2024-03-26 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 26 March 2024

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Migration Joint Committee, Northern Australia Joint Select Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received messages from the Senate informing the House that Senator McKim has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and that Senator Shoebridge has been appointed a member of the committee, and informing the House that Senator Allman-Payne has been discharged from the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia and Senator Cox has been appointed a member of the committee. BILLS 1 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024 1

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024

Returned from Senate 1 Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 1

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government is committed to strengthening Australia's migration system, making it better, stronger and fairer and ensuring it is working in Australia's national interest. The Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will provide the government with necessary tools to strengthen our immigration compliance framework, including to better manage immigration detention. A better, stronger and fairer approach This legislation has three components, it will: 1) Include an express statement of parliament's intent in the Migration Act 1958 that those noncitizens who have no right to be in Australia should leave voluntarily and, if they will not leave voluntarily, that they will cooperate with their lawful removal from Australia, and that other countries should cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful return of their citizens. 2) Make it a crime for individuals to not cooperate with the department on removal efforts where they have been given a direction to do something, with a penalty ranging from one to five years imprisonment. 3) Give the minister for immigration a new power to designate a country as a removal concern country where that country refuses to accept returns of their own citizens. This designation will prevent most nationals of that country who are outside Australia from making new Australian visa applications while that designation remains in force. There are currently noncitizens in Australia who have exhausted all visa pathways to stay in Australia, who have been found not to be owed protection, but who refuse to engage with their home county to undertake actions like applying for a passport or attending meetings with officials from that country. Unfortunately, examples of noncooperation with the government's removals efforts have been going on for far too long, against the expectations of the Australian community and undermining the integrity of our migration laws. The government is determined to address this issue and to ensure this key aspect of our immigration system is better, stronger and fairer. Put simply, we need these important tools to strengthen our migration system. E xpress parliamentary intention The bill sets clear legislative expectations in relation to the behaviour of noncitizens who are on a removal pathway into the Migration Act 1958. As amended, the act will make it clear that a noncitizen who is on a removal pathway is expected to voluntarily leave Australia and must cooperate with steps taken to arrange their lawful removal from Australia. When this legislation is enacted, it will make clear that the parliament expects foreign countries to cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of their citizens from Australia. D uty to cooperate with removal The bill also provides the minister with a power to direct certain noncitizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with removal efforts. Individuals considered 'removal pathway noncitizens' include: unlawful noncitizens (people without any visa, including those in immigration detention); bridging (removal pending) visa (BVR) holders; bridging (general) visa (BVE) holders who hold the visa on the basis of making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. This does not include BVE holders waiting for the outcome of a visa application, merits or judicial review; certain other noncitizens on a removal pathway who hold a visa that may be prescribed for these purposes in the Migration Regulations. This bill responds to circumstances where noncitizens are deliberately and unreasonably impeding or frustrating removal efforts. It provides an ability for the minister to give directions to certain noncitizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with and facilitate efforts to arrange and effect their lawful removal from Australia. This may include, for example, directing the noncitizen to complete, sign and submit an application for a passport or other foreign travel document to facilitate their removal from Australia. The bill also provides a power for the minister to give a removal pathway noncitizen a direction to do other things the minister is satisfied are reasonably necessary to determine whether there is a real prospect of removing the noncitizen becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, or to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia. The removal pathway direction provides a positive duty on the noncitizen to cooperate with removal efforts. This will be supported by mandatory criminal penalties for those found guilty of an offence of failing to comply with the direction. A failure to comply with a direction, without a reasonable excuse, will be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and a maximum available sentence of five years' imprisonment. I want to reiterate, these amendments are targeted at noncitizens who have come to the end of any visa application processes and who are on a removal pathway. These individuals may be unlawful noncitizens who have exhausted their visa processing options and who are being held in immigration detention. Or they may be in the community on a bridging visa that is issued for removal purposes. It is imperative that individuals who are on a removal pathway cannot be allowed to frustrate the government and the Australian people by refusing to cooperate with their removal from Australia. Appropriate s afeguards Importantly, this bill also contains appropriate safeguards in relation to the exercise of this power. The amendments provide for certain circumstances in which the minister must not give a direction, including: If the noncitizen has applied for a protection visa and the application is not yet finally determined. To take an action in relation to a country from which the individual is owed protection. Directly to children under 18 (but can make a direction to that child's parents to take certain actions), or To take actions related to making or withdrawing an Australian visa application, or in regards to court or tribunal proceedings. D esignation of a 'removal concern country' A further significant measure in the bill is a new personal power for the minister to designate a country as a country of removal concern, where the minister determines it is in the national interest to do so. A foreign country should cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of a noncitizen who is a national of that country. This amendment is necessary because, regrettably, some countries will not allow their nationals to return to their home country. This is unless the person being removed is voluntarily cooperating with removal efforts. The main objective of this designation is to gain the cooperation of that country in accepting and facilitating the removal from Australia of their citizens. The power to designate a country of removal concern is an appropriate and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of Australia's migration system. Designating a country as a removal concern country will have the effect of preventing new visa applications by most nationals of the designated country who are outside Australia, while the designation remains in force. That is until satisfactory arrangements can be established between Australia and that other country to cooperate in relation to removal efforts. It is recognised that there would be sensitive matters of bilateral concern needing to be considered before designation of a removal country of concern. This is why the legislation provides that the minister must consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs prior to making such a designation. There are appropriate exemptions in place to continue to allow visa applications from close family relatives of Australian citizens and eligible permanent residents. The minister will also have a power to exempt certain classes of people or some classes of visa to, for example, continue to respect any international obligations that Australia may have under trade or other multilateral arrangements in relation to that country. The designation of a country of removal concern will also not affect dual nationals who hold a valid passport from a country that is not a removal concern country. It's important to note that the United States has a similar system in place to suspend visa grants for what they refer to as 'recalcitrant countries'. And in 2022 the UK also legislated for a similar scheme, which allows the Home Secretary to suspend or delay visa processing from countries which do not cooperate with removal of their citizens from the UK, or deem visa applications from these countries as invalid. So what we are proposing is in line with similar countries around the world. Bridging visa scheme Finally, this bill contains amendments to allow for the improved administration of the bridging (removal pending) visa scheme established to manage the NZYQ-affected noncitizens. This includes amendments to clarify that a new BVR may be granted without application at any time to a current BVR holder—for example, where it may be appropriate to adjust the imposition of certain visa conditions to respond to a change in the level of risk the visa holder presents to the community. The bill also includes amendments to enable the minister to revisit a protection finding in certain circumstances, where a noncitizen who holds a visa—such as a BVR—is on a removal pathway. At present, it is only possible to revisit a protection finding under the act for an unlawful noncitizen. Following the High Court's decision in NZYQ, we now face circumstances in which this power needs to be expanded to certain noncitizens who hold a visa—particularly BVR holders. Without this amendment, the act would not provide a means to revisit a protection finding while a removal pathway noncitizen is in the community on a visa. If the government is to ensure that BVR holders and other noncitizens on a removal pathway are able to be removed as soon as it becomes reasonably practicable to do so, it is essential the minister has the ability to revisit protection findings. This legislation sends a strong signal about the government's expectations of cooperation with removal efforts, by noncitizens who are on a removal pathway, and by other countries where it's appropriate for them to accept their nationals on removal from Australia. The government and the Australian people expect that individuals subject to removal under the Migration Act will cooperate with removal. In conclusion, this bill gives the Australian government important new tools to make our migration system better, stronger and fairer for years to come. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour. BUSINESS 4 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4 12:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first Opposition speaker being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes; (2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay. I'd indicate to the House that, in a moment, while we have the debate on the contingent motion, the government will move an amendment to what's on the Notice Paper. That amendment is to make sure a few things happen. Firstly, and most importantly, it will make sure that this bill is fully dealt with before we get to question time. The reason for that is that there is a time sensitivity to this legislation, and we want to make sure that the Senate is in a position to be able to consider the bill today. Transmission between the houses means the only way to make sure that's possible is for us to have completed our consideration of the bill prior to question time. Secondly, and this is not on the contingent motion, there is the capacity for there to be a consideration-in-detail stage at the request of the opposition. We are making sure it that it will be possible for an amendment to be moved in consideration in detail, and that will be part of the amendment to the resolution that I've just moved. The minister has made clear the government's reasons for why this is time sensitive. We're wanting to make sure that both houses have an opportunity in the time that we are here this week to make the decisions that need to be taken in the national interest. I respect the different views around the parliament in terms of wanting to make sure that legislation is never dealt with in this fashion. I hear those arguments. I'm sure we'll hear those arguments again in a few moments time. The reality is that there is a strong national interest here. There is a particular time sensitivity, and there is a need to make sure that both houses have an opportunity to be able to deal with this issue prior to the parliament rising on Wednesday evening. I commend the motion to you, knowing full well it's about to be amended. 12:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh As foreshadowed by the Leader of the House, I move, as an amendment to the motion by the Leader of the House, that paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows: That paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows: (1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first two Opposition speakers being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes; (2) the second reading debate continuing without interruption for no longer than 40 minutes, questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill, after which the bill being considered in detail with the bill being considered as a whole, with all Government amendments to be moved together, all Opposition amendments to be moved together, and any crossbench Members' amendments to be moved as one set per Member, with: (a) one question to be put on all Government amendments; (b) one question to be put on all Opposition amendments; (c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; (d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; and (e) any question provided for under subparagraphs (2)(a) to (2)(d) being put after no more than five minutes of debate on each set of amendments; (3) at 1.40 pm, if debate has not concluded earlier, the question being put on any remaining questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill; and (4) automatic interruptions to business under the standing orders, and deferral of divisions, not applying during proceedings on the bill". 12:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Firstly, I wonder whether a written copy of the amendment to the contingent motion is available. It has not been made available to us. Secondly, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 not be resumed until the next day of sitting". This is extraordinary. Legislation was first made available and introduced to the parliament this morning. Usually it then gets deferred to another day so that people have time to consider it and make considered contributions. When we are talking about something so vital as the relationship between this parliament and the High Court, and the constitutional rights of people and what it means for immigration in this country, and when we see a bill that is introduced here that, in the time that we've had available to look at it, says in express terms 'even if someone has a genuine fear of persecution' they can be forced to do things that could see them put in jail if they're not prepared to go back to the country that they fear being persecuted in—we should have time to consider that and we should have time to debate that and scrutinise it. Despite what the Leader of the House said, nothing in the immigration minister's speech talked about the urgency of this. It was boilerplate rhetoric that could have been written by the coalition, about maintaining strong borders—and no doubt the coalition is going to get up and talk about how this was all there idea to begin with. Nothing was put forward that justifies us losing the usual rights that everyone in this parliament has to consider such important legislation. On our reading of the legislation, this could occur: a mum who refuses to sign a passport application for her children to be returned to Iran, where they have a fear of persecution, could be put in jail—not only could be put in jail but with a mandatory minimum sentence. Labor's party platform says Labor opposes mandatory minimum sentencing. No, you don't! It's in this bill! You're saying that someone who has a genuine fear of persecution for themselves or their kids can end up in jail—and not just once but repeatedly. As we read this bill, in the short time that we've had available to digest it, the minister can say: 'I give you a direction to apply for a passport for you and your kids to go back to a place where you have a genuine fear of persecution, and if you don't comply you get put in jail for a year, minimum.' I want to hear from the minister how he is going to explain what happens when the first woman who is sent back to Iran under this legislation gets put in prison and what happens when the first person who has fled Russia because of a fear of persecution gets sent back there and is no longer contactable. They're the kinds of things that everyone in this place deserves the time to consider and answer. What we do know—the only glimmer that we've had—is that there is a court case that is on foot where someone is fearing persecution on the basis of their sexuality and their religion. They've identified that; they've stuck their hand up and said that. And before even letting the court decide, the minister says: 'We now want the unilateral power to send you back to a country where you face persecution, where you have a genuine fear that you, yourself, are facing persecution. If you don't do it, we'll lock you up with a mandatory minimum sentence, because Labor has thrown that principle out the window.' This is Labor desperately trying to outflank the coalition in a race to the bottom on immigration, which is only going to whip up attacks on migrants and more racism in our community. I've got a lesson for the government, a piece of advice: don't try and engage in a race to the bottom with the Leader of the Opposition, because there's nothing he won't do. He has built his career on punching down and demonising people. To come in here and say, in a speech that could have been written by the Leader of the Opposition himself, 'We are tough on borders'—no. It'll be this today and it'll be something else tomorrow. We were in exactly this position last year, we're in this position now and we're going to be in this position again and again. If you want to know why Labor's vote went backwards at the last election, why the coalition's vote went backwards and why you have more third voices here than ever before, it's because people want scrutiny over the dirty deals that get done by Labor and the opposition, especially when it comes to people's rights and protecting them. That's why the debate should be adjourned. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Watson-Brown 300127 I second the amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 And you reserve your right to speak. 12:22 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah It is deeply disappointing, from the government and from the minister, to find ourselves here now, debating a motion to essentially fast-track this legislation with no delay, no scrutiny and no debate. This is legislation on which we were briefed by the minister only a couple of hours ago, that has numerous questions and detail to which there was no answer from the minister. There are grave questions about the consequences and the far-reaching implications of this legislation, yet you are here asking this place to fast-track it without even 24 hours to consider it. It is outrageous and incredibly undemocratic. It is an absolute parody of what this place is supposed to be about, in relation to looking at what good legislation can do and having the time to consider whether it has unintended consequences. I would look at the backbenches behind you, Minister. I can imagine everyone squirming because, for everyone, this is uncomfortable. This is not part of the Labor policy platform. As the Leader of the Greens just said, the question of mandatory sentencing is incredibly significant. This is an incredibly important step that has to be taken very carefully with a lot of scrutiny for unintended consequences—the risk in relation to domestic violence and for people that, maybe through domestic violence, abuse or homelessness, find their way into a position where they could be subject to these provisions. There are so many areas that need to be looked at. For people not understanding the consequences of this legislation, this is far reaching. This is asking of people: either cooperate with your removal or we will take action against your entire country, against anyone wanting to come from that country. In terms of precedents for this, the minister indicated that the UK passed similar legislation two years ago but haven't really applied it, so we have nothing to go by, and then there is the US. So we're in completely new territory. You are saying that, without proper scrutiny or debate, we should all just consider and vote on this legislation. It's says something about the opposition that they are also willing to contemplate that this debate go forward. I haven't heard any speakers yet in relation to slowing this down. For all of the backbenchers of Labor: are these really the values you subscribe to? Is this what selling your soul to a party means—that you will not have a voice when it comes to very important debates to give proper policy and legislation true scrutiny? Will you go back to your communities and say: 'We waved this through with'—what is it?—'40 minutes of debate. There was no opportunity for consultation with law societies to truly consider the proper implications of this legislation.' I have a lot of time for the minister but I am deeply, deeply disappointed with his actions today, in trying to push this through with such a short time line. If this were such a problem, it should have been worked on for a long time. It's not going to only apply to those that were released as a direct consequence of the High Court decision. This will apply to many more people that are in these kinds of situations, who are here under bridging visas. We know that the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal was incredibly bad, slow and ineffective in dealing with a lot of migration and refugee cases. We have a situation now where you've acknowledged that as a government. We've passed Administrative Review Tribunal legislation to have a new body in place, yet you're implementing legislation that will capture many people that fell foul of the AAT, who will be caught by this legislation. It's just so far reaching. It's hard to comprehend that this is the path and the legacy that you, as a government, want to leave behind. Your legislation doesn't even include a mandatory review period. In the 30 minutes spare we've had since our briefing, we've at least been able to present some amendments to at least ensure there's a review process. But I'm sure the answer from government will be, 'We haven't even had time to consider your amendments, so we couldn't possibly support them.' But here we are being asked to suspend standing orders and put in place a joke of a debate. This is a parody of what democratic debate should look like. Shame on every member of government for supporting this and for coming into this place and doing something that is deeply, deeply undemocratic. 12:27 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan This is a draconian bill. There's no better word for it. It's even worse than the legislation of the previous government. There seems to be a race to the bottom on this. We were briefed on this for the first time a mere half an hour ago, I think. This is another secretive, underhand introduction of what, on our advice, appears to be a very, very poorly drafted bill. We smell a big rat here. It's very similar to other events that we've had this week, where it appears that the government has been absolutely ashamed of the legislation that they're putting to us. They are not prepared to properly explain it to us. We do not have the opportunity to have proper debate or scrutiny of this. Shame on the government. There's something going on here. This bill vests overarching power—unscrutinised, as previous speakers have said—for the minister to do pretty much what they want. It gives the minister the power to criminally incarcerate these people for one to five years as criminals and, at the end of that term, again, to have the sole discretion to extend that criminal term in an interminable cycle. That is why it's draconian. The minister mentioned the words 'recalcitrant countries'. That is Trumpian language for a truly Trumpian bill. It's giving the minister what's been described as 'autocratic powers', meaning sole powers without any scrutiny and without any ability for people to actually resist them or to have any say in the process. That's draconian. The minister claims that this is better and stronger and in the national interest, but what is the national interest here? Why is this being rammed through the House so urgently? I would ask the minister: what is this urgency? We haven't had any reasonable explanation for this. We need time to consider this important legislation—why not? As previous speakers have mentioned, it's central to the relationship between government and the High Court. It's absolutely critical that all Australians understand what's going on here. We should be able to debate this properly. We haven't had any rational argument about why it is so urgent. Labor have said that they were opposed to mandatory sentencing. This is mandatory sentencing! There is apparently a list of these recalcitrant countries. Are we going to be able to see that? No—another secret and another cover-up. In my electorate office right at the moment we are assisting live cases based on these issues. They are going to be absolutely upended by this rushed legislation, with no-one having the opportunity to understand what's going on here. The wool is being open pulled over our eyes once again. Shame, shame, shame on this government. 12:31 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. To be honest, I'm a state of shock. I think that we've seen a lot of things happen in the human rights space in this country over a number of years, but to find myself here today, as the member for North Sydney, having been briefed on a really significant reform to our human rights law in this country at 8:45 this morning, and then to be told that there won't actually be effective debate on it—that there won't actually be time for myself and others to consult with people outside this building to see what the implications are and that there won't actually be even an opportunity for myself and others to potentially scrutinise it to the level where we may be able to make suggestions under consideration in detail—is truly shocking. Truly shocking! Our entire democracy is predicated on the basis that our communities send members here so that those members can be the voice for those people in this chamber. Debates like this are below this government. I expect better of this government, and I can say straight up that my community expects better from this government. Indeed, as the member for Melbourne made a very strong argument on, we saw Australians vote in a way they've never voted before at the last election. Fundamentally, they sent a message to one political party that had stopped listening to them for a very long time. Many Australians put their faith in the other major party, believing them on the basis of things that we had heard them talk about in their own public forums. There was the fact that they didn't support mandatory sentencing; the fact that they had a strong record in speaking from opposition about the importance of respecting and protecting people's individual human rights; and the fact that we knew them to be people of compassion, because we know where they come from—and I echo the member for Warringah's comments here, that I had the highest regard for the immigration minister, Minister Giles, in this place. But I do not understand how we find ourselves in this place and time in this chamber today. It is not okay for the government to bring forward this piece of legislation, which will impact thousands of people currently living this country. Let's be really clear: I don't see how the legislation being discussed today can in any way meet our international human rights obligations. Australia is signatory to a number of international human rights treaties. Those treaties include the right to seek asylum and those treaties include that all asylum seekers should be treated equally under the law. Those rights include that every person's individual human rights should be recognised and respected. As I've glanced at this legislation this morning, I do not see those rights being respected and protected under this legislation. I understand that the government is frustrated that there are thousands of people sitting in this country who have been here, perhaps in some circumstances, for over a decade now because they have been in the process of appealing a potential return to an environment that they believe is unsafe for them. But I say to this government: rather than trying to, as it was reported on Saturday, 'out Dutton Dutton', how about we actually look at these people for the humans they are— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. I just ask members to address members by their correct titles. Ms TINK 300124 That was the media report. Sorry, Mr Speaker. 'Outperform the opposition leader to be the opposition leader'—I don't know how to rephrase it. I'll withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that you have an opportunity here to be better than that. We have an opportunity to look at each of these people case by case. We have the opportunity to actually work out how we do right by these people who have been left to languish for over 10 years. Finally, I would say people commit crimes and are punished all the time—that's how our criminal system works—yet for some reason we are fixated in this parliament at the moment on ensuring that someone who commits a crime is never forgiven. We are saying our criminal system leaves people beyond redemption. That, in and of itself, reflects poorly on us. I join the member for Melbourne in saying this debate must be adjourned and we must be given time as a parliament to thoroughly review this legislation. 12:35 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is very disappointing. My community really wants to see compassion when we are approaching asylum seekers. We had great hope and faith that that's what we were going to see. A number of times I've said to people in my community that I believe the minister is doing his best. Given his own personal history, I believe that he is driven by that compassion. Since then, that has really gone off. We got off to a good start, but since then we've seen mandatory sentencing and some draconian and knee-jerk reactions. I'm open-minded about the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Maybe it is needed. Maybe it is compliant with our international human rights obligations. I would approach this in good faith, but I first heard about it a few hours ago. I've had back-to-back meetings since then. I have one advisor. We are being asked to put this through today. This is too big an issue to deal with in this sort of time frame. This is about humans and their futures. This morning, coincidently, we heard from some young people who have fallen through the cracks of our immigration system. We've seen their faces and understand that these are people's lives that we're dealing with. It's too big an issue to deal with like this. It also seems to me, from what I can see so far today, that it's not a new issue. The problem that we're solving here has been around for a long time, that there is a group of people who have no right to be in Australia but won't take steps to leave. This is not a problem that has appeared in the last week, and it doesn't seem like it needs a response within a couple of days. I find it very hard to see how this urgency is justified. It does not reflect on us well as a country if this is how we deal with really important issues that go to people's freedoms and right to live their lives. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member's time for this debate has concluded. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the House be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

