 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Multiculturalism isn't just a policy. It's a defining aspect of our Australian identity. I want to take a moment to appreciate the incredible diversity that surrounds my electorate of Tangney. Tangney is one of the most diverse electorates in Australia. Almost half of the people of Tangney were born overseas, with 162 countries of birth in my electorate of Tangney. Within my local neighbourhood, we have a rich blend of culture, languages, tradition and cuisine, each contributing to the unique diversity of this country which we all call home. Through shared experiences and mutual respect, my local community has learnt to appreciate the richness of our unique backgrounds and perspectives. This sense of cultural empathy strengthens the bonds within our community and serves as a powerful deterrent against prejudice and discrimination. As Australians, we should take pride in our cultural diversity and recognise it as a source of strength and resilience. It is this experience of inclusivity and acceptance that defines us as a nation built on the celebration of differences. Ninety-one per cent of Australians agree that someone who was born outside of Australia is just as likely to be a good citizen as someone who was born in Australia. Australians know in their hearts that immigration and multiculturalism are some of our greatest strengths. I'm so proud of the work that our Labor government have done to advance and promote multiculturalism and to address these visa concerns by prioritising the reunification of families to ensure skilled applicants and students can contribute to our growing economy. We are sending a clear message to those who want the chance to contribute to our nation's prosperity: you are welcome here. The average citizenship processing time has decreased by 34 per cent since Labor came into government. Labor has launched the Multicultural Framework Review, funded community language schools and allocated $5.6 million to projects across Australia through our Fostering Integration Grants program. A further $20 million was included for the Adult Migrant English Program, which is supporting English language learners with flexible delivery of language classes. As we celebrate this accomplishment, we must also acknowledge the consecutive failures of the previous Liberal government in neglecting our immigration system, as highlighted in the Nixon review. The Nixon review identified areas of abuse and misuse of our visa system—a system overseen by the opposition leader for six long years. The former Liberal government, while in government, failed to consider the lives of those who had been waiting for progress on their applications. The Liberal legacy on immigration issues is one plagued with enabling mass exploitation and abuse, and with long wait times and a lack of transparency. The lack of care is evident, and, as a Labor government, our commitment to our community, regardless of their country of origin, remains steadfast. The remark from a former prime minister, on 2 November 2023, that he 'always had trouble with the concept of multiculturalism', reminds me that we still face challenges, in championing diversity, from an opposition that does not value or respect people like me and those who are born outside of Australia. Yet, in the face of this adversity, we remain resolute in our conviction that multiculturalism is not a burden but a blessing. It's an integral part of our national identity that enriches our culture, strengthens our economy and fosters unity. Let us stand together in solidarity, embrace diversity as our greatest asset and champion inclusivity as our guiding principle. Let us continue to lead by example and be a government that truly reflects our modern multicultural Australia. 13:04 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I'm going to ignore the spurious attacks on previous governments by other speakers on this motion, and I'm going to do that for a very good reason. On this day I've got to say that all the governments I have served with or under in this parliament have reflected one of the lines of this motion: 'supporting a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society'. It doesn't matter whether you come from Tasmania—like you, Deputy Speaker Archer—or from New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria. A number of members have claimed that they have the most multicultural community in the whole of Australia. The member for Bruce claims—with some veracity, I think—that he has the most multicultural electorate in Victoria. There are those on each side who, as we heard from the member for Fowler, would say: 'No. I have the most multicultural community; here are the figures and here are the numbers.' What is beautiful, broad and brazen about this whole Australian community is that we are changing, as we always knew we would, as time goes on. I can remember in this place when the word 'multiculturalism' was an absolute no-no. It started with the New South Wales state government removing the word 'multiculturalism' from any ministry, and then the same thing happened in the federal parliament. I grew up in a multicultural community called Koo Wee Rup. We could say then we had the most diverse European community of all towns, but it wasn't really, because there was also Werribee and all around Melbourne. The Italians dominated our communities; they came in poor and they worked hard, and their children worked hard. Their children were well educated, and they went on to do really good things. The people who came here from Sicily were tiny little people, because they'd been starved for generations. If you could see their sons and daughters now, three generations down the line—talk about two axe handles wide and six axe handles high! These are big people, and they have prospered. It's not only the Italians but also the Germans and the Yugoslavs, as we called them then. That name has changed a few times over the years. We had them all, and they came here to build a community. In my electorate of Monash, we have people who had worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme and then came to work for the state electricity commission or in the open-cut mines in the Latrobe Valley, which have been an absolute blessing for Victoria. Just as Tasmania has the gift of hydroelectric power, where fourth-fifths of all of Tasmania's power comes from hydroelectricity, Victoria had this golden opportunity out of the Latrobe Valley. It was built by Monash and his team—my electorate is named after him—and it supplied Victoria's manufacturing community with cheap electricity, allowing them to be one of the most powerful manufacturing states in the world from the early 1930s through to the 1960s. That changed when all of a sudden we decided to say: 'We want renewable energy. We're not going to look at that brown coal as gold anymore; we're going to look at it as a pollutant.' Power stations that were to be built in the Latrobe Valley were abandoned, and now we're about to lose two more. I fear for our nation not because of its multicultural status but because this government is leading us on the way to a very poor future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 126 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Export Market Development Grants Program 126 13:08 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) that estimated budget allocations for the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) program decreased from $169 million in the financial year 2022-23 to $110 million in the financial year 2025-26; (b) the current pause between rounds 3 and 4 of the EMDG program means no financial support will be available to businesses in the 2024-25 financial year; and (c) stakeholder concerns that the Government is considering, through a strategic refocus, removing eligibility for grants under the program for exports to certain markets; and (2) calls on the Government to reverse its policy intention and ensure that exporters can continue to access the program, regardless of the markets they seek to market and export to. Export market development grants obviously relate to trade. They support our exporters as we open up to new markets for our products. These grants are to support that. Before I get to the grants specifically, which is what I want to talk about today, I just want to remind this Chamber and the parliament of the fact that one of the crowning achievements of the coalition government, from 2013 to 2022, was the free trade agreements we did during that time. It's not well advertised, not well promoted, especially when people review the coalition period, but, when we came to government in 2013, about 25 per cent of the goods and services that we exported were covered by free trade agreements, and, by the time we left government in 2022, with the bilateral agreements we initiated and the multilateral agreements we did, nearly 80 per cent of goods and services that we exported were covered by free trade agreements. That is obviously great news for all the exporters in our country, of which there are many. The fact that we are an export powerhouse right now is really driving our economy. It's a very important part of our economy, a very important part of our employment. I wasn't going to bring this up, but I noticed something that was brought up by the government this morning in the Treaties Committee. They want the ISDS provisions within the New Zealand-Australia free trade agreement to be revisited and are looking to remove them. I can tell this chamber and you, Deputy Speaker, that, if we were to revisit the ISDS provisions—we have about 10 of them—with bilateral agreements, some of those agreements would not be done. We can sign up to ISDS provisions very confidently because we have good governance in this country. We won the only challenge that we've ever had through the ISDS provisions, and our sovereignty is not threatened by them. But I am conscious that there are many, especially in the union movement—and we always need to remember this—who are not in support of free trade. They do not believe in it for ideological reasons, and we're seeing that today with the ISDS provision thing through the Treaties Committee. Let's go to the Export Market Development Grants program. It's very important. I thank the member for Casey, who I think is going to second this motion in a moment. In his previous employment, he was very familiar with this grants program and its importance for business and for exporters from this country. I thank him for that. What is Labor's record on this since getting into government, Deputy Speaker Archer? It may surprise you. I'm going to say it probably doesn't surprise you. In the May 2023 budget the Labor government cut $61 million from this grant program, as one of the first things they did. In fact, the $110 million in the 2025-26 budget is the lowest funding for this grant program since 1980. What is disappointing about this is that these grants are all about helping people to grow our economic pie. This money, if invested wisely, is money that is going to generate more income, more tax collections, more economic growth and more employment in our country. I also note—and I've spoken to the department and the minister about this—the time line for round 4. The application process will be completed, hopefully, around November, but the first lot of money is not likely to flow from the EMDG program until July 2025. That means that, in the 2024-25 financial year, there will be no money coming out of this grant process. In that financial year of 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, there are likely to be no grants that have actually been applied so that people can spend that money, because it looks like that won't be until after the middle of 2025. That is a real penalty. I think it shows that the government doesn't understand the importance of this program. I also note that they did put it out to have a review into the EMDG program. I have no issue with that. I've seen some of the preliminary decisions and some of the rules that the government tabled last week in the Senate about how this program would work. Some of it looks good. Some of it is looking at the financial sustainability of the companies that get these grants. I applaud the government for looking at that. Obviously we want to give the grants to companies that are financially viable and sustainable, but I am very wary of some of the discretion that has been given to the minister and the fact that this cannot be geographically focused to a small area. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Violi 300147 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:14 to 13:24 13:24 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I am so pleased to be part of a government that really does care about our trade relationships. On Wednesday 20 March, the Albanese government tabled in parliament our plans to reform the Export Market Development Grants program, focusing on improving this program for our exporters. The Export Market Development Grants program is one of the most comprehensive programs of its kind in the world. Our government is committed to supporting Australian businesses to grow and expand both here and overseas. We know businesses that export contribute to our economy in a number of ways, and support higher-paying Australian jobs. Since coming to government, a review has been undertaken of the Export Market Development Grants program, one of the most significant and generous programs of its kind globally. This program is an important source of support for Australian businesses to start, expand and diversify their exports into overseas markets. After extensive business and industry consultation, it was clear that the uncertainty about and declining size of EMDG grants significantly reduced the value of the program for our exporters. The updated rules will see increased grant sizes so that eligible Australian businesses can access more money to support export market activities. These changes will also allow the Export Market Development Grants program to encourage Australian businesses to diversify their trade by allowing Austrade to identify key markets for grant tiers. Additional changes include improved eligibility requirements so that grants can go to businesses that are ready to start, expand and diversify their exports. This will be in addition to the ability to show applicants what the maximum grant amounts are upfront, giving exporters greater certainty about how much grant funding they will receive if they're successful. Consistent with other government programs, grants will be awarded to eligible businesses in the order in which applications are assessed, with rounds closing as soon as funds are fully allocated. These changes were the result of extensive consultation with business and industry, and will take effect for the next grant round, which is expected to open later this year. Our government is committed to supporting exporters who contribute to our economy and support high-paying good Australian jobs. Our operational review of the Export Market Development Grants program found there was a need to better balance the level of interest in the Export Market Development Grants with available funds in order to increase grant amounts. Unfortunately, the former government relaxed eligibility criteria so much that when the introduced changes started in 2020-2021, the program fell into disrepair. Those changes meant that the size of grants fell through the floor, almost halving their average value and making the grants less impactful. This meant that the previously successful Export Market Development Grants program stopped delivering, diminishing the value for Australian exporters who relied on it to support their growth and development. We promised at the election to review this important program and to clean up the mess it was left in by the previous government. We've delivered on that promise so that Australian exporters can trust that this program will deliver for them. Our government knows that taking on the immense challenge of export requires significant capital, patience and, of course, blood, sweat and tears. The former government's changes meant that the grants were not only smaller but that many firms couldn't spend the money they were given. We know trade is a force for good in addressing Australia's current and future challenges. One in four Australian jobs relate to trade and 27 per cent of Australia's economic output is supported by trade. Our government is focused on generating new and diversified trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses. Trade diversification is a key plank of our government's trade policy agenda, and negotiations have commenced with a number of countries on trade agreements. As a government, we're committed to strengthening economic ties in the region, as demonstrated by our efforts with ASEAN in Melbourne earlier this month. I'm really proud to represent a government that's committed to supporting our export industry. 13:29 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Let's be very clear: they can talk a big game, but this government is not delivering for exporters in our country. There's no money for this grant program in the 2024-25 financial year and they've cut $61 million out of the program since they came to government. And to show they don't understand business, the economy or how this country works, they've now decided that Austrade, a bureaucracy, is the best place to tell businesses how to operate and where to export. I've spent 10 years working in food manufacturing, including exporting into Asia, and no-one knows better than a company where they need to export to, where their markets are and where their opportunities are—not a bureaucracy. It shows that this government is out of touch at the time of a cost-of-living crisis, when business is struggling more than ever. They continue to make the wrong decisions and make it harder and harder for businesses to operate. Wineries are a core part of my community and they need these export market grants to extend into new areas. Mr VIOLI 300147 They're frustrated, and they've been reaching out to me— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 Order! It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16 : 0 6 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 129 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Housing 129 16:06 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein With house prices at record highs, young people don't know if they'll ever be able to buy a home. Housing insecurity is a structural problem. It's not a superannuation problem. Accessing superannuation to solve the housing problem is a disastrous idea. It's just handballing the problem to younger generations and women. It's likely to pump up prices even more, leaving people with less savings and more debt. It still won't fix the housing problem; plus, it'll lead to substantial future financial loss with a greater cost to the taxpayer in the long run. Look at what happened during the COVID pandemic. Those who took early withdrawals will lose big money, up to $120,000 by retirement age. It's opportunistic and dishonest to encourage people to do this. It's robbing them of a secure future. What could we do instead? We could encourage voluntary super contributions for first home buyers, including the option to withdraw extra contributions and their associated earnings later, and extend this option to allow women to make tax-free extra contributions, thereby addressing the gender gap in superannuation savings. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury 129 16:08 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I recently spoke with a former Australian commando, Paul Scanlan, about a hidden and often devastating plight affecting far too many Australian and Allied veterans. Mild traumatic brain injury, or MTBI, affects ADF members who, both in training and on operational deployments, use weapon systems that send shock waves into their brains, affecting their brains. Symptoms include headaches, fatigue, depression, anxiety, irritability, dementia and impaired cognitive function. There have been cases of suicide that may be able to be reasonably attributed to it. Things like breaching in a counterterrorism role, firing an 81-millimetre mortar, using a Carl Gustaf anti-armour 84-millimetre rifle or using an antitank round can all cause MTBI. You often can't diagnose and physically see the damage to a soldier's brain until a postmortem is performed. In the United States, the US Congress has directed its Department of Defense to inquire into this unreported issue. It's one that the ADF also needs to look into urgently, as I think this parliament has a responsibility to our men and women in uniform to do everything we possibly can to monitor, understand and prevent MTBI. I call on all ADF members and veterans affected to talk to their local members about this very important issue so we can lower the rate of it. Young Australians 129 16:09 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth There's a podcast called Who Screwed Millennials? I don't like using that sort of language in parliament, but I think the question is the right one. From 2004 to 2016, the wealth of over-65-year-old households grew around 50 per cent, while under-35s went nowhere. Young Australians are being cheated. HECS debt is rising with inflation and zooming ahead even when they're trying to pay it off. Rents are rising even higher. Energy bills have grown as well, but the landlord won't put on solar. While they are trying to scrape together a home deposit, they're paying a higher rate of tax than older Australians, who rely on super and investments. That's while older Australians are four times wealthier on average than younger households, which is up from 2.5 times wealthier in the 1990s. It will get worse as more and more of the tax burden falls on the young. So who is cheating young Australians? I think across the parliament, in this and previous parliaments and at different levels of government, major parties have been pandering to older generations on easier tax breaks and generous handouts. But that's not what they want; older households want to see a better future for young Australians. They don't want to leave their kids and young kids behind. That's my top priority, and I think it should be yours. Werriwa Electorate: Veterans' and Families' Hub 129 16:11 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I had the privilege of welcoming the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, my friend the Hon. Matt Keogh, to south-west Sydney recently to announce the establishment of the Veterans' and Families' Hub network. I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Macquarie, my colleague Susan Templeman, who had earlier in the day announced the Hawkesbury hub with the minister. The network, a partnership between RSL LifeCare veterans' services and RSL NSW, will receive $5.445 million to establish two major hubs, one in south-western Sydney and one in the Hawkesbury. The two hubs will establish a strong corridor of support for the 19,200 veterans and families throughout our combined areas. I'd like to thank David Anderson, the Executive General Manager of Veteran Services at the RSL LifeCare, Warren Browning, the President of the Far Southern Metropolitan District Council, and Ray James, the former president of the RSL NSW, for joining us on the day. So many other veterans also gave up their time. Our veterans deserve more than thanks. They deserve practical support. That's what the Albanese government is delivering through these hubs. Across the country, 10 of these hubs will be established as part of the Albanese government's $4.46 million commitment. I look forward to seeing the benefit these hubs will bring to our communities. Our veterans deserve no less. Toondah Harbour 130 16:12 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Toondah Harbour is a beautiful home to one of Australia's most significant wetlands. It's internationally recognised under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands—an agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Wetlands are crucial for biodiversity and capturing carbon, and Toondah is home to some of the most critically endangered birds in Australia, like the beautiful eastern curlew. Despite years of community opposition, it now looks likely the government will allow the Walker Corporation to destroy the wetlands and build a massive luxury development—a block of apartments that won't even make a dent in the housing crisis, because hardly anyone can afford to live there. What's worse, Walker Corporation has been given the green light at every step of the process. They want to dredge half-a-million cubic metres of the bay and destroy vital seagrass and mangroves. Australia might have incredibly weak environmental laws, thanks to the influence of the fossil fuel industry, but there is a clause that should have directed the minister to automatically reject the proposal, as it does not comply with the Ramsar convention. But here we are, years later, still fighting against massive corporate greed to protect our environment. The choice for the minister of environment should be clear, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the Walker Corporation gets a free pass to destroy the environment when they've donated millions to the major parties in the last decade. Women In Sport 130 16:13 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Matildas captured the heart of the nation at last year's FIFA Women's World Cup. We were delighted today to have Michelle Heyman and Lydia Williams in the parliament. It didn't matter last year if you were young or old, male or female. We were united in cheering on our incredible women athletes, and we'll get to do that again when the AFC Women's Asian Cup is held here in 2026. Thanks to the Play Our Way program being rolled out by the Albanese government, local clubs in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury can do their part in giving the next generation of sportswomen and athletes a brighter future. The program will invest $200 million across the country for sporting clubs and organisations to improve access to sport for women and girls, build more suitable facilities and roll out grassroots initiatives to help them participate in sport throughout their lives. Lots of us have had our daughters change into their soccer gear in the car rather than go and use some horrible old toilets at the field they're playing at. I'm really urging sports clubs and organisations in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury to get cracking and get applications in to make improvements. We know the benefits of playing sport continue throughout your lifetime, yet one in two girls will stop playing a sport by the time they reach the age of 17. Now is the time to encourage girls to score a goal, jump in a pool, pick up a bat and get involved in sport. COVID-19: Vaccination 130 16:15 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I read today that finally New South Wales Health looks set to scrap its useless, redundant and discriminatory COVID mandates, but we're still waiting for Victoria to drop its 'three jabs or no work' policy. I still receive heartbreaking calls from doctors, nurses, firies, police officers and paramedics who were terminated from their jobs, many of them charged with serious misconduct and had it put on their records, for not submitting to the experimental COVID jab. Mind you, even in the midst of their distress and suffering at the injustice perpetrated against them, not one of them regrets not taking the experimental GMO injections. Why would they with unprecedented rates of excess deaths around the world, including in Australia—heart attacks, strokes, turbo cancer and autoimmune disease? Thousands of esteemed doctors and academics across the world continue to plead for the mRNA jabs to be banned. Let me be clear: for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, there's no shortage of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. It's just not being reported in the mainstream news. I know doctors are hearing reports of adverse injuries in their patients but are too afraid to speak up for fear of retribution from AHPRA. What happened to a doctor's oath of 'first do no harm'? I say to doctors across Australia—in fact, I plead with you: it's not too late to stand up and share your concerns on behalf of your patients, on behalf of your community. Gilmore Electorate: Infrastructure 130 16:16 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore When it comes to local infrastructure I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that's just getting on with it, whether it is the Jervis Bay flyover that is in major construction mode, with $100 million in funding from the Albanese Labor government, or early planning for the Nowra bypass, with $97 million from the Albanese Labor government, or the $752 million for the Milton Ulladulla bypass from the Albanese Labor government. It's only me, as the member of Gilmore and as part of the Albanese Labor government, that is funding these roads and more. I'm proud to support important local community infrastructure, such as: the new Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club, with $5.5 million in funding under the Albanese Labor government; the much-needed headspace at Kiama; $800,000 in funding for supported assisted independent living units at Jindelara Cottage in Ulladulla; $40 million for local Shoalhaven roads; a Medicare urgent care clinic at Batemans Bay; $7.5 million for the new Sanctuary Point District Library; bushfire-proof composite power poles for South Durras; $5 million for the Eurobodalla Emergency Services Precinct; new mobile phone towers at Termeil and Cullendulla; more NBN to the premises; and many more infrastructure projects funded by the Albanese Labor government. There are also hundreds of millions of dollars in bushfire and natural disaster roads and recovery projects. I'm also pleased to say that local defence and defence industry businesses have finally got a local member in government that understands their needs and is committed to record investments in defence skills, jobs and infrastructure. Surfers Paradise Surf Lifesaving Club: Business Meets Sport 131 16:18 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I joined a packed room of dedicated Gold Coasters to raise funds for the iconic Surfers Paradise Surf Lifesaving Club—in its 100th year of saving lives on Surfers Paradise Beach. Hosted by the Gold Coast stellar citizen Andrew Bell OAM and his brother, Greg, was the annual Ray White Surfers Paradise Business Meets Sport luncheon, which, over the past 15 years, has raised $1 million for surf lifesaving in Surfers Paradise. We heard from Anna Meares OAM, the track cyclist, Olympic gold medallist and 11-time world champ. She talked about her successes and her failures. We heard from ironmen and ironwomen: Ali Day, a champion; Lucy Derbyshire; and Finn Askew from Surfers Paradise Surf Lifesaving Club. We also heard the amazing story of 'High-rise' Harry Triguboff. We heard his life story, all the way from being born in China, coming to the Gold Coast and Sydney and building 4,000 units on the Gold Coast. That's how many he told me that he'd built. We can see those in Meritons in the skylines of Southport, Main Beach, Surfers and Broadbeach. I want to thank Harry 'High-rise' Triguboff for his $100,000 donation to Surfers Paradise Surf Life Saving Club. As the patron of South Coast, I really want to thank him for that, and I want to thank Andrew Bell and Greg Bell, at Ray White Surfers Paradise, for their support for Surfers Paradise Surf Life Saving Club on the Gold Coast. Bennelong Electorate: World's Greatest Shave 131 16:20 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Deputy Speaker, today I stand before you to highlight the incredible efforts of students at Epping Boys High School and Cheltenham Girls High School in Bennelong for their participation in the World's Greatest Shave this year. This annual event is not just about shaving or dying hair; it's about clearing away the stigma surrounding leukaemia and blood cancer and giving hope to those affected by it. Over 100 students and staff members of the Epping Boys High School banded together last Friday, showcasing solidarity and compassion as they shaved or dyed their hair. They got behind the cause as a school and, amazingly, surpassed their fundraising goal, raising an astounding $40,465.77. Our friends at Cheltenham Girls High School have also done an incredible job. While their big shave and dye event is yet to come, they've already raised an impressive $6,436. With Cheltenham Girls High School's big day approaching on 10 April, there's still time for our local community to rally behind them and contribute to this noble cause. It's always possible to make a difference. If you have a chance, you can still donate. If you'd like to, you can click on the links on this soon-to-be-published video. I'd encourage as many as possible to donate to this cause and support our local students doing a great job raising funds for blood cancer research. I again congratulate the students of Epping Boys High School and Cheltenham Girls High School for their commitment to supporting our community. Kadima, Kazadi 131 16:21 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Every chance I get in my electorate on a Saturday morning, I do the five-kay parkrun around the Victoria Park Lake. An interesting thing happens when I'm on about my third kay. I'm not the slowest runner. I'm not the fastest runner. But I hear fast footsteps coming up behind me. Then there's a whoosh of air, and then there's a blur. That blur is an outstanding young athlete we have in our community whose name is Kazadi Kadima. Kazadi currently holds the School Sport Victoria Championship title for the 3,000 and 800 and the All Schools Championship title for the 3,000. He has also won medals in the 1,500. He's in year 9 at Greater Shepparton Secondary College, where he also excels at mathematics. He is a member of the Shepparton Athletics Club and the Shepparton Runners Club, and he trains six days a week under the supervision of a private coach, Elizabeth Matthews. There's a big effort in my community to help Kazadi and his family get to the national championships in Adelaide. In a very short period of time—only about 48 hours—over $4,000 has been raised to help him and his family get there. It's a marvellous effort, and I want to commend the Lighthouse Project. The Lighthouse Project has facilitated this funding to help Kazadi get to Adelaide. We're going to see if we can do more from this place. If anyone wants to go to the Goulburn Valley Greater Shepparton Lighthouse Project and donate, I'm sure it would be welcome. Go, Kazadi! Good luck, mate. Higgins Electorate: Ewing Kindergarten 132 16:23 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Tucked away on a quiet, tree-lined street is a place ringing with the laughter of children that screams joy from the moment you step through the gate. Ewing Kindergarten is a place where children learn through play. Arresting are the massive Indigenous murals which, thanks to a Higgins volunteer grant, surround an old tree at the centre of the playground. One could almost imagine that this was a focal point for storytelling amongst the ancient Wurundjeri once upon a time. A welcome to country I recently attended had children enthralled as Uncle Ian brought dingoes, kangaroos and kookaburras to life through the didgeridoo, then showed us his family tree. The children absorbed it all. Guided by the watchful eyes of their educators and parents, children learn respect for self and for others and caring for country—lessons that are foundational to their life's journey. Their educators, as social engineers, help children discover their talents in music, art, storytelling and story making. The parent led council has invested in sustainability initiatives and is continually seeking to reduce the centre's carbon footprint. Parents, educators and support staff take great pride in providing high-quality child-centred care, reaffirming the merits of community led centres. In the way the grown-ups wrap their arms around this centre, we as a society need to ring-fence these islands of excellence. That siblings of the children have passed through Ewing Kindy is a resounding endorsement of its place as an asset to our community. Universities 132 16:24 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn HECS debt is on the minds of many current and former students. That is because on 1 June each year indexation is applied to the accumulated study and training debt. More than three million Australians saw their student debt rise with inflation last June as indexation of 7.1 per cent was applied to these debts. It was the highest indexation in more than three decades, with an average $25,000 HECS debt rising by $1,775. My issue with the current HECS debt system is that interest is added to these loans before any payments made in previous years are deducted. Given that HECS debt must be considered in any home loan application, I'm also concerned that higher student debt will impact on the borrowing power of these people. I'm calling on the Minister for Education to make significant changes to the current HECS debt system, whether it be to apply a cap on the indexation rate or to change it so that interest is added to loans after any payments made in the previous year are deducted or both. All avenues must be explored. The government must seriously examine what options can be taken to support Australians to pay down their debt instead of denying that HECS debt is a problem. Middle East 132 16:25 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Whilst the Hamas leadership and the Israeli Prime Minister fight for military ascendancy and their own political survival, innocent Israeli and Palestinian people are dying. Since 7 October last year, it has been reported that over 32,200 Palestinians, mainly women and children, have been killed and over 74,500 have been injured. Around 1,200 Israelis have been killed, and 100-plus are still being held hostage and should be immediately released. Eighty-five per cent of the Palestinian people have been displaced and left with no home, no food and water and a critical shortage of medical supplies because of the Israeli's five-month-long bombardment of Palestinian territory and obstruction of global aid efforts. Sadly, whilst much of the world looks away with indifference and argues about the definitions of genocide and apartheid, or the wording of UN resolutions, defenceless, innocent people continue to die. The killing of innocent civilians can never be justified. World opinion is turning against Israel, and calls for an immediate, sustained ceasefire and an end to the humanitarian aid blockades have grown louder. I again join those calls. All lives matter, and the continued Israeli incursion into Palestinian territory will not create lasting peace but will cause long-term suffering and insecurity for all. Member for Parkes 132 16:27 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes Today I announced to my party room that I would not be contesting the next election. I have been in this place since 2007. I was elected in the Rudd slide of 2007, and by the time the next election comes around, I will have served for 17 years. It has been a great privilege, and I have a great respect for this parliament. I have seen this parliament at its best. I've seen this parliament at its worst. I am here for another 12 months, so this is not a valedictory, but, clearly, I think it's important that I notify the parliament of my intentions. I also want to mention the fact that my journey through here has been one of a partnership with my wife. She gave up a very solid career as a much-respected school teacher and she has travelled with me every step of the way. In an electorate the size of Parkes, apart from being in parliament, you spend about 150 nights a year away from home in motels across half of New South Wales. It has been a great privilege to represent the second-highest percentage of Indigenous people, a community made up of farmers, miners and all the other occupations that go with serving a rural community. It has been an absolute honour and a pleasure, and I look forward to the next 12 months to finish this job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I'm sure everyone joins me in wishing the member for Parkes well. Thank you for your service. Well done. Honourable members: Hear, hear! World's Greatest Shave 133 16:28 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston Every year, thousands of Australians step up to shave, cut or colour their hair for the World's Greatest Shave. It's the ultimate act of support for people facing blood cancer. Blood cancer is Australia's hidden cancer crisis. There are 140,000 families facing blood cancer right now, and it takes the lives of 16 Australians every day. Every dollar raised helps provide families with practical and emotional support to get them through the many challenges that blood cancer brings. A little while ago, I visited a Scope Boronia Social Connections day program when they took part in the World's Great Shave. Scope supports people with complex intellectual, physical and multiple disabilities. Their great team of people include specialists in communication and positive behaviour support. They are dedicated to working in partnership with clients, carers and families. It was great to meet Cherisse, one of the clients of Scope in Boronia, who took the brave step of cutting off both her long plaits and shaving her whole head to support and raise awareness of those living with leukaemia. Todd, one of the staff at Scope also took part by shaving off his moustache. Thank you to Todd and all the other staff at Scope in Boronia who do an incredible job for our community. Huge congratulations to Cherisse, who is raising money, and to everyone else in the community of Aston who have participated this year in the World's Greatest Shave. Wright Electorate: Local Government 133 16:30 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Local government elections were held in Queensland recently, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the local mayors who were re-elected or elected in my region. From the Scenic Room, I congratulate the new mayor, Tom Sharpe, on his election. Tom Sharpe defeated the former mayor, Greg Christensen. I'd like to pay tribute to him for his service to our community. I look forward to working with a renewed Scenic Rim Regional Council. In the Lockyer Valley, I'd