13 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. 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) 73 NOES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. Husic, E. N. Joyce, B. T. G. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:45 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the House be agreed to.    

The House divided. [12:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 70 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. Husic, E. N. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:52 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.  

The House divided. [12:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 36 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Elliot, M. J. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Watts, T. G. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 10 BILLS Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 10

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 10 12:55 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon What a sham this whole process is. This is a marathon—no, it's not a marathon; it's an ultramarathon in incompetence. It dates back to last May, and here we are today facing more and more incompetence. What a complete and utter mess. Let's look at the process that we went through today. At 7.30 am, we had some legislation dropped off to us, and we were told that there would be a briefing at eight o'clock. That legislation, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, was ready, and it had a time and date on it: last Friday. Now, did the minister come to us and say, 'Okay, we want to give you this legislation so that you can look at it over the weekend and so that you can make sure there are no unintended consequences'? No, he did not. He sat on it over the weekend. He sat on it yesterday. Then he presented it to us today. That is incompetence because, if it's not considered properly, if we can't look at the detail, if we can't make sure that there are no unintended consequences, this legislation might not do the job that the minister is hoping that it will do. That is why we have called on the government to have an inquiry in the Senate tonight. I hope that the government will support that enquiry. I hope that the crossbenchers will make sure that they support that enquiry. Although we only have limited time to look at this, we need that time to make sure we can interrogate this bill. Let's look at the minister's track record when it comes to legislation going through this House and through this parliament. Let's look at his failure, on three key times, to turn up to legal briefings from his own department, which led us to the mess that we are in today. That in and of itself should be enough for the Prime Minister to have acted, but he hasn't. That's why we're sitting here today having to consider, debate and discuss a piece of legislation that we received at 7.30 am. This piece of legislation was prepared and ready to go last Friday, yet the minister decided: 'Oh, no, I've got to be really careful. I don't want anything that I'm doing properly scrutinised or properly looked out, because it might show, once again, the errors of my ways.' That is the problem. When you have a minister in witness protection, a minister who can't even front up to the media today to say, 'We're going to be introducing this legislation. This is what it will do,' you end up getting mistake after mistake. That is why we want an inquiry tonight. We want that inquiry in the Senate so that at least we've got some time to be able to grill the department and see whether this legislation will do what it's set out to do and won't lead to unintended consequences. What is one of our greatest fears when it comes to the botched and chaotic way that this legislation continues to be produced? You have to remember, I think this is the fourth or the fifth time that we've had rushed legislation put into this place. That is why we want it looked at. One of the serious unintended consequences that we are very, very concerned about is what this chaotic and botched approach is going to do to people smugglers. Our great fear—and, sadly, we saw this last Friday—is that we are going to see the people smugglers get their model going again. We really need to be able to drill down on this legislation to make sure that it's not providing that incentive. We've already seen boats arrive on the mainland and we saw, tragically, people drowning at sea last Friday. We have to be very conscious that this legislation and the way it's been drafted—the chaotic way the minister continues to do his job—doesn't provide perverse incentives for the boats to start up again, because no-one in this place wants to see that happening. But, sadly, the way the government has approached this issue, dating back to the autumn of last year, has seen the people smugglers get their business model up and running again. That is our gravest concern when it comes to this legislation, and that is why we want to make sure we can get the department before a Senate hearing and grill them to make sure the chaotic and dysfunctional approach the government is taking won't lead to the type of unintended consequences that none of us want to see. When it comes to the way this government has handled immigration, the Australian people want the confidence that the government are getting something right, and so far they haven't been able to get anything right. The approach they're taking, the processes they're using, the botched and rushed way they're doing this gives the Australian people no confidence whatsoever that the immigration portfolio is being handled in a way that protects their safety. I say to the minister and I say to the government: when your No. 1 priority is to keep the Australian community safe, they deserve better than what you're dishing up at the moment; they deserve much, much better. The fact that you would produce this legislation in the way and the form that you have shows that you have no idea what you are doing. What the Australian people want to see when it comes to their protection is a methodical approach, a considered approach, an approach where you go out and where you consult, an approach where, if you need bipartisanship, you just don't ram it down people's throats. That is what the Australian people are looking for when it comes to their safety. Instead, the Australian people have now had, dating back to last autumn, error, mistake and buffoonery from the government the whole time, and they deserve better than that. So, I say to the minister: if you are going to get anything right and do something correctly in your portfolio, you need to make sure your government agrees to an inquiry tonight so that we have some time to consider this bill, some time to consult on this bill and then some time to interrogate your department on this bill. The sad reality is that we know that your track record of attending legal briefings is three-zip—three legal briefings, zero times attending those legal briefings. It is simply not good enough. We want to make sure you are doing your job, because there is no more important job than keeping the Australian community safe. 13:04 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I'm rising to raise a number of concerns with the piece of legislation that has been put before the House, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Had there been more time, I may have actually moved a second reading amendment on it. Given that time does not allow for that process, at this point in time I would like to make the following points. Upon reviewing the piece of legislation that was provided to us this morning, I think there are a number of key weaknesses. The first of them is the breadth of the legislation. While it would appear that the immediate justification or impetus for this bill is the need to deal with the NZYQ affected cohort and, in particular, the pending litigation in the High Court examining whether people who are refusing to cooperate with their removal fall under the test for release put forward in NZYQ, the bill goes far beyond that by targeting anyone on a removal pathway. That includes unlawful noncitizens; those that are on a bridging removal pending visa, or BVR holders as they're called; those on a bridging general visa, a BVE holder; and, extraordinarily, any other noncitizens prescribed in the Migration Regulations, which would allow the minister to basically designate other cohorts to be added. At a minimum, I think this bill should be revised to only apply to the NZYQ affected cohort, noting that the previous bills relating to the monitoring conditions and the preventative detention disorders, moved in this House in a very similar fashion, were limited to that cohort. There's a real risk under this legislation that people with whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations will be forced, through criminal sanctions, to cooperate in their removal to countries where they face persecution. Section 119(4)(b) of subdivision E makes it clear that, even when someone is a person with respect to whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation, that's not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. What is the justification for including this provision, and what measures has or will the government take to ensure that people are not returned to countries where they'll face persecution? The second point I'd like to make is that we know as a parliament and we know as a country that our asylum processes do not always get it right, particularly for those who have been subject to the fast-track procedures that we know were unfair. Where the process fails to accurately identify protection needs, applicants will be forced to cooperate in their removal to a country where they may face persecution. The third point is that this act should concern us all when it comes to the welfare of children. Under this reformed legislation, parents and guardians will be forced, through the threat of criminal sanction, to take actions in aid of having their children removed from Australia. This violates the foundational principle under the international law in relation to the best interests of the child. Ultimately, Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. We are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By passing laws like this, we do our country and our citizenry a disservice. 