like to congratulate the hardworking Tanya Milligan on her re-election. Tanya is a wonderful advocate in the region and for the council, and I look forward to continuing my strong relationship with her in the term ahead. In Logan City, local residents voted for a new mayor, with the retirement of Darren Power. I pay tribute to Mayor Power for the significant contribution that he made over many decades. And I take this opportunity to congratulate Jon Raven, who has been elected Lord Mayor of Logan City. I look forward to working with him in the term ahead. On the Gold Coast, Tom Tait was returned unopposed for his fourth term. I enjoy a strong working relationship with him, along with Glenn Tozer, who was re-elected by our hinterland communities. And in the councils on my borders, Somerset voted in a new mayor, Jason Wendt, and Teresa Harding will return in Ipswich. I look forward to working with both mayors Wendt and Harding. To all those who stood for elections as mayors or councillors across the region, I thank you so much for putting yourselves forward. Fraser Electorate: Holi 133 16:31 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Over the past two weekends, the Fraser community has celebrated Holi, the Hindu festival of colours, which marks the start of spring in India, Nepal and other south Asian countries, and for their diasporas. The festival celebrates the triumph of good over evil and signifies a time of rebirth and rejuvenation, with the changing of the seasons from winter to spring—at least, in the northern hemisphere. Last night, the Melbourne Mandir hosted a wonderful celebration. I felt very privileged to be able to participate in the spiritual rituals and traditions held in their beautiful temple. Last night was also a time when the whole community came together, with hundreds of people from all generations—young people through to their grandparents. Thank you to the Nimesh Patel and to all of the many other hardworking volunteers, without whom the temple would not be maintained and the delicious food would not have been served in such abundance last night. My first Holi festival for the year was at West Footscray's Festival of Colours a couple of weekends ago, presented by the West Footscray Traders Association. This was an equally vibrant and enjoyable celebration of this most enjoyable day. I'm still cleaning my clothes from a day of being bombarded with colours, from yellow, blue and green through to pink! Particular thanks go to Pradeep Tiwari for his passion and hard work in organising this fantastic local festival, as he has for many, many years, and also to his committee of very dedicated volunteers. These are wonderful multicultural events and a wonderful example of volunteerism in our community. Dawson Electorate: Young Mayors Program 134 16:33 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson Our youth are our future and, right now, I'm beaming with pride about five incredible and brilliant young minds from Mackay who I met during their recent trip to Canberra as part of the Young Mayors program. Krystopher Gakowski, Nate Ralph, Rory McPhail, Lily Cheyne and the first-ever young mayor in Mackay, Miss Bridget Wright were all elected through a true democratic process by over 1,400 of their peers. What an honour it is that the first Local Government Association to pilot this program in Australia was Mackay, in my electorate of Dawson. This program engages students aged between 11 and 17 to represent their peers at local council, to strengthen their community and to deliver real-world projects. Everyone in this room knows that if you want to change the world it needs to be done through a true political and democratic process. And changing the world is exactly what these young students are doing, starting with projects addressing youth mental health and championing better resourced and interactive libraries. I am proud of these young students, because the future of Australia depends entirely on what our youth can achieve. Well done, and congratulations! Sri Lankan New Year 134 16:34 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Sri Lankan new year, also known as Aluth Avurudda in Sinhalese, and Puthandu in Tamil, is one of the most significant cultural festivals celebrated in Sri Lanka and around the world. It is a time of great joy and celebration for the Sri Lankan people and a time to seek blessings for the year ahead. The festivities for the new year last several days and include a range of cultural activities, such as lighting oil lamps, playing traditional games and preparing special foods. It is an opportunity for the Sri Lankan community to display their rich culture and traditions to the wider community. It provides an occasion for people to come together, regardless of their backgrounds, to celebrate a shared heritage and to promote mutual respect and understanding. It is also a time for families to come together and celebrate the start of a new year with traditions and rituals that have been passed down for generations. Once again, happy new year to the Sri Lankan community in my electorate of Holt and across Australia. Suba aluth auruddhak wewaa and puthandu vazthukal! National Disability Insurance Scheme 134 16:35 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Over the past 18 months I've conducted a number of forums in my electorate on aged care, health care, veterans affairs and child care, and, unsurprisingly, there's been a consistent theme from all of those organisations, and that is that they describe the NDIS as the biggest threat when it comes to their ability to provide these critical services to the community. Deputy Speaker Young, as you would know, currently workers are leaving child care, aged care and nursing in droves due to the inflated and unsustainable fees in the NDIS, and you couldn't blame them. On the flip side, I hear stories every day from those currently using NDIS packages that their funds are being exhausted by the questionable practices of unskilled service providers, leaving them without adequate cover in the areas that they really need. The NDIS has outranked every other issue by at least two to one in the volume of commentary from my constituents. With this in mind, I was pleased to be selected to be part of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS—to use this feedback from my own regional community and others around the country to plot a better pathway forward. The NDIS model has been allowed to go comparatively unregulated for far too long, and I look forward to taking a bipartisan approach to address it on the committee. Endometriosis 134 16:37 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Endometriosis can be a crippling condition that affects over one million Australians at some point their lives. Recent statistics, according to Endometriosis Australia, have found that one in seven of those assigned female at birth will be diagnosed with endometriosis by the age of 44 to 49. This condition can have an extensive and devastating impact on the daily lives of sufferers, with people experiencing an unacceptable wait of an average of seven years before diagnosis. Endometriosis can have a profound impact on every aspect of a person's life, from their physical health to their emotional wellbeing and relationships. It is a chronic condition where tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus, causing a range of symptoms, from severe pelvic pain, infertility and fatigue to gastrointestinal issues. This month we stand beside the millions worldwide who suffer from this often misunderstood and undiagnosed condition. Endometriosis Awareness Month serves as a crucial opportunity to shine a light on this overlooked condition. By increasing awareness, we can empower individuals to recognise their symptoms, seek proper diagnosis and treatment and advocate for their own health needs. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting those affected by endo, as we've opened dedicated endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across the nation in the past year. Let's continue to raise awareness, support research and work towards a future where endometriosis no longer stands as a barrier to health and wellbeing. Local Government 135 16:38 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland In my 16 years in parliament I've seen some cynical things, but I think the cynicism reached a new level last week with the announcement by the government that it's launching a parliamentary inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government. This amounts to another broken promise by a government which is effectively trying to stall action on an important sector of our community. The financial sustainability of our 537 local councils is a very important issue. But what the government did in announcing this inquiry last week was really code, to all of those councils right across Australia, for 'there will be nothing in this budget for you'. 'There will be nothing in this budget for you'—because submissions to the inquiry actually close on 3 May, a few days before the budget. So there's obviously nothing in the budget for local government, and this government is effectively kicking the can down a pothole road. It's cynical because, prior to the election, the now Prime Minister said there would be fair increases for local government. The Australian Local Government Association warned only a few weeks ago that time was running out for the federal government to deliver on those pre-election promises of fair increases to the financial assistance grants. I say to local councils: please, make a submission. It's really time for local councils across Australia to deliver the truth bomb to this government, to tell the truth about how the deficit in infrastructure and services and cost shifting is having an impact on their ability to deliver liveable local committees right across our great nation. Middle East 135 16:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It was heartbreaking to hear over the weekend news that international efforts for an immediate and sustained ceasefire in Gaza had failed. This is distressing news for everyone who wants to see an end to the war in Gaza. Make no mistake: negotiations for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire are ongoing. The international community has not given up. But I do not underestimate the devastating impacts of the UN resolution being defeated and terrifying threats of a full Israeli incursion into Rafah being reiterated, defying global pressure. Yesterday the UN Secretary reiterated international calls for a ceasefire and an ironclad commitment from Israel to immediately allow vital humanitarian aid into Gaza. I agree. Children are starving to death. The risk of famine is imminent. There are trucks of food outside of Gaza's borders, but there is no way to deliver it across the borders without Israel's cooperation. Australia is providing $52.5 million in humanitarian assistance for food, water, medicine and shelter. However, the situation remains utterly desperate. Gaza is being bombed into rubble. More than 32,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed. The need for an immediate and enduring humanitarian ceasefire has never been more pressing, as is the call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Yesterday was Palm Sunday. Billions of people around the world prayed for peace. I stand with them and everyone who calls for peace. (Time expired) Western Australia: Labor Government 135 16:42 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Regional Western Australia is under attack from state and federal Labor governments. The phase-out of the live sheep trade, the introduction of the biosecurity tax, the rollout of unwanted renewable energy projects and the government's planned family car and ute tax adversely affect regional Western Australians, but unfortunately these attacks keep coming. The WA Labor government has announced it will ban boat tours through the iconic Horizontal Falls from 2028. It has been estimated this will cost the Kimberley region some $15 million and 58 full-time jobs per year. The Kimberley relies on tourism, and yet this is what the Cook government delivers. I am one of more than 4,600 people who have signed the Neil Thomson petition calling for this decision to be reversed and I encourage anyone concerned to join me. I was also shocked but not surprised to hear the Albanese government was considering introducing a 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limit across the highways in the Pilbara to protect animals that may be crossing the road. This is the economic powerhouse of our nation. Labor have now done what I consider to be a very clumsy, quick backflip on this ridiculous idea. It's clear that actions like these aren't taken to improve the lives of regional Western Australians. They're not taken to approve economic opportunities. They're simply designed to win inner-city votes. I'll tell you what: regional Western Australians have had enough. They will no longer be the battering ram for the Labor government. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation 136 16:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Recently I met with Adam Costantini, a Hillbank local like myself and a tireless community advocate for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, an organisation many of us know very well. JDRF have had a hand in every breakthrough in the care of type 1 diabetes globally over the past 50 years. But it is individuals like Adam that put a human face on the benefits of acting to find a cure. The cost of sitting out of the fight is a cost paid in health outcomes as well as financially. In Spence alone the cost of type 1 diabetes equates to $20 million annually, with the lifetime costs bordering on half a billion dollars. Adam and his wife, Stacey, advocate for a cure not just for the 130,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes but also for their daughter, Georgie, who was diagnosed at just 10 months old, which inspired Stacey to write a number of children's books on living with type 1 diabetes in an engaging and understandable format. I look forward to speaking with the Costantini family many more times in the future. More importantly, just like Adam, Stacey and Georgie, we look forward to a day when type 1 diabetes can be relegated to the distant past, and I applaud the work that the JDRF are doing to make this a reality. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 136 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Cost of Living 136 16:45 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman by leave—on behalf of the member for Groom, I move: That this House: (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'; (2) further notes comments in the CommBank iQ Cost of Living Insights Report for November 2023 that: (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 (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; (3) recognises that under the Government: (a) the costs of food, housing, electricity, insurance and gas have all increased; (b) real spending power has been reduced; and (c) younger Australians, with and without children, are being especially impacted by rising living costs; (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 (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. In the almost two years since the last election, the Labor government has presided over a cost-of-living crisis. Their efforts to ease the pressure on Australian household budgets have been entirely inadequate. As the motion outlines, they have failed to address the high inflation and high interest rates that are crippling Australian household budgets. Rather than the economic mismanagement we have experienced, what Australians need is sensible economic policies to get them through these challenges. Members of the government may come into this building—and I'm sure we'll see them this afternoon—and run off the litany of actions they've taken, actions that have had zero impact, but it is cold comfort for the vast majority of Australians, who are far worse off since the last election. The Commonwealth Bank report that the member for Groom highlights in this motion illustrates how Australians are spending more on essentials and have little remaining to purchase anything else. Many are struggling even to afford those essentials. In my electorate, the people of the Redlands are struggling with these costs, which continually rise. Over recent weeks I've had many constituents share with me the impact that Labor's cost-of-living crisis is having on their daily lives. David is a pensioner in Alexandra Hills. Because of rising costs, he has been forced to cut fruit out of his grocery shop. Yvonne from Thornlands has seen her rent increase by $225 a week. A constituent on Coochiemudlo Island used to try each year to save $1,200 for holidays and $500 for home maintenance. She's had to do away with both of those expenses, as the money she's worked so hard to save is now being swallowed up by increasing daily living costs. Margaret has seen her monthly mortgage repayments soar from $2,000 a month to $3,300 a month in the last 18 months. Ron tells me that he and his wife are struggling with increased mortgage rates, home insurance and utilities. Ron reminded me: The Prime Minister promised he was going to bring down the price of electricity, when is that going to happen? Ken from Cleveland has sent me his power bills, which show a tripling in the cost since this government took office. Pauline from Birkdale is paying around $480 more this year than she did last year to insure her car. And Gladys from Victoria Point, a self-funded retiree, is concerned that she'll soon have to stop purchasing private health insurance. There's no doubt that this is a crisis. So many in my electorate are struggling with costs in every possible area of their lives and businesses. This government continues to fail them. Another Redlander who's doing it tough is Christine from Cleveland. She reached out and shared with me some of the struggles that pensioners like her are facing. She wrote: I'm a 71yo solo female pensioner, and at this late stage of life, I am experiencing a feeling I have rarely felt before—anger. Anger at this government, and its determination to ensure the majority of Australians live in poverty, especially pensioners. everything I have I have had to work bloody hard for. In my younger years I gave up holidays and going out with friends to work 3 jobs as I was determined that I wanted to own a home when I retired. Thank God I did! But now I honestly do not know how I can keep afloat. I live a very frugal life, no extravagance, but now it is a struggle to simply maintain a basic standard of living on the pension. How the hell are pensioners supposed to be able to handle these sky rocketing cost of living increases? Christine feels that older Australians are now struggling so much that, she writes, 'we don't live; we just exist'. These stories from members of my community are indicative of the struggles that Australians everywhere are facing due to Labor's cost-of-living crisis. The government's failure to adequately address the issues of high inflation and increased interest rates, and its inability to act on the cost of groceries, fuel, housing, electricity, gas and insurance, is proof positive that it is incapable of leading our nation in these trying economic times. Labor has let inflation stay too high for too long and is putting in place policies that make inflation and productivity worse. Labor inherited a strong economy from the coalition, but, in the last two years, we've seen that situation completely evaporate. The people of the Redlands deserve better. The constituents who I've talked about this afternoon deserve a lot better from the federal government, and all the people of Australia deserve far better. I commend the member for Groom's motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Caldwell 306489 I second the motion, and I reserve my right to speak. 16:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Our government understands that family budgets are tight and that the impacts of cost-of-living pressures and inflation are being felt at kitchen tables around the whole country. That's why, from 1 July, we are delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer and bigger tax cuts for workers. As always, we will continue to do everything we can to help Australian families. Of course, this needs to be carefully calibrated to take into account the inflation challenges that remain in our economy and a budget that remains under significant pressure. We'll do what we responsibly can in the May budget. There will likely be additional cost-of-living help, but it won't be anywhere near the magnitude of the tax cuts. We are already providing a tax cut to every taxpayer and a bigger tax cut to more workers. Any extra help will be targeted, responsible and affordable—as it must be. On top of our tax cuts, we are rolling out billions in cost-of-living relief across rent assistance, energy rebates, cheaper medicines, income support, Medicare bulk-billing incentives and much more. The Liberals, of course, those opposite, said no to cheaper medicines, no to energy bill relief and—as we know because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition told us—they will absolutely roll back our tax cuts. That will effectively, for most Australian workers, rip $800 out their pocket. When it comes to the cost of living, the Liberals, those opposite, always say no, while we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, with a second one potentially in prospect, and overseen wages growth of 4.2 per cent, which is the fastest rate in 15 years, and three consecutive quarters of real wages growth. I've noticed a tendency, in question time, for some of those opposite to yell out, 'Yes—but "real wages".' We've seen three consecutive quarters of real wages growth. We've seen around 790,000 jobs created since we came to government, which is a record for a new government in its first term. For unemployment, we've seen the figure recently and it has a three in front of it. Unemployment is back under four per cent, and that is below pre-pandemic levels, which is great news. Inflation is also moderating under us. But it's not 'mission completed' or anything like that, because we know that people are still under pressure, particularly those with mortgages. The most recent CPI showed the quarterly inflation moderating to 4.1 per cent in the December quarter, down from 5.4 per cent in the September quarter. Headline inflation is now at its lowest level in two years. We know that monthly figures can bounce around a bit, as the Treasurer is always mentioning, but this is encouraging progress. The point is that inflation is moderating, and that's good news. It's not moderating as fast as we would like it to, but it is moderating. The Australian Bureau of Statistics also shows that our policies for electricity, rent and cheaper childcare are all directly putting downward pressure on inflation. That's why it's so baffling that those opposite voted against those measures. But our budget strategy is working. We said we'd get wages moving again, and that's exactly what we've done. Real wage growth is back, and it's ahead of schedule as well, which is a good thing. Our government, under our Prime Minister, want to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn so they can look after their interest and their family's interest. Annual real wages grew at the end of last year, for the first time in almost three years. Since the election, nominal wages have been growing at four per cent, compared to 2.2 per cent under those opposite when they were in government. So we've turned that around in less than two years. We are for jobs growth and we're getting wages moving, and inflation is moderating. We've delivered a budget surplus, the first in 15 years, but let's see how this next budget goes in May. We're getting on with the job and we're doing it for Australians. 16:55 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I rise today to echo the sentiment of my colleagues, who are also disappointed by this government's inability to address the cost-of-living pressures facing young Australians. Young families in suburbs like Pacific Pines and Gaven in my electorate are doing it tough despite repeated assurances from Labor that things are about to get easier. Rent is up, power prices are up and grocery prices are up—just to name a few. The Treasurer and those opposite use phrases like 'inflation is moderating' or it's 'under control', but the truth is the damage is done. Inflation is compounding and it is permanent. It's very rare for me to agree with the Minister for Home Affairs, but she said it best when she noted that there are: … 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 … I couldn't agree more, and Labor is to blame. My constituents across the Gold Coast have seen their standard of living collapse over the last 18 months. I recently heard from a local mum in Coomera who vented about the struggle to balance the household budget and about the stresses of just trying to get the kids what they need for school. Another local, in Hollywell, raised the issue of her power bill, which has increased by a whopping 52 per cent, despite her usage only increasing by a modest 10 per cent compared to the same time last year—and that is the thing. The total for that bill is $1,941. It's simply not sustainable for families. All of this is happening while bracket creep means that Australians are paying 23 per cent more income tax, inflation and interest rates remain high, wages in real terms are plummeting and Labor is introducing another new tax, one on Australia's favourite family and work vehicles, which will hit young families the hardest. It's typical that, when faced with any issue, the answer from Labor is another new tax. Labor's new car and ute tax is simply poor policy. We've seen the consequences before of Labor's obsession with reaching net zero in some sort of world-record time and promoting big new taxes, and, make no mistake, we are seeing it again. Labor's new family car tax will add thousands of dollars to the price of the cars that Australians love and, more importantly, need to drive. Industry have made their concerns clear, releasing modelling that shows that Australians could soon be paying up to $18,000 more for their favourite ute and up to $25,000 more for their favourite SUV. Labor's policy will hit mums and dads who rely on SUVs to get their kids to school and soccer and will hit tradies who rely on utes to do their job. We all want to see cleaner cars and utes as we do our bit towards reducing emissions by 2050, but Labor's proposed new vehicle efficiency standard is extreme and will add thousands of dollars to the price of the cars that Australians love and need to drive. Labor claims the new efficiency standard will result in lower running costs—not if you can't afford to buy them in the first place or they're simply unavailable. This is just another example of Labor having all the wrong priorities. Instead of addressing the cost of living, Labor's latest rushed pursuit of emissions reduction policy will hurt vulnerable Australians the most. Young working families are the backbone of our country, and they are doing it tough under this Albanese Labor government. When I meet with constituents in my electorate, from Pimpama in the north to Labrador in the south, I am constantly reminded that Labor's complete failure to tackle inflation and rein in spending is making life tougher. Let us not forget that, prior to the last election, the Labor Party repeatedly touted its promise to reduce power bills by $275—another broken promise. On wages, power bills, groceries and mortgages, Australians are rightly disappointed by the broken promises. This Labor government is getting sidetracked with other issues. If you have a mortgage, the average increase has been $24,000 per annum on the average home loan. If you're a renter, rents have increased by 26 per cent, to $580 per week on average. If you own a car or ute, Labor is now going to hit you hard again. By every measure possible, Labor is failing Australians on cost of living. 17:00 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong It's been nearly two years since we came to government, and for two years we've had the Liberals and Nationals oppose cost-of-living relief. What's been truly extraordinary has been that, while they have opposed the government's plans, they have not come up with any solutions themselves. There is only so far that negativity can get you, and the Australian public have seen straight through the opposition's constant negativity on cost of living. In fact, the only policy they have on cost of living is to claim that power prices will fall because they want to invest in the most expensive form of new power generation, nuclear. Let's just think about that for a minute. They think that power prices will fall by their investing in the most expensive form of power generation. Please make it make sense. Much like the housing crisis, cost-of-living pressures existed before the election of this government. The highest quarter of inflation was under the Liberals and Nationals in March 2022, and interest rates started to rise, of course, under the Liberals and Nationals. But, unlike them, we've put forward policies to help address this. Our efforts have been the result of careful planning and dedicated policymaking. Their constant opposition to our plans tells you everything you need to know about this opposition. They voted against energy relief and energy price cuts. They rallied against cheaper child care which has reduced out-of-pocket costs by around 11 per cent in Sydney. They are running a scare campaign on new vehicle emissions standards which will save motorists about $1,000 on fuel a year. They oppose the rollout of renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of new power generation. These people are not serious about governing and they're not serious about supporting Aussies with cost-of-living pressures. There was no greater example of their pursuit of politics over progress than their response to Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. Labor's tax plan is better than Scott Morrison's tax plan. Labor's plan delivers every taxpayer a tax cut, not just some. It enables Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. It will give larger tax cuts to more workers, and represents direct cost-of-living relief for taxpayers across the country. Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts represent over $100 billion worth of cost-of-living relief. We know that those opposite don't really support them, because at first they said they'd repeal Labor's tax cuts, then they said that they'd fight them in the parliament, then they said that they would call an election on them and then they called them 'Marxism'. But then they supported them. Reluctantly, dragged kicking and screaming, they supported them. Who knows what they'll do if they occupy the government benches again? Their reaction to our cost-of-living measures shows their inability to engage constructively with policies aimed at genuine cost-of-living relief. Instead of solutions, they put up ridiculous motions like this again and again. Instead of solutions, it's all politics. We have a plan that prioritises support for families. They have a plan that prioritises politics over progress, rhetoric over reality and opposition for opposition's sake over solutions to the cost-of-living pressures Australians face every day. With Australians facing increasing financial pressures, the need for targeted, effective relief measures has never been more critical. Addressing cost-of-living pressures has been at the heart of every budget this government has given. These policies are set to make a big difference in Bennelong. From 1 July, 92,000 taxpayers in Bennelong will get a tax cut, and over 81 per cent of them will get a larger tax cut than under Scott Morrison's plan. The out-of-pocket costs of child care in Sydney have reduced by an average of 11 per cent; our reductions in the cost of medicines have saved people in Bennelong over $2.2 million; and over 30,000 60-day prescriptions have been written to date. And our fee-free TAFE policies have helped thousands of people to attend both Meadowbank and Ryde TAFEs to reskill and earn more, and to keep more of what they earn. Our government's response to the economic challenges of today are comprehensive, strategic and focused. But we know that there's more to do. Unlike those opposite, we have policies, and we'll have more policies to address the cost-of-living crisis at the next budget. We'll continue to manage the economic circumstances of today while providing relief, repair and reform—importantly, cleaning up the mess that the Liberals left behind. 17:05 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I don't think that the former member for Bennelong ever gave a speech like that one, where he never followed the dictates of the party or the talking points. Mr Perrett HVP John Howard? Mr BROADBENT MT4 Yes. Good man! One thing we know is that Australian families are enduring very difficult times, whether from high rents or mortgages, skyrocketing energy bills or insurance premiums going through the roof. Many families doing a tough right now with rising inflation. I heard a call before, saying that inflation is going down. Go and get a trolley full of groceries and find out if inflation is going down! If you can find inflation is going down— Mr BROADBENT MT4 then you're not doing the shopping! Mr Perrett HVP I do the shopping! Mr BROADBENT MT4 That's what's happening. You're not seeing the price that families are paying— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The member for Moreton should restrain himself. Mr BROADBENT MT4 The member for Moreton should never restrain himself! I really appreciate him. I don't want to go across you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, but I enjoy the member for Moreton; he has been a great contributor to the parliament. He's prepared to stand up and talk about the real issues that are affecting families every day in Moreton, as I do in Monash! A tub of yoghurt, for instance, used to be about five bucks; last week it was 10! What's going on? I don't think that's supermarket gouging—I don't know what it is—but you can't have a 100 per cent increase in something. Everything I touch is either getting smaller in the packet—smaller jam!—and still larger in price. I'm embarrassed to come home to my wife and say, 'Here's your marmalade.' The tub used to be about this big and now it's only about that big at the same price, if not dearer. Last week a constituent told me her story. Alison and Dean are in their late 20s, with two young kids aged three and eight months. Up until late last year, Dean had run his own business for five years as a gas plumber. No longer in Victoria: when the Victorian government brought in new legislative changes which meant that gas could not be installed in new homes as of 24 January, Dean was out of a job—along with thousands of other people. Just like that he had to close his business. That's five years of hard work down the drain. Alison planned to have eight full months of maternity leave after giving birth to her second child in July last year. However, due to their financial situation, including the uncertainty of Dean having to find a new job, Alison had to return to work months earlier than expected. The couple now pay $260 week for their two children to attend child care three days a week. Alison told me that there have been weeks when their bank account has been in minus and they've had to wait until payday to be able to pay council rates and insurances. And she's not on her own there, I can tell you. This is because they prioritise their mortgage, childcare fees and ensuring their children are fed before anything else. To add to this, every time their account is in minus, their bank charges them a fee of between $5 and $10. At the moment they're living from pay cheque to pay cheque. At the end of the week, after taking into account the bills and the mortgage, there's not much left to spend, let alone save for a rainy day. A recent report from the Brotherhood of St Laurence found, quite rightly, that people experiencing poverty and job insecurity are increasingly unable to budget their way out of financial crisis. I know a family that's reticent to go to the doctor because they can't afford the out-of-pocket costs. This is disgraceful in a country like ours; taking a child to the doctor is not discretionary! Apparently, more than 1.2 million Australians—and they would have been in Tasmania too, Deputy Speaker Wilkie—did not go and see a GP during 2022-23 because of the cost. That's twice as many as compared to 2021-22. It's affecting all of us. And then there are people who are rationing their medication in order to make it through to their next payday. This is not good enough in a nation as wealthy and with as strong an economy as we have. Governments need to redirect their priorities towards those doing it toughest in Australia, towards those who are living independently or who are lonely. We have a responsibility to those who are least able to look after themselves in this country. I haven't stopped addressing those who need the most help since I first came into this place. Right now, this country is facing a crisis of people who need direct help. We have to find ways to give it to them. 17:10 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak on this cost-of-living motion brought by the coalition. Like everyone in this parliament, I know that my electorate is experiencing some extreme cost-of-living pressures at the moment. I speak in the context of the Liberals, under the member for Dickson, having only one playbook when it comes to Labor's initiatives, and that's negativity and even more negativity. They've consistently voted no when it comes to supporting cost-of-living measures—consistently! So don't listen to their words; look at their deeds. They talk about the cost of living but then vote against measures that would actually help people. We know that Australians are doing it tough, so the message they're sending is, 'Not tough enough; we won't vote for these measures because they're put forward by the Labor Party.' The Albanese Labor government made the responsible decision to change the Morrison stage 3 tax cuts so that three million Australian workers wouldn't receive a tax cut on 1 July this year. We changed that. Instead now every single one of the 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut. The average taxpayer on an income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504—an extra $804 compared to Scott Morrison's plan. The tax cuts come on top of a swathe of measures that are already easing pressure points such as energy, child care, health, housing, rent, education and employment. Our energy bill relief fund is $1.5 billion worth of support for five million households and one million small businesses. This is in addition to the caps on gas and coal prices, which reduced electricity price growth by 25 percentage points in 2023-24. What did those opposite do? They voted against it—unbelievably. I know that those opposite make up their own mind every time they cast a vote unless they're a part of the leadership and are bound. So I looked around. I heard these speeches about the tax cuts and about how we need to relieve pressure on people. Not one of them crossed the floor. All these free-thinking Liberals, who aren't sheep or Nationals, who are able to vote on whatever they like, all lined up with the member for Dickson and voted no. So Labor has focused on supporting families, delivering cheaper child care, and increasing the childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families with lower incomes. We're expanding paid parental leave so that more parents are eligible, and, from July this year, parental leave pay will increase by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks in July 2026. That's practical support. And we've expanded the eligibility for the parenting payment single until the youngest child turns 14. That was a long festering sore for me. That will benefit around 57,000 single principal carers, and the overwhelming majority of those people are women. We've made seeing a doctor easier with the development of Medicare urgent care clinics. We've backed this up with cheaper medicines. A two-month supply for 300 PBS medicines will be available for the cost of one month, effectively cutting the cost in half. This is in addition to the election commitment of cutting the general co-payment down to $30—something they lined up with campaigners and lobbyists to say, 'No, we're opposed to this.' Do you know how many people in my electorate have said, 'We are opposed to being able to get medicine over two months?' Do you know many people have emailed me about it? Taking out pharmacists, it's zero, nada, zip. None at all. We are boosting training with fee-free TAFE for 180,000 people, and we're building on this with another 300,000 places across Australia. We're also providing solid and measurable assistance to renters and homebuyers. That's 1.1 million households that will benefit from an increase to the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance to 15 per cent. For people wanting to own their own home, our Help to Buy scheme will support 40,000 Australians over four years to buy a home. That's also backed up by the Housing Australia Future Fund. All of these measures are underpinned by real wages growth that those opposite were opposed to during the election campaign. We promised to get wages moving again and we have done so. We are helping out all sorts of Australians. 