13:08 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Here we are again. The government is trying to bind up a weeping sore with rushed, reflexive legislation in a portfolio that they do not control, and they are panicked. You can sense the panic across the table. Fundamentally, this is about leadership, or rather the absence of leadership—which is really just another way of saying 'bad leadership'. We have a hapless minister for immigration presiding over a debacle running since the middle of last year in his portfolio, and time and time again we see this minister unable to impose himself on the situation. Governing a country requires dynamic, responsive leadership not just at the top but across all portfolios, and we're not seeing that at all in the immigration portfolio. Sadly, what we see instead is a flat-footed, confused, panicked minister and this bill, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, briefed to the coalition at 7.30 am for just 20 minutes. That happened this morning, and the Australian people deserve better than this. They expect us to be transparent and accountable when we pass bills of this consequence. This government has been floundering since the middle of last year. They have been unable to anticipate events as they unfold, with grave consequences for the Australian community. The handling of the NZYQ case was a case study in failed government. This government has had from the middle of last year, when the High Court had a directions hearing on NZYQ, and it was plain to see then that there would be issues with this case and others like it. Yet did the minister act? No, he did nothing—no legislation, no prudential action to protect the Australian community. At every turn it's been up to the opposition to lead the government. It was the member for Wannon, Senator Paterson in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition leading and guiding the government on legislative responses to the case at hand. The opposition has been leading. It's been the tail wagging the dog, which is frankly not good enough from this government. Even then, the government failed to act. We saw 149 criminals, murderers, sex offenders and paedophiles, among others, released into the Australian community—you can't make this up. It's shameful. Now we see the government flapping in anticipation of the High Court ruling in ASF17, the case of an Iranian man who has refused to cooperate with authorities in Australia and been found not to be owed protection. If he is successful in his case, it could have implications for hundreds more people currently in immigration detention in this country who would be released into the community on the basis that their detention is indefinite because they refused to cooperate with Australia's efforts to deport them. So here we are—new legislation, briefed this morning at 7.30 am for only 20 minutes, rushed. I'm confident the crossbench hasn't had a briefing. It's right that we call for a Senate inquiry immediately into this bill. You've got the Greens and their affiliates on the crossbench firing their cannons, and they have a point; there's been no due process and no Senate inquiry. But we part company there with the crossbench, because we believe in strong borders on this side of the House. It was the coalition who stopped the boats after the debacle of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. And now Labor, since coming to power, are weakening our borders. That weakness is provocative, and we see that because we've seen 12 or 13 boats arrive on Australian shores since May 2022. This bill gives the minister significant powers to direct cooperation of noncitizens in their removal from this country. There's power in this bill, but this bill can't substitute for strong prudent government and leadership from the Albanese government. This minister is weak; he's unable to impose himself on the situation, and he is now seeking to slam rushed legislation through both houses without an inquiry. It's not good enough, and the Australian people deserve better. They deserve transparency and accountability. The side of the House is calling for a Senate inquiry immediately because we all deserve better from this government. 13:12 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today in this House to register my dissent to this bill, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I'm now hearing arguments from the opposition that, quite frankly, are so disingenuous. If you genuinely have concerns with this bill, why not support our call for an adjournment? Why rush an inquiry tonight under the cover of darkness? Why not do this properly? This bill is setting up a removal pathway for noncitizens. Under the bill, the minister can designate a country that refuses to accept involuntary removals and then order a person in Australia from that country who has so far refused to leave Australia to take steps to facilitate their removal. Failure to do so then incurs mandatory sentencing of 12 months. Mandatory sentencing is a very serious law. To be clear, a person who refuses to comply with the minister's direction to apply for a passport will be charged with an offence that attracts at least 12 months in prison. This is not something we give a few minutes of thought to, I would've thought. I understand there are people in Australia who have exhausted all visa options and have no legal right to be here. I understand there is a problem here to be solved. But, I've got to say, the minister this morning gave no indication and no clarity around the urgency of slamming this legislation through this House with barely a moment for members to consider the legislation or read an explanatory memorandum, let alone have an opportunity to speak in this House. What a disgrace! A suspension of standing orders, a gag motion, a whole raft of explanations of such paucity of logic from this government to justify why our democracy can't operate as it should, a democracy that supposedly allows any member of the House of Representatives to stand and give their view on a piece of legislation—seriously, I can't believe it. I came to the last parliament, where I heard the opposition, now the government, screaming blue murder when the coalition tried to do things like this, and here we are, with something as consequential as an immigration bill such as this—something on which the Kaldor Centre quite rapidly sent information through in the last few minutes saying that they believe this is quite possibly the most egregious of all the rushed immigration bills that have come before us in the last few months. Consider this. We have rushed through this House legislation which is now being challenged constitutionally. We are all conscientious legislators—that's why we've been sent here—and being a conscientious legislator means that you give due consideration to the legislation that's before you. What a joke! As if we can do that in less than a couple of hours! Then, even if we could do that—and I pay tribute to the member for North Sydney, who got a pretty good grip on this pretty fast—we don't even get the chance to speak about it if we want to. I'm not going to continue, because I know I have other colleagues who want to say something, but I just want to say that if this is the best democracy that this Labor government can give us on an issue as important as immigration then I am sorely disappointed in this Labor government, and I'm sure that my constituents are too. Australia, if you are listening, you need to be worried. 13:16 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein For a rare change in this place, I find myself agreeing with the shadow minister for immigration that this is chaotic and dysfunctional and that there may be unintended consequences. I think the ones that I'm concerned about are probably quite different to the ones he's concerned about, though. Like everyone else in this place, I'm deeply concerned to ensure the safety of my community. I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Indi that there is a problem to solve here, but this is the third time that we've been asked to support legislation designed to address the High Court's insistence that sentencing is a matter for the courts, not a decision for governments, and each time that legislation has proved vulnerable to further High Court action. Once again, we are asked to consider a profound change to our migration laws—the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024—not in less than 24 hours, not in less than 12 hours but in roughly four hours. I hear the opposition complaining about getting the bill at 7.30. Well, it was handed to the crossbench at 8.45 this morning. The opposition are jumping up and down and complaining. Firstly, they could have backed an adjournment in order for due consideration to happen, and they still have the option of rejecting the bill outright. The initial assessment of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is that this kneejerk legislation criminalises refugees who've already been through a broken system and potentially forces people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. I have been to some of these countries, and these risks are real. This is not some esoteric idea. If we make a mistake here, people may be sent back to countries and murdered. If we rush this through and that happens, that's on us. These laws are potentially against international law, as the concept of 'removal concern country' prevents people from seeking asylum in Australia if they are from certain countries—countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iran, which are high-refugee-producing countries. This is incredibly concerning. Again, of course, the legislation is trying to get around this High Court decision by criminalising individuals who refuse to cooperate with efforts to remove them from country and then receive mandatory minimum sentences, against existing government policy. Lawyers that I've had time to consult in the intervening hours since receiving this bill described this as 'executive overreach', 'an attempt to criminalise an executive order', 'discriminatory', 'dangerous', 'draconian' and 'potentially unconstitutional'. Yet again, the government is responding out of fear—fear of being vilified by the coalition. Well, that is going to happen anyway. Whatever the government does will not be enough. Lead from the front, with humanity at the centre of your policy. 13:19 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert This legislation—the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024—and this debate today just demonstrate once again how this Labor government cannot be trusted when it comes to keeping Australians safe and cannot be trusted to maintain the security of our borders. As the shadow minister said, it's an ultramarathon of incompetence. It's a complete and utter mess. Here we have yet another stopgap measure, another rushed piece of legislation to clean up after the High Court's ruling last year. I can't even remember how many times we've been put in this position since then. It feels like it's been every other sitting week. We were even called back to this place after last year was done and dusted for an unscheduled sitting to deal with the issue. The Albanese Labor government released dangerous criminals—convicted paedophiles, rapists and violent offenders—out of detention and into the community. They knew the High Court case was coming and they knew they might lose it, yet they didn't do anything to address the potential unintended outcomes. Here we are today with more emergency measures to clean up after their bungled mess in addressing this issue. What's worse about the situation here today is that the government has sat on the bill for days. The bill is dated Friday. The opposition only had it dropped off to us at 7.30 this morning. The shadow ministers were only given a short briefing—half an hour. It's just not good enough. This is the safety and security of the Australian people we're talking about. I've said it before, and the reasons for saying it again keep growing by the day: this minister is out of his depth. Those opposite don't know what they are doing. They're not keeping the community safe. They're using the parliament as their plaything to save face before the Australian public, hopefully before they notice anything. It's not good enough, and this government must do better. It is the first priority of any government to keep the Australian people safe, and we in the opposition will continue to support the government in doing anything that keeps Australians safe. Of course we'll support reasonable measures that will see people who have no right to be in Australia removed from our country, but we have to keep making sure we're aware of the unintended consequences. You can't address unintended consequences without the proper time for examination, which is exactly what we're seeing here today. What happens when you do this with such important legislation? It ends up facing challenges in the court. We've seen this played out with similar legislation that we've been forced to rush through this place over the last few months. Here is what the Australian reported last week: Strict monitoring and curfew conditions placed on detainees released from indefinite detention are "vulnerable" to constitutional challenge … Lawyers for YBFZ, a … man charged with breaching his curfew and failing to recharge his electronic ankle bracelet, have launched a High Court challenge to conditions imposed on him following his release from detention in November. The report goes on to say in general about these cases: A number of legal challenges to the monitoring and curfew conditions have not proceeded, with the government in each instance changing visa conditions rather than risk another High Court defeat. I could not have summarised the chaotic nature of this government's approach better. We remain extremely concerned about the rushed process and this government's shabby approach to an issue as important as border protection and national security. The stakes do not get much higher than this. This is why we need more time to scrutinise this bill, to identify the potential unintended consequences. That's why we need an inquiry and why the government should support the upcoming amendment. This government is failing to keep its people safe. Rushed-through legislation that doesn't have proper scrutiny could end up in catastrophic failures. We have seen convicted criminals lost by this government. We've seen a hapless minister not talk to the media or the Australian people and barely answer any questions in question time. It is simply not good enough. The Australian people deserve better. The Australian people deserve answers from this weak Labor government. I believe the minister has not addressed any of these concerns and should resign. 13:24 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I'll speak briefly. This government is becoming harder and harder to respect. What we're seeing today is legislation by knee jerk. We're seeing legislation introduced because the government fears the political response from the other side of the chamber, whereas it really should be fearing the human rights response and the will of the people. Our constituents deserve for their representatives to have the opportunity to spend more than two hours with a piece of legislation that includes mandatory sentencing and that will potentially force people back to countries where they will face persecution. This is a democracy, but the government in its own words today has said that it seeks autocratic powers. I would suggest that the unintended consequence of this legislation will be the loss of the government's integrity. 13:25 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that: (1) the Government is seeking to rush through legislation that will punish people, based on what country they come from and harm people seeking asylum who have already been subjected to a cruel and broken system; and (2) this bill is nothing more than an election tactic by the Government, trying to outflank the Coalition in a race to the bottom on immigration, which will only punish migrants and whip up racism". We have been given 40 minutes to debate the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill. The consequences of this legislation will see the minister able to go to a mum who has fled Iran and who is desperately trying to keep her kids in Australia to be safe and tell them, 'You have to sign passport papers for your kids to send them and you back to Iran, where you could face persecution—'even death, in some countries—'and if you do not sign those papers, we will give you a mandatory minimum year sentence in prison and up to five years.' This is outrageous. This is worse than anything that Dutton or Morrison ever came up with under the previous government. There are people who have been in Australia for a decade, who have raised their kids here, who will be subject to this law. It's deeply, deeply outrageous. Labor, in their own platform said: 'Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, leads to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.' What are all the Labor backbenchers going to say to all their members? What are they going to say to them? These are Labor members who thought they were supporting a party that opposed mandatory sentencing. If you're a Labor member watching this right now, if you're a Labor backbencher watching this right now, what actually does your party stand for? Labor is rushing this bill through in 40 minutes with no chance for debate, no chance for scrutiny. Instead what we're going to see are families broken up by this bill, lives destroyed, people facing desperate and unfair persecution. This is a bill that will exact untold cruelty on people seeking asylum. It will give the minister outrageous powers. What will happen when we have some future Liberal government where Dutton has these powers? What's going to happen then? This government should be deeply ashamed. The cruelty this will exact on people is unfathomable. You should all be ashamed of breaking your promise not only to your electorate but to your members as well. 13:28 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Yesterday I was asked to present to senior public servants about what makes good policy and what I want as a legislator. I said, 'What I need from good policy is that it's evidence based, that I can consult my community, that I can engage stakeholders and that I can assess the policy on its merits. Today we have been given absolutely none of this. We have not been given the evidence. We have not had a moment of time to talk to our community. And the stakeholder engagement has been absolutely cursory because we've basically had three hours in which to consider this legislation. It is an absolutely impossible way to pass wideranging and profound legislation. This legislation goes to people's lives. It goes to people being locked up in prison, and it has the potential to impact tens of thousands of people. That's a profound responsibility that we in the House hold in this piece of legislation, and it is unacceptable to have so little time to consider it. I absolutely acknowledge the need to have a way to remove the people who do not have the right to live in Australia, but this is not the way to do that. I know the government knows better than to behave like this. In the last few days in this parliament I heard the government complaining about the crossbench not being fair about the work that they do or assuming negative intent. And, honestly, when the government pushes through legislation, as they are doing right now, it is easy to see why we can become cynical in terms of what is being done. This legislation could have a profound impact on people's lives. It should not be passed in this way. The opposition is being absolutely disingenuous by not supporting a motion for adjournment on this, because they know full well that that would be the most appropriate thing that they could do at this time: to hold the debate until everyone can consider the legislation properly. But they haven't done that. It's just of great concern, on both sides. 13:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise now because it's incredibly unclear, even on the government's current procedure, whether we are going to get an opportunity to move amendments, in consideration in detail, to this appalling legislation, or even get an opportunity to be heard, because the government has decided, in an autocratic way, that everything will just be gagged at 1.40 this afternoon. So, on legislation that we received at 8.45 this morning, with very limited time to consider, we're now in an incredibly truncated debate. As to all the protestations from the coalition, the opposition, please: support an adjournment motion. If you do not, it is hypocrisy to come in here complaining about not having enough time to consider legislation. Let's be clear, for the Australian people, what this legislation will do. It is knee-jerk legislation that criminalises refugees who've already been through a broken system—thank you to the opposition!—and, in many cases, it fails to recognise people's legitimate refugee claims, and, potentially, forces people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. There is no recognition that a lot of people who will be subjected to this have extensive and deep connections to Australia. It is completely unnecessary for this legislation to be pushed through. We know that there are many people that will be caught by this legislation. It goes vastly beyond just the knee-jerk reaction to the High Court decision. It's an extraordinary step to exclude entire nations from access to visa applications, and to harm families, individuals, businesses and communities. Fundamentally, these laws place Australia at even greater risk of forcibly returning refugees to harm, including many refugees failed by the fast-track system which the Labor government agrees was unfair and flawed and yet is continuing with an unfair, flawed process and system. We must do better. Bring on the next election as soon as possible, because the Labor government will certainly be judged on the legacy of this. Now, because I have no idea if I will even have an opportunity to move the consideration in detail, I'd like to point out to the Australian people and the House that I will seek to move an amendment to at least try to protect women who are facing domestic violence and homelessness situations, who have increased vulnerability to deportation. Women who are on a removal pathway and who are experiencing domestic violence and abuse might find it challenging to comply with directives aimed at facilitating their removal from Australia. Obtaining a passport or attending meetings will prove incredibly difficult. There's a fear of seeking help, and the requirement for mandatory cooperation with removal efforts and the associated penalties for noncompliance will deter women in abusive situations from seeking help. We already know that CALD women face additional barriers to reporting, partly due to their fears in relation to their visa status. We hear a lot from every party, especially the Labor Party, around domestic violence, raising the rights of women, and yet they are trashing them again with this bill—unless the government is going to agree to the amendment, at the very minimum, to ensure that people who are subject to domestic violence and homelessness are going to be protected from the provisions in this legislation. It has an impact on legal proceedings. You are trying to circumvent the role of the High Court. Women facing domestic violence are often required to navigate legal processes such as applying for protection orders and custody of children. The legal process through the Family Court can be lengthy and result in orders that children remain in Australia to have contact with a parent or citizen-parent, whilst the mother—most likely the primary carer—will face expulsion from Australia. This legislation entitles you to require her removal while the children are ordered by the court to stay here. Are those seriously your values, members of the ALP? Seriously? Is that what you go to your communities with and say, 'That is what I'm going to do if you put me in government'? There are no safeguards. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! In accordance with the resolution, the time for the debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