17:15 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It's a shame the member for Moreton has to leave because I would really like to know how many times he has actually crossed the floor. He mentioned the Liberals and the Nationals and their voting patterns and voting behaviour. I'll tell you the difference, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, the member for Clark, between the coalition parties and those Labor members opposite. It's that, if we feel passionate enough about a bill and we vote against it, we don't get expelled from our party. But those opposite, should they decide to cross the floor, will be punted from their party. I know. I've crossed the floor. I have actually had the courage of my convictions to vote against what was seen to be coalition policy. Whilst I was sent to Coventry for a while for doing so, I had the conviction—some might say 'temerity'—to do just that. But the members opposite don't vote against their party because they know that, if they do, it's an immediate expulsion. So don't ever accuse the Liberals and the Nationals of being sheeple when you are a Labor member at the dispatch box. This is about cost of living, and we are in a cost-of-living crisis. But you wouldn't have known it last year. You wouldn't have known it from the talking points delivered by those opposite over and over again. They spoke plenty about the Voice. We haven't heard too much about that topic since it was roundly defeated by the people of Australia. We have seen real wages collapse under those opposite. We have seen, indeed, real disposable income falling by 7½ per cent on a per capita basis. We have seen Australians paying 23 per cent more income tax. We have seen, across the board, prices increase by nearly 10 per cent. Interest payments on mortgages have almost tripled. Productivity is falling severely. This is not what Labor said it was going to do when it was elected in May 2022. When you see 2,000 people turning up to Wagga Beach, as they did on 6 December last year, to receive food, you know that something is crook in Tallarook. Tallarook's a long way from Wagga Wagga! But you know that things are not as they should be. Within an hour and a half, all eight tonnes of fresh and long-life food from this food bank had been distributed. That is unusual. We are seeing the Salvation Army and St Vinnies—and, God bless them, they do an amazing job—being overwhelmed. They're being overwhelmed by people who would normally not present themselves to one of those agencies. That is just so sad because it shouldn't be happening. Yet those opposite get their talking points and they just adhere to them. You see it over and over again. We have had hundreds of households falling into electricity hardship every week since the Albanese government took over. We have youth unemployment now at 9.3 per cent. If you are a young person struggling to find a job, how on earth are you supposed to pay rent? How, if you are a young family, do you even get into the housing market? We saw only yesterday that we have 90,000 fewer tradies than we should. Who will build the houses? What, indeed, will they build the houses from when we have state Labor governments—and I refer specifically to Victoria's—wanting to shut down the timber industry? The construction industry is seeing failure after failure. It's not just in the homebuilding; it's in so much of the small-business sector, where businesses are doing it tough. They are shutting their doors because they just can't make ends meet. I commend the member for Groom for bringing forward this important debate. I would urge and implore those opposite to look beyond the talking points and what the dirt unit of the Labor Party is giving you to present in parliamentary speeches. Talk and more importantly listen to your constituents and what they are saying, because there is a cost-of-living crisis, you are the government and you need to do something about it—and quickly. 17:21 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck There can be no greater misdirection by a coalition member than the premise of this motion. The member for Groom wishes to condemn the government for the current cost-of living crisis. I can tell the member for Groom that I was elected two years ago largely on three key themes—addressing neglect in aged care, taking action on climate change and the environment and cost-of-living issues—and so were my colleagues. This is why we are now in government. Where does the member for Groom think the current cost-of-living crisis had its origin? The truth is that interest rates began to rise under the Morrison government, and this government's policies now, lauded by international agencies and commentators, have reduced inflation. We are now starting to see the effects of the solid, responsible governance and wisdom of those policies. Many of them, such as the cap on gas prices, were opposed by the coalition. The supply-side challenges also commenced prior to 2022. The member for Groom wants someone to blame. To the extent that it's possible to find someone to blame locally for global conditions, he might want to take another look at the shambles that was the Morrison government. The member was, after all, here. He was supporting that government, and he should therefore know. Since the election almost two years ago, the Albanese government has actively supported people across Australia with a host of cost-of-living support measures in a way that has minimised inflationary effects and in some cases has acted to suppress inflation. The people of Groom, like the people of Hasluck, have much to think the government for. I just want to reflect on a few of those different ways. We now have cheaper child care. We now have cheaper medicines. We've done record investment in bulk-billing. We've provided for electricity bill relief. We've increased support payments and rent assistance. We have introduced across a huge number of critical areas of need fee-free TAFE training. We've had a return of real wage growth. Of course, now we have the opportunity to look forward to tax cuts under an Albanese Labor government. It is almost certain that, if the member for Groom's party had somehow formed government at the last election, inflation and the cost-of-living challenges would have been a lot worse. Unlike the Morrison government, we seek to deliver programs in an even-handed way. We have seen, evidenced by the opposition to this government's policies and reforms, a true insight into the mindset of those opposite. The people of Hasluck today are benefiting from cheaper child care. Over 16,000 families with children will have welcomed the assistance and the reduction in cost of early education and care. Would the coalition have delivered this? I think not. The people of Hasluck are benefiting from cheaper medicines. We capped the cost of PBS scripts, and we are delivering 60-day dispensing, saving thousands of people in Hasluck hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars. The Morrison government actually received the advice to move to 60-day dispensing back in 2018, but did they do so? No! Has that meant that millions of Australians paid more than was necessary for their medicines over the last five years? It's absolutely so! Thanks for nothing, coalition. Labor believes in Medicare, and this government has delivered the greatest investments in Medicare since the inception of the scheme. We had to because the previous coalition governments had let it run down terribly. With record investment in bulk billing, targeted relief and Medicare urgent care clinics that are bulk-billing, it's no doubt that the people of Hasluck have welcomed a Labor government. It is a strain to imagine these policies, with all their benefits to Australian household budgets, ever being announced by the coalition, when they clearly and so deliberately wrecked it. When I and every member of this House were summoned back to legislate gas price caps in December 2022, we delivered what was widely regarded as anti-inflationary relief for millions of consumers. But what did the opposition do then? They voted against the bill. In other words, we can reasonably say that, if the coalition had prevailed, inflation would be up to three-quarters of a percentage point higher and, worse, perhaps not on the downward trajectory that we now see. Another example is that eighteen per cent of householders in Hasluck are renting, so we've increased the rent assistance to assist them in a very difficult market—more difficult in Perth, for sure, and in other places than I know it is elsewhere. But where is the coalition's housing policy? Where is their commitment to fee-free TAFE? Where is their commitment to tax cuts? Only a Labor government has delivered— (Time expired) 17:26 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Unquestionably, the most important issue facing Australians today is the cost of living. People are struggling to make ends meet, they're struggling to put food on the table, they're struggling to pay their energy bills, and more Australians than ever before are in housing stress—unable to pay their rent or unable to pay their mortgage. But the question that this House has to consider is: what can we as governments do about that? Unfortunately, the Liberal Party, who moved this motion, have presented no plan for what to do about it and no contrition for the fact that they left Australia in this state, where we have extremely high pressures on the cost of living and the highest inflation that we've had for more than a decade. When the Liberal Party left office, inflation was running on a quarterly basis at the highest rate in more than two decades. When the Liberals left office, food prices in Australia were at levels 54 per cent higher than the global average. Australia was one of the most expensive places in the world to purchase food, despite us being a net food exporter. The mover of this motion would do well to consider how we got into that situation and, most importantly, what we're going to do about it. The Albanese Labor government are working on two levels. First of all, on the macro level, we're working to bring inflation down to make sure that we reduce cost-of-living pressures and help Australians by not having an ongoing high inflation rate that continues to chip away at their real earnings and continues to make it harder and harder for them to make ends meet. Secondly, we're working on the micro level to provide individuals with targeted cost-of-living relief, to boost competition across our economy and to invest in infrastructure and other supply chain bottlenecks to make sure that the efficiencies in our system deliver the best possible prices for Australian consumers. Let's begin with the macro question. While the previous government spent up big, left Australians with a billion dollars of debt, left Australia with a high inflation rate and couldn't deliver a budget surplus, this government has taken prudent action to get inflation down, we've delivered a budget surplus and we've created more savings in two budgets than they produced in five. We've created an infrastructure program and programs to remove bottlenecks in our supply chains and keep the costs of goods low. Most importantly, we've implemented mechanisms to make sure that we have competition in our markets. We've appointed the ACCC to do an investigation into the supermarket sector, we've appointed Craig Emerson to analyse small suppliers and make sure they're not abused by the large supermarkets and we've appointed CHOICE, the consumer group, to crunch the data and look at which supermarkets are charging the most and which supermarkets are the best value. So across these measures—macroeconomic and microeconomic measures—the Albanese government is making real inroads to ensure that Australians are alleviated in their cost-of-living pressure, that we bring down prices over time and that more Australians can make ends meet. The other half of this equation—this isn't just about prices. Prices are one part of cost of living, but the other part of the cost of living, of course, is wages. The higher your wages are, the higher the prices you can tolerate; the lower your wages are, the more difficult it is to make ends meet no matter what situation the price level is in. That's why the Albanese government has worked so hard to turn around the decade of zero wages growth that was presided over by the Liberal party. I'm an economist and, if you ask me what the most extraordinary fact about the Australian economy over the last 10 years is, I would say it's that fact—that in 10 years we had zero real wages growth. That's 10 years in which Australian workers were going backwards. Despite growth in technology, progress right through our economy and expansion in profits, workers were getting none of that. In fact, when the Liberals left office, real wages were falling at 3.5 per cent. Under this Labor government, we've had three successive quarters of positive real wages growth. That's what we're doing about the cost of living. We're bringing prices down by reducing inflation and increasing wages to help families make ends meet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Cybercrime 143 17:31 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I move: That this House: (1) recognises that the National Anti-Scam Centre's second quarterly report shows that scam losses from October to December 2023 reduced by 43 per cent from the same quarter in 2022, and 26 per cent from the July to September 2023 quarter; (2) observes that these results are a complete reversal of the trend, which saw scam losses double and double again between 2019 and 2022; and (3) commends the Government for delivering on its commitment to combat scams and online fraud by investing $86.5 million in a coordinated, whole-of-government approach, including: (a) establishing the National Anti-Scam Centre under the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; (b) launching Australia's first SMS Sender ID registry to prevent scammers imitating trusted brands; and (c) boosting Australian Securities and Investments Commission's investment scam disruption activities, enabling it to identify and take down investment scam and phishing websites. Our embrace of digital technology in this modern world is remarkable, but it does not come without challenges. Among the most difficult of them is the increased penetration of scams via calls, text, links and emails. While anyone can be the victim of a scam, I am sure most in this chamber have accidentally opened a message thinking it was actually sent by Australia Post or CommBank. We know that scams disproportionately impact vulnerable Australians. Last year, it was reported that people aged 65 and over made the most reports and lost more money than any other age group. In addition, nearly 10 per cent of total reported losses were from people of CALD backgrounds and almost six per cent were people with disability. In a split second, people in our community lose anywhere between hundreds of dollars and thousands of dollars, often forever. In fact, the average loss from a scam is around $20,000—a significant loss, especially considering the average household has about $34,000 in savings. When the Albanese government took office in May 2022, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scams. I am proud that the Albanese government was bold in its approach to fight scammers and has followed through on its ambitious election commitment. In last year's budget alone, the government allocated $86.5 million towards reducing this modern menace. A significant chunk of this funding was directed towards the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre, or NASC, which is the government's primary weapon to detect, disrupt and deter scammers and also to tackle online fraud. It's a world-leading partnership between government, agencies, banks, telcos and digital platforms that leverages combined expertise in cutting-edge technology to share intelligence to interrupt scams in real time. For example, in January, the NASC reported that one consumer was alerted to an impostor bond scam identified by a fusion cell, prior to transferring around $300,000. Thankfully, the consumer received a warning and discovered that he was being conned during the late stage of the scam. NASC is also tasked with raising consumer awareness on the risks of scams and how to avoid them, a role it takes very seriously. Even within a year of commencement, the NASC is delivering results. Since it was established, in July last year, scam losses have reduced significantly. This is a positive sign that the Albanese government's plan to crack down on scammers is working. Notably, the NASC's recent quarterly report shows that scam losses from October to December 2023 reduced by 43 per cent compared to the same quarter in 2022. This is a complete reversal of the trend which saw scam losses double and double again between 2019 and 2022. In addition, the budget made funding available to establish Australia's first SMS Sender ID Registry to help prevent scammers from imitating trusted industry or government brand names, meaning we will know that a text is from myGov or Australia Post only if the text message header reflects that. The funding also boosted work by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to identify and take down investment scam websites, and ASIC has taken down over 5,000 websites since July last year. While these strides in ensuring e-safety and combatting scams are significant, the government is aware that there is more to do. As a result, the Albanese government has committed to introducing tough new codes which will require businesses to have measures in place to prevent and report scams. In addition, the onus is on us as members of parliament to drive awareness of scams and provide tips for their prevention within our communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T Is the motion seconded? Ms Byrnes 299145 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:37 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Scams are a crime as old as time, but they're worse now than ever before. Who isn't familiar with texts pretending to be from trusted organisations like Australia Post, with dodgy links that will steal your credit card details, or automated calls supposedly from the ATO threating fines or legal action if you don't pay on the spot? These organised criminals—because that's what scammers are—are targeting Australians every day. They use lies, forgery and deception to steal money from people, people who quite often are just trying to do the right thing. In 2022 Australians lost more than $3 billion to scams. That's right—$3 billion stolen from families already doing it tough, community groups trying to make their neighbourhood a better place and local businesses trying to get by. Earlier this year I met Nina, a resident of Wodonga in my electorate. In 2022 Nina had $11,600 stolen by a 'Hi Mum' scam. Nina's daughter was travelling overseas, so when a text arrived from an unknown number explaining that she'd broken her phone, it made complete sense. Nina said that the texts that followed used the sort of language that she and her daughter would use in their text messages and conversations, and the messages continued over several days. Understandably, Nina was absolutely devastated, saying: … we worked so hard for this and then these thieves just steal your money and there seems to be no repercussions. Sadly, Nina's story is all too common, with more than $7.2 million stolen from Australians by the 'Hi Mum' scams in recent years. These were parents, grandparents and friends who were targeted by criminals for trying to help family or friends who were in trouble, something we would do without thinking. Nina and others like her want certainty that this government is focused on making sure there are repercussions for scammers and that consumers are protected by their banks. I agree, because scams are evolving; they get more and more sophisticated every day. Today even amateurs can create convincing deepfakes with only a few seconds of footage gleaned from social media. What parent can confidently say they wouldn't be vulnerable to a recording or video of their son or daughter, almost indistinguishable from the real thing, saying that their car is broken down and they need cash or that they've lost their passport in a foreign country and need help? I won't stand here and say that it couldn't happen to me, because it absolutely could. Let me be clear: Australians from all walks of life are vulnerable to scams, which is why I'm pleased that the National Anti-Scam Centre has reported a reduction in scam losses. But these encouraging figures only relate to scams that are actually reported. In 2022, the ACCC estimated that 30 per cent of scam victims never report the crime to anyone and only 13 per cent report the scam to the ACCC. While the recent figures are encouraging, it's clear that there is still a huge problem. What I hear loud and clear from Nina and the Consumer Action Law Centre is that Australians are being left to fight this onslaught of scams on their own. Nina says that 'there is inadequate legislation in place to protect consumers, and the banks are leaving their customers in the cold'. So it's clear that the government can't delay its scams code framework any longer. The proposed framework will create minimum consistent obligations for businesses to prevent, detect, disrupt and respond to scams. I support a strong framework because for too long it's been up to individuals to carry all of the risk and all the consequences. Nina and her supporters want to see the banks forced to reimburse customers who are scammed. They believe that the banks will only step up and take this seriously when it's their money on the line. I wait to see whether this government will create a framework with teeth that will protect people like Nina—and protect people like the Wangaratta and District Men's Shed. They too succumbed to a scam and lost $25,000, I believe, and some of that money came from a Commonwealth grant. We had an enormous community event supported by all sorts of people from right across the Wangaratta community to help the Wangaratta men's shed recover their losses, and I'm glad to say we did. I look forward to