12 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 39 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fletcher, P. W. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. McIntosh, M. I. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Tehan, D. T. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:40 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the bill now be read a second time.    

The House divided. [13:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

50 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fletcher, P. W. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Katter, R. C. Keogh, M. J. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. McBride, E. M. McIntosh, M. I. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Tehan, D. T. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 17 13:45 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (after line 15), after section 199E, insert: 199EA Statement about each removal pathway direction Minister must prepare statement (1) The Minister must prepare a statement about each removal pathway non-citizen who is given a removal pathway direction. Note: Statements about 2 or more removal pathway non-citizens could be included in the same document. Information included in the statement (2) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must include the following: (a) the non-citizen's country of origin; (b) the class of visa (if any) held by the non-citizen at the time the removal pathway direction was given; (c) the number and classes of visas (if any) previously held by the non-citizen; (d) whether the non-citizen is a serious offender (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code) and, if so, any offences for which the non-citizen has been convicted; (e) whether the non-citizen is, or has been, the subject of a community safety order (within the meaning of that Division) and, if so, the details of that order; (f) whether, in the absence of compliance with the removal pathway direction, there would be no real prospect of the removal of the non-citizen from Australia under section 198 becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. (3) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must not include: (a) the non-citizen's name, date of birth or residential address; or (b) information that would otherwise reveal the non-citizen's identity; or (c) information the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth. Preparation within 7 days and tabling on the next sitting day (4) The statement about the removal pathway non-citizen must be prepared within the 7-day period starting on the day the removal pathway direction is given. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the end of that 7-day period. Natural justice hearing rule (6) The Minister is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in exercising a power or performing a function under this section. We need greater transparency when it comes to this piece of legislation. This marathon of incompetence is turning into an ultramarathon of incompetence. We have never seen the like of this: a hopeless and hapless minister with a supervising minister who is equally hopeless and hapless. The Australian people deserve better. They deserve to know what is going on, and that is why we need greater transparency—so that Australians have some idea that the government is at least attempting to do its No. 1 job, which is keeping the Australian people safe. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wannon be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.

13:54 The SPEAKER 53517 Under the provisions of the resolution we shall now move to all remaining stages. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Australian Greens? Mr Bandt M3C My understanding is that the member for Warringah had circulated a detailed amendment and that under the resolution that had been passed that question had to be considered. The SPEAKER 53517 Under the resolution, the amendments weren't moved, so they're unable to be under the terms of the resolution. Ms Steggall 175696 And Mr Speaker, respectfully, you didn't see that I sought the call, and you moved straight to the first reading vote, when the situation was that I had clearly circulated that amendment and I was seeking the call to move a consideration-in-detail amendment, as the opposition just did. There had been an indication that the opportunity would be there to do that, from the government. So, I would seek a proper consideration-in-detail process by which the amendment can be moved. The SPEAKER 53517 I wasn't aware of any arrangements between the government and the member. Just allow me to do what's before the House at the moment, and then I will come back to the member. The question before the House right now is that the bill be agreed to.    

The House divided. [13:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 92 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. Howarth, L. R. Husic, E. N. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marino, N. B. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Tehan, D. T. Thwaites, K. L. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 20 14:02 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I give the call to the member for Warringah, the question now is that this bill be now read a third time. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Ms Steggall 175696 Mr Speaker, I sought to move a motion under standing order 154 prior to moving to the third reading. Standing order 154 says: Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House. That is what I sought the call for, prior to it going to a vote on the third reading. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand that under the resolution the standing orders have been suspended to enable this to occur. Ms Steggall 175696 Respectfully, Mr Speaker, we've passed the terms of the resolution. We've gone beyond the terms of that resolution. The SPEAKER 53517 Well, as a result of the resolution, the stated questions now are being followed. We've done the agreements to the bill. Now we're doing the third reading, which I've called the division for, and the clock is running for one minute. Once that's concluded, we shall then move on and call the Clerk. This is the question on the third reading of the bill.    

The House divided. [14:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 102 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Coulton, M. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Dutton, P. C. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hastie, A. W. Hogan, K. J. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leeser, J. Leigh, A. K. Ley, S. P. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 14:04 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin (In division)Mr Speaker, under standing order 155(b), I seek to amend the motion 'That this bill be now read a third time' to insert the word 'not' so that it reads 'That this bill not be read a third time'. The SPEAKER 53517 Under the standing orders, that's unable to occur because the motion is being put before the House, so the division is underway. Mr Bandt M3C It's important to understand what has just happened. The government has moved— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Bandt M3C No, I'm entitled to be heard on the point of order. An honourable member: It's not a point of order. Mr Bandt M3C It is a point of order. The government moved a debate management motion, a gag, that said there were going to be four crossbench speakers and then it was going to be put to a vote. It was explicit in that motion that, notwithstanding the ram nature of it, there would be an explicit provision for crossbench members to move amendments and have those amendments voted on. There wasn't going to be debate—it was truncated and so on, and we opposed that—but the resolution contained an explicit commitment from the government that crossbench members could move amendments and vote on them. When it came time for the member for Warringah to move her amendments, she sought the call but we just moved straight on. The amendments had been circulated exactly in accordance with what the government had proposed. So, if the motion under standing order 154—for the bill to be reconsidered in detail—is not allowed to be put, then the government will have just breached its own resolution that it put to the House, which gave the members of the crossbench the right to move an amendment and have it voted on. That is why the motion under 154 should be reconsidered. If not, I call on the government to commit to allowing what they said they would do in the motion they put to the House and allow the debate to be reopened so that the member for Warringah can move the amendment that she has circulated in good faith, exactly in accordance with the provision that the government asked for. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand the point of view of the Leader of the Australian Greens and the member for Warringah. As I said earlier in my remarks, I'm unaware of the arrangements that were put into place but, under the resolution that the House has taken and because of the time limits and constraints, that was not able to occur and that is why we are in this position now. We'll continue with the division so that we can deal with the question before the House, which is that the bill be read a third time. Ms Steggall 175696 Mr Speaker, respectfully, the problem with that position is that, when the opposition moved their consideration in detail amendment, they had already gone past the 1.40 pm deadline of the procedural motion of the government. If that were the case, then, when I sought the call to move the consideration in detail amendment, it should not have been possible for the opposition to move theirs either. Are we saying that, despite the wording of the motion the government itself forced through the House, there are two standards in this place of our democracy and that it will only be sometimes that the government and, respectfully, the chair will comply with the procedures that have been put before the House? Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, to clarify for members of the House, the resolution for the suspension of standing orders—therefore, standing orders that are being quoted—were suspended for that time. There were time limits imposed. Once I had brought that to the attention of the chair, we had gone into the procedures that we're now in. The SPEAKER 53517 I understand the points being made, but, because of the resolution of the House that was undertaken, we're now in this position. So we're just going to complete this division. I'm happy to talk to members separately after the debate has occurred, and we shall move to question time. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 22 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Procedure 22 14:12 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Mr Speaker, I have a question to you further to your earlier ruling and the comments from the Leader of the House. I'm advised that the amendment that was moved by the coalition was moved at 1.45, contrary to the resolution of the House, and was therefore put in breach of the resolution of the House. Given that that was the same ruling, according to the Leader of the House, that was relied upon to prevent the member for Warringah moving her amendment, I seek your advice about whether that is the case. If in fact the amendment moved by the opposition was put in breach of the resolution of the House, and after that, I ask whether it is appropriate to have that recommitted. The SPEAKER 53517 The resolution of the House, and the decision of the House, was made when the vote was taken. The time had not been pointed out, but once that had been passed and the time was pointed out, the remaining stages of the bill were approved. But I shall report back to the member with more information. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 23 14:14 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's renewables-only obsession is causing Australians' energy bills to skyrocket, pushing 500 families a week into energy poverty. The national energy regulator is now warning that 90 per cent of Australia's existing baseload energy, which is used to firm up renewables, will leave the grid by 2034, within the next decade, and that our country will struggle to keep the lights on. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling to cope with Labor's cost-of-living crisis? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for climate change will not interject while questions are being asked. 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I don't accept what the Leader of the Opposition has just said about the energy regulator. Indeed, AEMO, in a statement on 25 January, said this: Record generation from grid-scale renewables and rooftop solar is triggering wholesale energy prices and greenhouse emissions to fall … That's actually what they said. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about, as he characterises it, a renewables-only approach. I say it is the market-led approach that leads you to the cheapest form of new energy, which is renewables. When we talk about the approaches that are there, we could take an approach that they have taken—the nuclear road. The Leader of the Opposition has said that that is where they want to go, down that road, in contravention of where the market will take us. He says that once they fix four outstanding issues—safety, disposal, cost and location—then they'll be right down that road. But the shadow minister came up with less impediments than the leader, to be fair; he says there are only three issues that they need to solve—technical feasibility, financial feasibility and community acceptability. Apart from that, it's all good! Now, the climate is changing but the Liberal Party never will. We saw it on Nemesis; the now Leader of the Opposition used the National Energy Guarantee put forward by the former shadow Treasurer to try and take the leadership and the prime ministership—not through a vote of the people but through the backing of the hard right of the Liberal Party. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI My point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister has a situation where 500 families a week have been pushed into energy poverty. Can he answer a straight question and give them— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I remind all members, including the Leader of the Opposition, they are entitled to take a point of order on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Reid will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has another 30 seconds to answer the question. The Leader of the Opposition raises a relevant point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I suggest, if the Leader of the Opposition wants us to go down the nuclear road, he should stop having meltdowns. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 He is consistently angry—hopeless on energy but always obsessed with power. Wages 23 14:19 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting low-paid workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and what approaches have been rejected? 14:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Gilmore, another member of this place who is committed to making sure Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. A big part of that is the government's approach to the annual wage review. As a result of the approaches we've taken to the annual wage review over the last two occasions, people on the minimum wage are now earning $110 a week more than they were. On top of that, they'll get a tax cut of $827. This year the Albanese Labor government again will argue that low-paid workers should not be going backwards. That position is not matched by those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW who call out right now 'real wages', not acknowledging that for the last three quarters we have had real wages rising, and also not acknowledging that after the Leader of the Opposition told business, 'Go out and make the case for me', what's the next thing business does? Call for a real wage cut! That's what they've now called for. The two per cent claim that has been put forward for business now is a real wage cut—exactly their actions after they get the rant from the Leader of the Opposition telling them, 'You need to go out there and go harder.' What would that real wage cut mean, occupation by occupation? We know that those on the minimum wage are already getting a tax cut of $826 a year that those opposite did not want them to get. But they would also be getting a $600-a-year real wage cut if that two per cent claim had happened. We know that a cleaner on award conditions is already getting $1,047 a year extra in tax cuts. Those opposite didn't want that cleaner to get that tax cut, and there'd also be a wage cut of $620 a year for that cleaner. For a retail worker there'd be a $640-a-year wage cut in real terms. Those opposite want people to work longer for less. What they're pursuing now in opposition is matched by what they did in government. Never once did they argue for a pay rise at the annual wage review—never once. They had low wages as a deliberate design feature. And it's not as if they didn't make submissions to the annual wage review; they did. We all remember the subheading on one of their submissions: 'The importance of low-paid work'. That's what they argued to the Fair Work Commission: 'Keep wages low.' And that's what they argue now—to keep wages low. When the member for New England argued that a pay rise would just be window dressing, he was giving the same argument that those opposite, one by one, believed. They spent a decade keeping wages low, and now, when people are struggling with the cost of living, their answer is to cut wages. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Vanuatu Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Matai Seremaiah MP 24 14:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I want to welcome, in the distinguished visitors gallery today, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Vanuatu, the Hon. Matai Seremaiah MP. Welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Defence Procurement 24 14:23 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House that, following the government's $5 billion order for nuclear reactors from Rolls-Royce, our submariners are safe in the submarines with the nuclear reactor? 14:23 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his sneaky 'gotcha' question about the nuclear reactors being constructed at Rolls-Royce in Derby. Can I just say, we're talking about sealed nuclear reactors that will never be refuelled, that are of the size to power one machine, that are not designed to power cities and that will need to be disposed of for the first occasion in the early 2050s, while those opposite are talking about establishing a civil nuclear industry which, if it's to have any impact on emissions reduction, will need to be operating in the 2030s, with all the attendant disposal associated with that. But let me make one other point. Yes, the nuclear reactors will be safe for the submariners, as they will for those who are at HMAS Stirling. Why? Because we are spending an enormous amount of money to make sure they are secure. If you take that amount of money and apply it to all the— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. I appreciate the energy regarding this question, but I need to hear the answer. I literally can't hear anything, so it would assist the House if members could tone it down. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor! The minister is halfway through, and I want to hear the remainder of his answer. Mr MARLES HWQ Thank you, Mr Speaker. If you take the cost that is being spent to ensure the safety of those reactors in the nuclear powered submarines and you apply that cost to civil nuclear reactors, which those opposite are suggesting, what you end up with is the single most expensive source of power that can be purchased in the world, in this country today. That is what those opposite are seeking to put before the Australian people. The idea that you would try to draw some equivalence between small nuclear reactors, which are powering a single machine, and what those opposite are trying to suggest about nuclear reactors which are designed to power cities is patently ridiculous, and it's the kind of analysis which underpins the ridiculous thought that those opposite are trying to put on the Australian people. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fisher will cease interjecting. When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Wills. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 25 14:26 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How will the Albanese Labor government deliver Australians more choice when it comes to cleaner, cheaper-to-run cars after a decade of inaction? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Page and the member for Hume will cease interjecting before I call the minister. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Canning! I just said don't interrupt before I call the minister. 14:26 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Wills for the question. Of course, earlier today, the minister for climate change and I stood with representatives of Toyota, Hyundai, Tesla, the Motor Trades Association of Australia, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association and the Electric Vehicle Council to announce a new vehicle efficiency standard that is right for this country. After extensive consultation, we have released a model that delivers Australians more choice of new cars. It will save Australians thousands of dollars at the bowser—$95 billion less in petrol out to 2050. It will reduce the emissions that come from the cars that we drive, and it's a model where Australians can continue to buy the utes and the SUVs that we all love. As we know, a new vehicle efficiency standard is not a new thing. It has been coalition policy for over a quarter of a century, with John Howard, back in 2001, stating that the coalition was negotiating a new fuel efficiency standard for motor vehicles to reduce the amount of fuel consumed per kilometre travelled. Yet the Howard government, of course, could not deliver one. It's a policy that the then Abbot-Turnbull government, and the Morrison government as well, with the member for Bradfield trying, with our support—it is becoming increasingly important that we harmonise our approaches to vehicle emissions with those in place in other countries. They were unable to actually deliver. This government is delivering what the Liberals and Nationals could not: a new vehicle efficiency standard that is right for Australia, with legislation to be introduced into this place tomorrow. We've undertaken extensive consultation with the industry and the community and have incorporated sensible amendments and suggestions that make improvements to our preferred option, whilst ensuring a sustainable and effective standard. A limited number of four-wheel drives, such as the Toyota Land Cruiser—a great vehicle—and the Nissan Patrol, regarded as workhorse vehicles will move from the passenger car category into the light commercial category. We're smoothing the emissions trajectory for light commercial vehicles, taking into account both the recently announced changes in the US and the different range of credits that are available there. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR We're adjusting what are known as the breakpoints. The standard will start on 1 January next year, but credits and penalties will start on 1 July. I want to thank everyone who has engaged constructively with this policy. This is how you actually make good policy, a lesson that those opposite might like to learn: you go out, you consult, you work collaboratively with industry to make sure that you've got the model right, and then you have the courage of your convictions and you make sure that you're delivering. Where the coalition gave up, Labor is doing the hard work of delivering what is right for Australia. Those opposite are happy to stand with Russia when it comes to vehicle efficiency standards. I'm happy to stand with Australian consumers. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Fred Hollows Foundation, Champion, Hon. Nick, Armstrong, Mr Duncan John D'Arcy, OAM, Y Australia National Youth Parliament, Eren, Hon. John Hamdi, Watkins, Hon. John Arthur, AM 26 14:30 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for North Sydney, I have a number of acknowledgements and I'd just ask the House to come to order so we can acknowledge our special guests who've joined us today. I inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from the Fred Hollows Foundation, including founding director of the board Gabi Hollows AO. We have Nick Champion, former member for Spence and minister in the South Australian government, who will remain for question time. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. We have Duncan Armstrong OAM, a former Olympian; members of the national youth cabinet, led by Y Australia; John Eren, a former member in Victoria; and John Watkins, the former deputy premier of New South Wales. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 26