welcoming the Assistant Treasurer to the lovely, beautiful town of Myrtleford, in my electorate of Indi. I'm very grateful to the minister for agreeing to come and do a workshop with us in June to discuss this really significant issue. I know people will come from far and wide to attend this. There is great concern about this in my community. It's really important. Scams are becoming more and more sophisticated every day, and they could be coming for any one of us. 17:42 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong One afternoon I found myself listening to Ben Fordham's podcast on 2GB and I heard the story of Paul Trefry. Paul was contacted via a text message by ANZ and advised that his business account had been compromised and that he just had two options to solve this: cancel his credit card or deposit his money into a new account. Paul transferred over $130,000 to a bank account owned by scammers. They had spoofed ANZ's SMS service and contacted customers hoping to trick them out of their hard earned money. Paul's story is just one of many from victims of scammers. Since I've been raising this issue in my capacity on the House Economics Committee, I've heard countless heartbreaking stories of people falling victim to scammers and I've learned that anyone can fall victim to these heinous criminals. When the Albanese government came to office, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scammers. Online, text message, phone and in-person scams were the main ways that Aussies lost money. Disturbingly, the amount lost to scams had doubled each and every year from 2019 to 2022. We came to government and we took action. As a government, we have established the National Anti-Scam Centre, we've rolled out Australia's first SMS Sender ID registry to stop the spoofing which Paul was subjected to and we've bolstered the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's capacity to shut down fraudulent websites. The government have made significant inroads, but of course we know there's more to do. We came to government with an ambitious, aggressive antiscam agenda, and the results prove that we are delivering on our commitment to combat scammers. In last year's budget, $86½ million was invested into some of the programs mentioned earlier. I've had the opportunity to see how fostering collaboration across industries, through the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre, is vital in combating scams. The necessity for a cohesive approach was particularly highlighted during our discussions in open public hearings with the big four banks, where it was apparent that each bank had its own approach to addressing scams. However, the data and experts showed consistently that these disparate strategies were insufficient. It has become clear that industry players must align with regulatory bodies such as the ACCC and ASIC to form a unified front against scammers. The collaborative effort is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of current antiscam measures in safeguarding the interests of consumers. Since July last year the losses we've seen from scams have started to come down. The National Anti-Scam Centre's recent quarterly report highlighted a 43 per cent reduction in scam losses in the last quarter of 2023 compared to the same period of previous years, signalling a promising trend reversal. However, recognising the evolving and cyclical nature of scams, the government has committed to introducing stringent new codes outlining the responsibilities of the private sector to deal with scam activities. Banks, telecommunications providers and digital messaging and social media platforms will be required to implement measures to detect, disrupt and prevent scams, underlining a more aggressive stance against these fraudulent activities. Where these essential service providers fall foul of these codes they will be forced to pay, as they should. While the banks and telcos are seemingly working with the government on this code, it's clear from advice I've received and from discussions I've had that digital and social media platforms are not doing enough. They often attract plenty of attention by scammers through their messenger services and they simply must step up to the challenge we all face. Digital messaging and social media services simply cannot wipe their hands of this responsibility. On telecommunications: the government has pioneered the first SMS ID register. That has been successful and it's an innovative measure to curtail scammers' abilities to masquerade as ANZ, Linkt or myGov by falsifying sender IDs. We're taking a number of serious measures to combat scams. For too long this was put in the too-hard basket and it's clear that the market has failed to step in where it needs to. Under the leadership of the Assistant Treasurer, we'll put up this code and get some action. 17:47 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise to support the member for Holt's motion regarding the scourge of scams in our community. I do support the government's commitment to combat scams through investment in a whole-of-government approach. However, I continue to hear from people in my electorate of Kooyong who have, through no fault of their own, lost thousands—and, occasionally, millions—of dollars to organised criminals in sophisticated scams. So I'm concerned that the government's claims of success in addressing this issue may have been overstated. The National Anti-Scam Centre data is likely only the tip of the scams iceberg. It only captures those scams which are reported to the ACCC's Scamwatch, a process involving a time-consuming online form. It doesn't include scams reported solely to other agencies, such as the police, the banks or even the telcos. In fact, ABS data for the 2023 financial year indicates that only 8.7 per cent of people who experience a scam report it to a government organisation or department. Furthermore, the NASC quarterly report likely underreports small-scale scams which affect large groups of Australians. These are scams like online buying and selling schemes; these are on the rise compared to investment scams, which are in decline. And compared to the September 2020 third quarter, scams in culturally and linguistically diverse communities are up by 82 per cent. I'm really concerned that not enough is being done to protect vulnerable communities, such as the 31,000 Chinese Australians in my electorate. Clearly, the problem of scams has not gone away, so I'm calling on the government to do more: firstly, by introducing a mandatory contingent reimbursement scheme for banks to ensure that blameless scam victims are fully reimbursed; and, secondly, by ensuring that scammers can no longer impersonate the telephone numbers of legitimate businesses and agencies, particularly banks. The Australian Communication and Media Authority, ACMA, is implementing a voluntary SMS sender ID registry. I feel this registry has to be mandatory for organisations that use SMS sender IDs. For example, HSBC customers have been targeted by sophisticated bank impersonation scams since at least April 2023. Recently I was alarmed to learn that HSBC's phone number in Australia is still in use by scammers who continue to pray on citizens, like the couple from Canterbury in my electorate, who were recently defrauded of nearly $50,000 after receiving a phone call from someone who claimed to work for the HSBC fraud team. My constituent said: 'He was very convincing and very well spoken. He knew my name, number, transaction limit, and the last four digits of my credit card number. He knew information that only the bank could know. So there was no reason for me to believe that I was talking to anyone other than the HSBC.' The scammer sent text messages to her. These appeared to be from HSBC, as they were on the same text thread as the previous messages she had received from the bank. He took control of the account and then conducted unauthorised transactions. His ability to do so relates not to any failure of my constituent but to the lack of security features at HSBC. Her husband was alerted to the unusual transaction and he called HSBC straightaway asking them to suspend their accounts. That was four minutes after the first initial fraudulent transfer. It was only minutes before a second fraudulent transfer, which still went through. My constituents report that HSBC has consistently ignored the request for an update on their case in recent times and that they've waited more than two months to be assigned a case manager at AFCA. That is not reflective of a functional scam response system. The government's efforts to tackle scams are encouraging, no doubt. But we have to do more to strengthen our banking and telecommunication systems, resist the growing levels of organised crime behind scams, protect our constituents and give them back their faith, not just in our banks but also in our telecommunications systems. These changes have to include mandates for our banks to always act effectively and resolutely to protect their customers. 17:52 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to speak on this very important private members motion on scams and different ways of siphoning money from people using our telcos, our internet, our social media et cetera. Recently I had a scam forum in my electorate, where we were joined by about 80 people. I asked everyone in that room who had been scammed. Nearly a quarter of the room put their hand up. I was quite surprised by that. These were people who were quite intelligent, people who had professions, people who were pensioners—there was a whole cross-section. One of the things to remember is that, if something comes up on your phone asking you to press a button or to send or to okay, always take a moment to think about what it is. If you're unsure or you have a bad feeling about it, don't do it. Speak to someone; show it to someone et cetera. Recently I received a phone call from a supposed associate of mine whom I've known and met at different conferences overseas over the years. He's a member of parliament in Argentina. I received a call saying that he was coming to Adelaide on an emergency to see his sister who had tragically been killed in an accident in Adelaide. I asked the question: why is he ringing me? They were supposedly stuck in the Philippines in transit to Adelaide and wouldn't let him go without paying for a visa in the Philippines for a thousand euros. It was very convincing because this person had the association and the conference that we had attended together. This person also had names of people who were at the conference with us. In the end, I wouldn't agree to it, and they said they would get him to ring me. They did get this particular person to ring me. It wasn't the politician that I knew in Argentina. I couldn't remember his voice, because we'd only met on a number of occasions in the last 10 years and he had a very heavy Spanish accent. At that point, we decided to make an inquiry—and I was willing to help because I knew this person—to his office in Buenos Aires, and we were told, 'No, he is here in his office.' That is the extent that they go to. How did this person connect all of this? He had gone on to the website of this conference that takes place every two years in Athens and had seen photographs of me and him and other people who had been attending the conference on a regular basis, connected it all and just tried to devise this scam. That's how elaborate they there. So beware. If something doesn't feel right, check and then check again. I was very lucky not to have US$1,000 siphoned out of me that day. Scams happen a lot, and many people don't report them as well. Research shows that, despite the prevalence of scams in Australia, 33 per cent of Australians who fell victim to a scam did not report it due to various factors, including 44 per cent feeling like it was their fault, 33 per cent believing that it wouldn't be worth the effort and 26 per cent feeling embarrassed or ashamed. When I talk to victims, I want them to know: don't blame yourself. Scams can happen to anyone, with no exceptions. They should be reported. This government is tackling scams. Last year's budget set aside $86.5 million to set up the National Anti-Scam Centre to stop scams in their tracks and to create Australia's first SMS sender ID registry to stop scammers from impersonating trusted brands. It's helped ASIC take down over 5,000 investment scam websites since July last year. The NASC is the government's primary weapon to detect, disrupt and deter scammers. The NASC brings together government experts with private sector partners like banks and law enforcement to stop scams in their tracks, using the latest technology. Just last month the NASC saved someone from losing $300,000 to a fake bond scam. It also educates people about scams and how to keep safe. Scams impact our entire country and we need to stop them. We need to do everything possible to do so. 17:57 Ms LE 295676 Fowler We've just heard from members in the House today about the rise of scams and the devastating impact they have on individuals. Across my electorate of Fowler and, as we've heard, across the country, we are hearing about people falling victim to phishing and spoofing scams, with scammers impersonating organisations such as banks and providers to access their money and steal their identity. Some of the stories are just horrific. A constituent came to see me distressed that she had lost $50,000 from a bank account shared with her family. This was her whole entire life savings gone. As you can imagine this financial setback led to significant mental distress and psychological anguish as she struggled to find support and plan forward. Another constituent was scammed out of $49,000 which was intended to be used for a knee replacement surgery for her mum. We are talking about people who have worked so hard to save this kind of money and, suddenly, it's all gone. Not only did this constituent lose money but it also impacted on her ability to work due to mental stress and, as you can only imagine, the shock. In addition, she didn't know where to turn to and there was limited support to recall these funds, which left her overwhelmingly troubled and plagued with uncertainty. A Vietnamese-speaking constituent requested assistance after losing $200,000 from her joint bank account with her husband. She was distraught and contacted our office daily, seeking updates and further information. In aiding and facilitating communication between the constituent and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, our office had to provide translation of the responses since she was unable to read and understand them herself. These stories are just a few I wanted to share, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, more. They are now becoming so normal it's scary. How can we trust to share our information with institutions or to put our money in banks if these scam stories are popping up daily? Even on my own phone I get text messages from strange mobile numbers asking me to click on links either because so-called Australia Post has failed to deliver a parcel or I have failed to pay my Linkt toll account. In my Fowler electorate, home to more than 170,000 constituents, with over 150 ethnicities, my constituents are becoming highly susceptible to fraud and spoofing scams. Therefore I strongly call on the government to ensure that customised assistance and financial education be made available to non-English-speaking communities. With the cost-of-living crisis, many constituents in my area are desperate to get out of debt and alleviate their financial burdens. Much of the Fowler area falls within the first quintile of the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage, the lowest score, which indicates that the suburbs in Fowler are more disadvantaged and vulnerable to cost-of-living pressures compared to other electorates. Many scammers exploit this vulnerability and target individuals seeking relief from the rising costs of bills. I have raised my concerns with the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services about the need to tighten our privacy laws to prevent or at least de-escalate the rise in scams—in particular, how our personal data is harvested and sold on to third parties. I want to thank the minister for his time and engagement with me on the matter, especially when it comes to providing assistance to our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. I also recognise that the National Anti-Scam Centre has made significant strides in collaborating with law enforcement, governments and consumer groups to combat scams in Australia. I acknowledge that the National Anti-Scam Centre is a substantial step forward to addressing the gaps of protecting individuals from scammers. However, I must point out that there are still shortcomings regarding the language component. These scams are becoming more of a prominent presence in my Fowler community, and, with our demographic mostly consisting of non-English-speaking migrants, action must be undertaken to reduce the barriers to accessibility, starting with addressing the linguistic challenges. As long as I'm in this House, I will continue to work and advocate for a stronger focus on providing in-language assistance to those that struggle with understanding English, especially when it comes to our legislation. I emphasise that there must be a focus on inclusivity in education and that awareness of emerging scams be made available and accessible to both English-speaking and non-English-speaking citizens. It is my belief that, if this pain point is adequately addressed, constituents in my area will be better protected from scammers seeking to exploit them. 18:02 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I cannot think of a lower person than someone who targets vulnerable people in our community and scams them out of their hard-earned money. Instead of getting a job done and working hard to make money for themselves— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 18:35 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 As I was saying, instead of getting a job and working hard to make money for themselves, these scumbags think they have the right to lure people in and gain their trust and their bank details before stealing their money. Sadly, I see this all too often in my electorate. Regularly I have people who have been scammed come into my office. Not only have they lost almost everything that they have worked hard for, but they're also living in fear, worried it might happen to them again. This is the sad reality of the world we live in today, and urgent action is needed to make sure that fewer people are having to experience what it's like to fall victim to scammers. Recently I received a message on my Instagram from Michael Jackson. It may shock some of you, but, according to his message, he's apparently alive! But the poor bloke is doing it pretty tough, and he needs me to send him some money. Even though he signed off with a 'hee hee', of course I knew this was a scam. But not everyone can so easily identify what is and isn't a scam. Last year also saw a number of people, including some media outlets, fall for a scam that involved the Big Merino being moved from Goulburn to the Hunter Valley. Many scammers come up with ways to get your money that are a lot more creative and more brilliant than pretending to be Michael Jackson or moving a giant sheep, and too many people are being taken advantage of. Being scammed can impact more than just your money. I want to share with you the story of an older lady who came into my office not too long ago. She had been scammed and lost over $10,000. There was nothing she could do about that and the money, except to wait for the bank to go through their process. But the whole experience had such an impact on her that, during the weeks since the scam, she had been living in fear, worrying that every call could be a scam and not knowing who to trust. She explained to me that her whole life had been turned upside down. She went from being a confident social person to being someone who was cautious and often too worried to even leave her home. Stories like this one are the reason that this government has such a strong focus on preventing scams. Before we were in government, scams were rampant. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of people that were losing money from scams doubled not once but twice. In fact, when the Albanese Labor government came to office, Australians were losing over $3 billion a year to scams. What these figures show is that the work we're doing to tackle scams is actually working. According to the National Anti-Scam Centre's second quarter report, scam losses from October to December 2023 reduced by 43 per cent from the same quarter in 2022 and by 26 per cent from the July to September 2023 quarter. This means that more money is staying in the pockets of those who have worked hard for it. Our focus on this issue has been extensive. We've introduced a number of measures aimed at preventing scams and helping Australians to feel a bit more secure. This was one of our major commitments, and we have delivered on it. In total, we have invested over $86.5 million towards a coordinated whole-of-government approach which has seen the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre, under the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We have also introduced Australia's first SMS Sender ID registry to prevent scammers imitating trusted brands, and we've boosted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's investment in scam disruption activities, making them able to identify and take down investment scams and phishing websites. I am proud of the work that our government has done to prevent scams in Australia. Nobody deserves to have their hard-earned money stolen, and they certainly do not deserve the stress that comes with this situation. I hope the action we have taken as a government and the action that we'll continue to take helps people feel just a little bit more at ease when it comes to scams. So many are happening around at the moment. People just need to be aware. If it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. As much as 'Michael Jackson' would like to see my cash, with the little 'hee hee' at the end, he won't be seeing any of our money from the Hunter. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and please make sure you watch out for scammers. 18:40 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I'll follow on from the member for Hunter and say that there have been two scams on my phone today. You had 'Michael Jackson'; I had the 'port authority' or whatever it was telling me I hadn't paid my bill! The point is that the member for Hunter was very right and very clear when he said that the government has spent $86 million, planned over a number of years, to organise this operation. It's beginning to work, but it's not just government's responsibility. It's the responsibility of the individual, the telcos, the banks and anybody else who can do anything we possibly can as a nation, a people and a tribe—tribe Australia. It's your money, your money and your money. One fellow I read about here, after my staff did the research, was about to transfer $25 million. He is an executive—a CEO of an organisation. He was about to transfer, but he made a phone call to his own bank just before he transferred. They said, 'It's a scam.' My own family member was building a house, and there was a due payment to be made. It a considerable amount of money for the new house they were building, and it was to go to the builder. My brother-in-law was lucky. He knew the builder, who was a friend of his. He knew the daughter was away at the time. When he received the email, which was correct—the money and bank account were correct—it just had a different bank account to be paid into. He said: 'I'll pay it. No, no; I'll give George a ring.' So he gave George a ring. Sure enough, George said: 'No, I haven't changed my bank accounts. They're exactly the same as they were before.' My brother-in-law said, 'This is a definite change to another account.' He would have transferred a substantial amount of money to an organisation; it would have been gone, out of that account, in minutes. Another lady was insistent after a phone call. She was an older lady. She went through every one of her bank accounts and got all the money out, because that's what she'd been instructed to do. She took it to the Commonwealth Bank to bank it into this particular account. The Commonwealth Bank saved her. They said, 'This is a scam account you're paying into.' Embarrassed, she went back and put all her money back into the other accounts, even though the staff at the other banks had said: 'Are you being scammed? Are you being scammed? Are you being scammed?' Too many people are being scammed. These people are smart. And they find ways—whatever way they can. They know you well. When I say, 'They know you well,' I mean this. As somebody said, they had the last three digits of their bank card, their name, their wife's name, their children's names and associations they had, and they sounded just like the bank. They will send you documentation that mimics the bank's documentation. You would swear you're actually talking to the organisation that they say they are. I had a Telstra scam, and they had me on the line for 10 minutes before I thought, 'Hang on, why are you asking me these questions about accounts that I don't have?' Then I realised it was a scam. I just thought it was Telstra ringing me, being courteous and looking after me. I was being honoured and favoured. It's great to have them look after you. I do have proper phone calls from people that say: 'I'm your account manager from such-and-such a bank. You've got some money there; do you want to do something with it?' And it turns out they're legitimate. What we have to do, as a government, is ask, 'Righto, how can we best protect our people?' and actually put the work in. But it's not just about what the government can do, and it can't just be about the banks repaying everything that's lost, because then Australia would just become honeypot for them. They'd know that the banks would repay it, so they'd say, 'Let's get into Australia!' No, we have to be better than; we are better than that. We cannot afford to have $3,000 million taken out of our economy each year. It's money owned by decent individuals—smart, bright people. We can't do that! It has to change and it has to be a whole-of-government, whole-of-banks, whole-of-telcos and whole-of-everybody-else-involved-in-it thing to make the difference. This is our chance now to get onto these people, to make the difference and to make Australia a no-go zone for scammers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Live Sheep Exports 150 18:46 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide This government supports strong animal welfare standards and believes all animals should be treated humanely. The Labor Party went to the last two elections committed to the phase-out of live sheep exports by sea. When I say that, we didn't do this ad hoc; there was an outcry from the public. We've seen over the last 10 years many images on our TVs of animal cruelty on those ships. We've seen the suffering of these animals and people in my electorate have been crying out about it. I've never received more emails on any topic apart from this one. We know that the Labor Party wants to bring in this phase-out of live sheep exports, but to do so we need to bring people along with us. There's the need for a long period of discussions with farmers, industry et cetera to have the least impact on the industry. If we look at the industry at the moment, we know that, when it comes to meat exports, live sheep are only a small part of that. The majority of our meat goes out frozen to different parts around the world. We should also try to value-add to the industry. When I say 'value-add', if we go back 20 years in this country, in South Australia—in your home state, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, and mine—we had the Gepps Cross Abattoir, where nearly 3,000 people were employed over three shifts. They slaughtered animals for export. We can add value to the industry by ensuring that we slaughter animals here humanely, in a way that's within our control, and increase those export markets, therefore having a very small impact on sheep farmers. The independent panel has completed the public consultations it has been undertaking to inform the government of the how, what and when it might phase out live sheep exports by sea appropriately. The panel undertook consultations to ensure that all stakeholders had an opportunity to have a say in this particular outcome. In the consultations, the panel engaged with over 2,000 attendees at in-person forums and 330 attendees at virtual forums. These were held over 80 meetings with organisations and farmer representative groups. The panel received over 800 submissions and 3,300 responses. This government has invested millions into agriculture: $3.1 billion to protect and grow our virtual agriculture, fisheries, forestry and industries. Sheep farming is no different. We want to ensure its survival, and there are ways of doing that in a manner which doesn't upset the industry in terms of its exports. As I said, at the moment we're seeing minimal meat being exported in that live sheep cargo. We need to value-add to this industry. We need to do everything we can to assist abattoirs. We need to create new abattoirs in the country to employ people and to value-add. We know for a fact that one particular country that we're exporting to has one of the biggest slaughterhouses in the Middle East. They slaughter the live sheep that we export to them and export them all over the Middle East as boxed frozen meat packages. Why can't we be doing that here in this nation? Why can't we ensure that people who want our meat can receive it? You might talk about refrigeration and a whole range of other things as well, but the reality is that it is minimal. The live sheep exports are minimal when it comes to exporting meat across the country. And we want to see animals stop suffering. When you see thousands and thousands of sheep on these ships—and we've seen all the images on TV and in the newspapers—every Australian will tell you that they are cruel images. We want to see value-adding to help farmers be able to export more meat, ensuring that it's done in a humane way and in a way that most people would accept and that is not cruel to those animals. 18:51 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to support the member for Grey's motion condemning the Albanese government for its reckless decision to shut down Australia's live sheep export industry. I acknowledge that the member for Grey is, indeed, here with me in the chamber. I want to begin my contribution to this debate by thanking all of the members of the Coalition's Agriculture, Water and Environment Backbench Committee for visiting Western Australia and listening to our farmers who really are under attack—a visit, I might add, that the Prime Minister is yet to make. We had members from this side of the House travelling from New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. And what this trip really demonstrates is the unity of our coalition team. All of us on this side of the House are committed to the future of agriculture in this country and understand that the live sheep trade is an important component of that future. This reckless decision significantly affects communities within my electorate of Durack as well as farmers across the electorate of O'Connor, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the member for O'Connor for his advocacy as well. As noted in the report, the decision to phase out the live sheep trade has already had a disastrous impact, with confidence in the industry being destroyed. As a result, local markets have been overwhelmed and prices have dropped significantly. Farmers are struggling to sell their sheep above the price of freight and, in some cases, have had to make the tragic decision to sell their sheep at a loss or kill and bury them on their own farms. Could you imagine how heartbreaking that must be for those farmers? The number of farmers deciding to quit raising sheep altogether is progressively increasing, which has left communities within my electorate reeling. At the York committee hearing, we heard from Karen Thomas, the president of the York Business Association. Karen is a relatively new resident to York but has quickly picked up on Labor's bias against regional Australia. Although not directly connected to the industry, she said this decision will affect the town's long-term future. We also heard from Gavin Hagboom, a proud fifth-generation farmer from Dowerin, who said he is currently witnessing the demise of his own community with the town struggling to keep its general store open. These are heart-wrenching stories. We are literally talking about towns that have been around for well over 100 years vanishing before our eyes, and those opposite are directly responsible. I see we have a few Labor members to speak on this motion. I hope they are so committed to phasing out this industry that they read this report and what it means for regional Western Australia. I hope they comprehend exactly what they are doing. What adds insult to injury is that this decision has been falsely justified. Our live export industry is leading the world in terms of animal welfare. Over the past several years, multiple actions have been taken to ensure that exporters are meeting the highest possible standards, so high in fact that the onboard mortality rates are often better than on the farm. What do those opposite think will happen if our industry collapses? Foreign markets certainly won't move to frozen supply from Australia. Instead, foreign competitors who don't care at all about animal welfare will fill the void, so not only will Western Australian farmers suffer but so will the animals. I'd also like to note the timely fashion of this report being delivered, so well done to the member for Grey. Despite only visiting regional Western Australia just a few short weeks ago, the committee has been able to table this report today. If only the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry worked to such a timely schedule. As we know, the independent panel delivered their report to the minister in October, and it has still not seen the light of day. I expect it's gathering dust as we speak. The independent report is supposed to detail potential mechanisms to phase out live sheep exports, a suggested time frame and potential ways to support the transition. I'd like to conclude by reflecting on the words of David Connolly, the outgoing president of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, speaking on the latest delays—can you believe it?—to the class action lawsuit against the Gillard government's actions in shutting down the live export of cattle overnight in 2011, when he said that this government is 'hell-bent on punishing the rural sector'. I couldn't agree more. Once again, we see the needs and the desires and the livelihoods of regional Australians being put under threat just to satisfy the desire to get votes from the inner-city Greens. 18:56 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The Albanese Labor government is committed to phasing out live sheep exports. Over many years, I've advocated tirelessly for an end to this trade. In doing so, I've always wanted an outcome that supports farmers and, importantly, delivers better animal welfare outcomes. I'm proud that the Albanese government has a plan and is working with farmers and the agricultural sector to deliver a sensible transition away from live sheep exports. I know that, for many of my constituents, a ban cannot come soon enough. They know that the live exports industry has declined by more than 90 per cent from its peak. In its place, the export of frozen and chilled product has significantly increased. According to Meat and Livestock Australia, last year was the biggest year on record for frozen lamb and mutton exports, and the latest ABS data reveals that frozen product is now 58 times the value of live sheep exports by sea. This data reflects the fact that there are alternatives—alternatives that add value but also mean that tens of thousands of sheep are not left confined in their own waste, having to endlessly endure the motion of a ship and, at times, unbearable heat, not just for a day, not just for a week, but for several weeks at a time. None of us want to see another crisis like what happened on the MV Bahijah. At markets, in cafes, on my morning walks, people are coming up to me concerned and upset about the live sheep export trade. I've had countless phone calls and hundreds and hundreds of emails from constituents who have told me it's time to phase out the trade. I want you to know that I hear you and I stand with you in advocating for a sensible phase-out of live sheep exports. In my home state of Victoria, we no longer have a live sheep export industry, and, as the member for Fremantle has said in this place, live exports make up less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural exports as a whole and less than two per cent of sheepmeat exports. To put it simply, it is an industry in decline. But we must support our farmers in transition. Australians recognise this, and they now have a government that will stand firm on this issue, an issue that has plagued our nation for too long. All the way back in 1985, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare concluded that, if a decision on the future of the trade were made on animal welfare grounds alone, there was enough evidence to stop the trade. Of course, economic circumstances were different then. The trade was much bigger and stood as a cornerstone of our agricultural industry. But things are different now, and they have been for the best part of a decade. A decade of coalition government has ignored the issue altogether. Although for the briefest period of time the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the now shadow education minister, Senator Henderson, demanded a ban on live sheep exports, they quickly abandoned their convictions and sided with their coalition colleagues and stood in the way of a bill to ban the trade. I know that the people of my electorate of Corangamite remember this very well. How different things could have been! Our communities demanded action, and they were denied action, but this government is listening and it is acting. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The minister is working through the details of the report, and I know there has been much consultation with the agricultural sector, and recommendations will be forthcoming. In closing I'd like to recognise the continued advocacy of the member for Fremantle, who has stepped up on this issue. He has been consistent in his calls over many years for a phase-out of live sheep exports, and he recently moved a motion in response to the MV Bahijah crisis. I want to see the sensible end of the live sheep export trade as soon as possible. I want farmers to be involved in the transition so that there are avenues to ensure that their livelihoods are supported. This is why it is taking time. The minister is working hard on this. We as Labor are committed to the end of live sheep exports and we will deliver on this. 19:01 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I don't have a live sheep export industry in my electorate, but I am a supporter of agricultural industries and I like to see them thrive. I think they're important for regional Australia. However, I grew up on a cattle farm and worked on another cattle farm nearby, and people who haven't worked in that industry perhaps don't understand how connected you get to the animals. You really care for them, and their welfare is of paramount importance to you as a farmer, and that's the way it was for me. Given those two competing thoughts, when I had the opportunity to go to Western Australia, I went with an open mind. I joined the coalition policy backbench to visit Adelaide and discuss some things in relation to South Australia, but, then in Western Australia—we went to Wagin, Hyden, Katanning, York and Fremantle, where we saw a live export ship—I went with an open mind, so I want to talk about what I found as someone who went with an open mind. Firstly, there has been huge reform in the industry, and there needed to be. That reform has addressed animal welfare in a really significant way in relation to airflow, drainage, spacing, food and water, separation of sick animals in transit, vessel compliance and mortality rates. These days, mortality rates are better on ship than in the field on some of the farms that we saw in Western Australia. There's been a moratorium on shipments during the northern summer to address that heat issue. All of this has meant that, when there was a problem—I say 'problem', but it was caused by a geopolitical issue—and a ship that was out to sea for quite a while had to be unloaded, the sheep on that were on that ship had actually put on weight and were in better condition than when they left. I think that speaks to the way that these people care about these animals. Australia's live sheep export industry is an important issue for Western Australia in particular, employing more than 3,500 people. It's worth $85 million in direct payments to producers, and, with the multiplier effect, that's close to $300 million. The other thing I'd like to say is that there is a market for live sheep exports to the Middle East. That's not going to stop based on what the Australian government decides. The Middle East will source their live sheep from somewhere. The question we've got to ask ourselves is: is it better that they source them from a country with now world-leading animal welfare standards, or should they get them from other places such as Sudan, Somalia, India, Iran and Georgia, where the animal welfare standards aren't as good? I think that's an important issue. I was also prepared to ask the question—it's been brought up by some of those opposite, and it's a conclusion that you might jump to—about why we don't just build more abattoirs and produce more meat products that we can freeze or send as fresh meat overseas. It doesn't quite work like that. It's not quite as simple as that. The live sheep industry is sort of an overflow industry. When there's an abundance of sheep and the commodity prices line up, it's a very attractive market, but sometimes that doesn't happen. The upshot is—people who have analysed this say—that, if we did build an abattoir to try and take all of this extra meat processing on board, it would probably be closed for half of the year and would not be profitable. So 'why don't we just build more abattoirs and process more meat' doesn't quite work, and I didn't have a full appreciation of that until I talked to the producers involved and talked to people who actually analyse this industry and are involved in this industry all of the time. I close by saying that I went with an open mind. Animal welfare is really important to me, having previously been a cattle farmer. What I saw was incredibly impressive—what the industry has done to ensure the welfare of animals. It's an important industry economically. If we get out of it, then it will perversely lead to worse animal welfare across the globe because these Middle Eastern markets will source the sheep from places that don't care in the way that we care, and we should care. So I think it's a mistake to go down this path of trying to phase out the Australian live sheep industry, and I urge those opposite to reconsider. 19:06 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Australian farmers are renowned for their production of world-class food and meat. The Australian people know this, and so does the world, who have long enjoyed our farm and agricultural exports. There's no question that farming and agricultural industries are vitally important to our economy, and the Albanese Labor government is absolutely focused on supporting Australian farmers to continue exporting the quality produce that Australia and the world expects from us. That is our responsibility and that is what Australians want. But that doesn't mean we have to put up with animal cruelty. The live sheep export trade is cruel, and, with world-class abattoirs and meat-packaging facilities right here in Australia, it is unnecessary. The Albanese Labor government supports strong animal welfare standards. We believe that all animals should be treated humanely, and we have long been concerned about the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals aboard live export ships. And, when they arrive at their overseas destinations, we have little or no control over the conditions in which they live or indeed die. That's why we're committed to phasing out live sheep exports. This is of no surprise to anybody in this parliament. It's a commitment that we took to the Australian people; we were very upfront about that at the last election. At the turn of the century, the live sheep export industry was absolutely booming in Australia. There were 6.5 million sheep being sent overseas for slaughter. But, for years now, Australians have seen and heard horrific stories of sheep stranded for weeks and months at sea on board ships, often lacking adequate ventilation, in scorching temperatures, unable to sit, sometimes drowning at sea and even drowning in their own excrement. And we've seen shocking footage of the most unbelievable and inhumane cruelty occurring when they arrive at their overseas destinations. Over the past 20 years, the numbers of live sheep exports have been in freefall, declining by more than 90 per cent now. In the same time frame, the trade in Australian slaughtered and packaged chilled and frozen sheepmeat has increased by 369 per cent. Lamb alone has increased by 532 per cent. In 2022-23, chilled and frozen sheepmeat exports were a $4.5 billion industry. Live sheep exports in the same period were valued at $85 million. The statistics don't lie. The live sheep export industry is coming to an end. Farmers across Australia have increasingly recognised this, shifting towards chilled and frozen meat exports, and many are pivoting their businesses towards this high-value trade alternative. Animals are slaughtered and packaged in Australia under strict regulations that ensure adherence to Australian animal welfare standards. Jobs that that expanding chilled and frozen meat export industry creates remain on Australian soil—employing Australians and profiting Australia. And farmers know that this growing industry means greater certainty for their future too. The Albanese Labor government knows this phase-out will affect the export industry, as well as others across the supply chain, including farmers and communities that rely on the trade. That's why Labor is committed to supporting those affected through the transition. This is why we have appointed an independent four-person panel to consult with stakeholders and develop an orderly transition plan. That will be executed across several years, and we are considering the recommendations of their extensive review to inform those next steps. We are exploring options to upscale domestic meat-processing capacity and, through this, to employ more Australians to produce value-added products for our export markets and, ultimately, not to increase the price for everyday Australians, who are already facing cost-of-living pressures. By phasing out live sheep exports, the Albanese Labor government is showing leadership in this area that is long overdue. I know this will be welcome news to Novocastrians, as it is to many Australians around the country, who not only want an end to animal cruelty but want to see more jobs remain in Australia for Australians. It's a sensible, reasonable and humane way forward, and we as a government are proud to be taking these important steps towards ending this cruel and unnecessary trade. 19:11 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Together with, amongst others, the members for Grey, Nicholls and O'Connor, I travelled to Adelaide and Western Australia between 5 March and 8 March to hear firsthand of concerns from those most impacted by Labor's dreadful decision to phase out animal exports. As a result of that trip, we have prepared a report, together with submissions. I seek leave to tender that report. Leave granted. Mr PASIN 240756 I am grateful to my friends. We sought that leave in the House and were denied it, so I'm grateful. Labor have obviously reconsidered their position. I must congratulate them on that because there was vehement opposition to the tendering of that material previously, which was consistent with the Labor Party's approach to the consultation with stakeholders and others. The member for Newcastle was just talking about how upfront those opposite are with respect to the phase-out. If they were so upfront, they would not be denying the numerous requests we have made to the minister to release the report to stakeholders, farmers and industry groups. The reality here is that the Australian people deserve to know what the impact of this decision will be. It's perhaps timely that we talk about the impact of this decision because we are still dealing with the consequences of the knee-jerk reaction to ban live cattle export during the period of the Gillard government. Over the weekend, a scathing press release was issued by the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association. This speaks directly to the impact on lives. On his departure, the outgoing president of the NTCA, David Connolly, said: 'Too many of our friends have already gone to their graves waiting for the compensation. This was money that was stolen from our families and businesses by the actions of the Gillard government. This compensation is not the reward for being right; it's justice for having been wronged.' Here we are more than a decade later and those opposite are seeking to perpetrate the same wrong, this time not on the cattlemen of the Northern Territory but on the sheep meat producers of this country. As we toured, in particular, Western Australia, the seats of O'Connor and Durack, those areas most impacted, I could see the wrong being perpetrated in the expressions of these people who were attending these meetings. They were, quite frankly, desperate. They have done every single thing this government, this parliament and the industry have asked of them. They have got death rates on these ships down to less than 0.2 of one per cent. For those opposite, who might not be in the practice of raising livestock, I can tell you that a survivability rate in that order is something you could expect out in a paddock. I thought I knew most things about this debate. I have been around agriculture for a long time. This has been a perennial point of discussion. But something on this trip stuck with me, and I want to share it with those opposite. Those opposite think that by bringing in the phase-out they'll end live sheep exports globally. No, they won't. All they'll do is punish Australian farmers, who won't be able to participate in that trade. The reality is that the world will still demand live sheep. Many jurisdictions around the world demand this for cultural and logistical reasons. Those opposite are just saying to Australian producers: 'Sorry, you're not going to be able to participate in that.' In the early 2000s I attended the Mount Gambier cattle market. I was having a discussion about animal welfare, and an old farmer, who's no longer with us, said to me: 'Tony, what you need to be more focused on is human welfare, famer welfare.' People receive prices that are below the level that anyone should expect for the work they do. The reality is that this decision is having a detrimental impact on the value of live sheep everywhere in Australia. Sheep meat producers in my electorate are being punished by this decision. Sheep meet producers in the member for Grey's electorate are being punished, and for no good reason. For the benefit of those opposite, I repeat: this industry has done every single thing this parliament has asked it to do. It has made those difficult decisions, exercised in accordance ESCAS, but for those opposite it's: 'Not good enough—you're out of business.' (Time expired) 19:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of members opposite when they speak on behalf of the farmers they represent, and I have no doubt that many of those farmers are genuinely struggling. But I would make two points in that respect. Firstly, this policy has not yet taken effect, so to argue that farmers are struggling because of an end to the live sheep export trade is absolute nonsense and, quite frankly, dishonest. The policy is one that Labor has committed to, but it has not come into effect as yet. The industry has been on a decline for a long time. Secondly, I say to members who say that we have the best standards in the world: yes, that may be so, but those standards still can't guarantee the safety of those sheep, as evidenced by MV Bahijah incident only this year. Even with the best standards in the world, for reasons beyond the control of the exporters, the sheep ended up suffering. I'll come back to that in a moment if time permits me, but I have other examples to refer to. Back in 1980, under a liberal government, the trade to Egypt was suspended because of animal welfare concerns. As a result of that there was a Senate committee inquiry, which the member for Corangamite alluded to earlier on tonight. The committee was chaired by Queensland senator George Georges, and the committee's report said: … if a decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The committee, recognising the economic implications of stopping the trade, went on to recommend that the trade be phased out and replaced by the chilled meat trade. That was back in 1985, 40 years ago, so the industry has had four decades to transition out of— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 Member for Makin, I'm sorry; would you mind pausing? This is a small chamber. Could we please have silence in here? Other members were heard in silence. Thank you. Mr ZAPPIA HWB The industry has had four decades of notice to phase out the live sheep export trade. I will point out the incidents that have occurred over that time, and this is only a short list of what I was able to quickly gather. There was the Farid Fares in 1980, 40,000 sheep; the Uniceb in 1996, 67,000 sheep; the Cormo Express in 2003, 50,000 sheep; the Ocean Drover in 2012, 21,000 sheep; the Al Messilah in 2016, 3,000 sheep; the Awassi Express in 2017, 2,000 sheep; the Queen Hind in 2019, 14,000 sheep; the Al Kuwait in 2020—that's when we had the COVID debacle; and the MV Bahijah in 2024, 12,000 sheep. Most of the incidents I just quoted came after the implementation of the ESCAS conditions, which members opposite say are the best in the world. I agree that they are, but, even with those conditions, there is a litany of failures with respect to this trade. It has also been pointed out, separately to anything that any government has done, the reality is that this is a diminishing trade. Right now, we have an industry that's worth $4.5 billion. The value of live sheep exports, which are still carrying on right now, as we saw on the MV Bahija only two months ago, is 58 times less than the meat export trade. That's how much it has declined, particularly over the last two decades—with the first seven years of that under a coalition government. It was also a coalition government which supported the McCarthy review after the Philip Moss review. Both of those also highlighted serious concerns with the industry. Members ought to get a reality check about what has really been happening in this industry. There are alternatives. The argument that other countries don't have freezers and the like is simply nonsense today. That might have been true 40 years ago, but that is simply nonsense today. Even the now opposition's own deputy leader argued that this trade needs to come to an end and said that the live sheep trade is in terminal decline: Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on animal suffering. Those aren't my words, they're the words of their own deputy leader. New Zealand ended its trade in 2007. In 2023, New Zealand said, 'No more animal exports of any kind,' not just of sheep, of any kind, and that's what they agreed to only last year. It didn't kill their industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Home Guarantee Scheme 156 19:21 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I'm very pleased to speak on this private members' motion tonight about the Home Guarantee Scheme. I want to say that the Albanese government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. I think everyone here in this place would agree with that. As we approach 25 past seven or thereabouts, I know that many of us have been here since seven o'clock this morning so we're just about to clock over our 12.5 hours. Many Australians work 12-hour shifts, and I know that there's no pleasure like that of being able to go home, kick off your shoes, have a hot shower and a cup of tea, and be in your own home. Whether you're renting or paying off a mortgage, there's nothing like it. But in my electorate, I have approximately 600 people currently who have been declared homeless. Those are the official statistics, but we know that there are a lot more. I just want to start by saying that in 2024 I get so distressed at the thought of Australians not having a place to call their own—not having a safe place to lay down their heads, particularly children. I have women and children who have been given tents by some of our services—legitimately given tents to provide shelter. I have women and children who are seeking refuge in their cars, and it's just not good enough. Then we have a whole raft of people who are desperate to find rental accommodation, or to afford a home of their own. That's why I think it's so important that, as a government, we have put in place the Home Guarantee Scheme. It's why we want to take action by putting in place short-, medium- and long-term plans to tackle the challenges left behind after a decade of little action by the Liberal-National government. I can't help but think of some of the schemes that the previous government put in place. There was talk about renovating bathrooms and providing thousands upon thousands of dollars for renovations and things. That's not what people who don't have homes need; they need a home to start with. That's why this government has committed over $25 billion in new housing investments over the next decade. That includes the single-biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, with the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund now established. This is such an important piece of legislation. It's going to help deliver the government's commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in the fund's first five years, with applications now open. We're working with the states and territories to help them meet their new targets as well, and we want to build upon the Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes, to be matched by the states and territories. That's the point of this. We know we can't do this alone. As the federal government, it's something that we must work on with the states and territories, and local government as well, because we also need land to be released for appropriate housing development. We need more infill in areas where people have got big blocks, and we know we can build more homes. We know that we've got a lot of Australians who are currently rattling around on their own in big three- and four-bedroom homes. We need to come up with some new and novel ways of solving this. I remember in years gone past people used to take in boarders. It was quite a regular thing to do. I'm not sure that that is the solution, but we need to be thinking more creatively about how we house Australians. That's why this Home Guarantee Scheme is really good and novel, because it's going to help people—particularly people in the regions who are younger—who want to buy their first home. With the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, we have helped over 2,047 people already in the Hunter region, excluding Newcastle. Newcastle and Lake Macquarie have had another 2,000 people assisted. Programs like this are absolutely essential. Australians must have a home to call their own, whether they're renting or buying, and this government is hell-bent on helping deliver that. (Time expired) 19:26 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I've been in Adelaide—you were with me, Deputy Speaker Sharkie— when one of those services handed out a tent and some food to a family because they had completely run out of accommodation. This was three years ago now, when we didn't have the crisis we have today. What I'm hearing is that the Home Guarantee Scheme is another scheme from a federal government, when we should be, in my view, getting the money out to the state governments and telling them to get on with the job. They're the ones that are on the ground. The federal government is too far away from the action to be able to do this. What's happening in my state of Victoria is that one in five of the properties on the market are being sold by landlords because they're sick of the land tax and all the other taxes that they are encumbered with, to the point where they say: 'What's the use of having a rental? This used to be a good investment.' Forty-six per cent of the income of the state government of Victoria comes from property taxes, which the federal government have no control over whatsoever. They have no control over land development. They have no control over land release. They have no control over the opportunities that are there. Yes, if there is federal land that can be sold off for housing, sell it off, move it. If it's in the right place at the right time, please do that. But, for heaven's sake, all of these plans that I've seen over my 25 years of service in the parliament have all been 'a new plan', 'a new plan', 'a new plan'. Whether it's a revamped plan or a new plan I don't know, because the government don't tell us. They say, 'We've got a new plan.' Whose money are they using? Is it the money that was set aside in this budget, the last budget, the previous budget or the budget before that? I don't know, but it probably goes like this. A public servant walks in and says, 'We need a new name for the same plan'—the same plan that hasn't worked for a long time—'and this will take five years to implement.' You heard the member for Paterson when she said that, faced with this situation, they have a new plan. I think the public servant would have walked in and said, 'Minister, we need a new name for the old plan'—the same plan there was under the Liberals. Do you think that the Liberals, the Nationals and the Independents in this House were not dedicated to doing the best thing with regard to housing on behalf of their constituents? No. Every one of them wanted to do the best thing. The largest cohort of people becoming homeless are women over 50—in a country like Australia! And it's everywhere. It's in our regions and it's in our cities. Women over 50 are either couch surfing, sleeping in cars or going to agencies for help for overnight accommodation. Housing is a really important issue for people in Australia. In a rich country such as ours, we should be getting the stock out there. We might have to make some innovative and different programs, like dongas on blocks in a row, but just put people in decent housing. As the member for Paterson said, it's great to come home. I've never suffered homelessness, ever, and my children have never gone without a feed. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in the position that so many Australians are today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 31