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

14:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The refugee and migration sector holds serious concerns about the impact that the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will have on children. Parents and guardians will be forced, through the threat of criminal sanction, to take actions in aid of having their children removed from Australia. What has the government done to ensure this legislation does not violate the foundational principle of international human rights law in relation to the best interests of the child? 14:31 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and for her constructive and considered engagement on this issue and, indeed, on many issues relevant to the immigration portfolio, particularly those affecting refugees. But I would say, in respect of her question, a few things. Firstly, she would appreciate that there is a safeguard expressly in the act, which has just been passed through this House, which deals with children. I would also direct her, more broadly, to the statement of compatibility with human rights which accompanies the bill, which makes clear that this is a piece of legislation that is consistent with Australia's human rights obligations. What we are doing with this important piece of legislation is to fill a very significant loophole—a loophole that affects a small cohort of people who have no basis upon which to remain in Australia but who are refusing to cooperate with efforts to effect their removal. And, importantly—as I believe the member knows, and all members should know—these people are not refugees. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 26 14:32 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What will the Albanese Labor government's new vehicle efficiency standard mean for Australian motorists, and what is the significance of this reform after a decade of inaction? 14:33 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member very much for his question and for his very active leadership on matters of climate change in this House. The honourable member asks me what it means for Australian motorists that this government will introduce vehicle efficiency standards. What it means is that, after 20 years of governments promising Australian motorists and consumers they'd get better standards and better choices, this government will deliver them. This government will deliver, after 20 years of failed promises. Five decades after the United States introduced standards, Australia will catch up. Years after Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, India, New Zealand and Canada introduced standards, Australian motorists will catch up. Six years after the previous coalition government promised to introduce the standards and consulted on details, and then squibbed it, Australia will catch up. After $4 billion of unnecessary expenditure on petrol and diesel over the last six years, as a result of the previous government knowing that they should have introduced the standards but then not proceeding, Australian motorists will finally catch up. Now, the minister for transport and I held a press conference just before question time with Tesla and Toyota. Mr Tehan 210911 Bonnie and Clyde. Mr BOWEN DZS Tesla and Toyota—and the opposition front bench says 'Bonnie and Clyde'! That's what they think of these Australian companies. They have quoted Toyota at every press conference. At every press conference they've quoted Toyota, and at every question time. Well, they can quote Toyota today, where their chief executive thanked the government for the engagement and said, 'It's time for Australia now to move on and implement these standards.' The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS A broad cross-section of the motoring industry, joined by peak motorists groups—the NRMA, RACV, RACQ, for example, who actually represent motorists—CHOICE, who represents Australian consumers, and the motor traders association and the Automotive Dealer Association at the press conference backing the government's position, have now called for the broad cross-section of the parliament to pass the legislation. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Forrest will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS You know who's opposed to the legislation? The Liberal and National parties and Advance. They're the two groups that are left opposing the legislation. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Durack will cease interjecting out of her place. Mr BOWEN DZS It's not too late for the opposition to reflect on their position. The minister for transport will introduce the legislation tomorrow. There's a chance for the opposition to say: 'Okay. Toyota backs this. The Australian automotive dealers back it. The motor traders association backs it. Hyundai backs it. The NRMA backs it. RACV backs it. The RACQ backs it. Maybe we should back it. Maybe we should stop being so negative. Maybe we should do what we promised to do in 2016 and 2017, that the cabinet that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of decided and authorised the ministers to progress. Maybe it's time to catch up and actually be positive for once—actually support the government and support Australian motorists for once. Energy 27 14:36 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In the last week alone we learnt that Labor has officially broken its promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills by up to $1,000. Over 500 families a week are going on energy hardship arrangements, and the east coast gas market is facing material shortfalls from next year. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families already struggling to cope with Labor's cost crisis? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When House comes to order and there are no interjections I'll call the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. 14:37 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It went to two things, as I heard the question. It went to energy prices and gas shortages. Let me deal with both— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! We're just going to do this in an orderly manner. The minister was asked a question by the member for Fairfax. Within 12 seconds the yelling, the screaming—that's not helpful, and he knows that's disrespectful. He knows that's against the standing orders The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber under 94(a). That sort of behaviour, as everyone knows, is completely unacceptable. The member for Fairfax then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call. Mr BOWEN DZS The honourable member asked me about energy prices and he asked me about the impact of government policy. Well, the fact of the matter is that this government's intervention has saved a customer on Ausgrid $843; or, in Victoria, $555; $819 in South-East Queensland; $992 in South Australia. These are policies introduced by this Prime Minister, this Treasurer, this government and opposed—actually voted against in all readings of the House and in the Senate—by those opposite, and they have the temerity to come in here and say we should do something about power prices, when they voted against the intervention that was designed and has achieved those results! Then we saw the Leader of the Opposition misquoting the Australian Energy Regulator in a previous question. But what the Australian Energy Regulator actually did do last week was announce reductions in power prices, partly as a result of the intervention of this government which they opposed. It takes more front than David Jones to come in here and oppose those things and then ask why we aren't doing more. The honourable member also asked me about the Gas Statement of Opportunities and how it flagged shortfalls in gas. Let's go through the Gas Statement of Opportunities for the last 10 years. In 2013, the statement said: … there may be potential shortfalls in Queensland and New South Wales … In 2014, it said: Short-term projected gas shortfalls remain unchanged to 2017 … In 2015, it said: Forecast gas supply gaps to 2034 in Queensland are 214 PJ … In 2016 it said: Shortfalls totalling 50 petajoules (PJ) are forecast … I think there's a pattern emerging. In their 2017 gas report AEMO said: Maintaining system security is becoming more challenging … In 2018 they said: Projected southern supply gaps first appear in 2030 … In 2019 they said: … the forecast supply-demand balance is tight from 2021 to 2023 … Two patterns have emerged: shortfalls in every statement and all under a coalition government. What we have done is introduce a gas code of conduct which has seen new supply being legally enforced and promised. That will deal with, and has dealt with, the most immediate challenges relating to gas shortfalls. That is what we have done in relation to 10 years of policy indolence that the previous government were warned about on multiple occasions and did nothing about. Economy 28 14:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing cost-of-living pressures and helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:40 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Robertson for his question. He knows, as the government does, that many people are feeling the pinch with cost of living right now, which is why the Albanese government is taking action to provide people with support. In my portfolio of social services, we have strengthened the social safety net. Just last week around five million people received a boost to their social security payments through indexation. For those on payments like JobSeeker and for recipients of Commonwealth Rent Assistance, this builds on the rate increases that the government delivered in the last budget, meaning more money in the pockets of those doing it the toughest. And we've strengthened the social safety net by expanding the eligibility for single parenting payment, benefiting over 77,000 single parents, mainly women. We've frozen the social security deeming rates, and we've expanded access to the Commonwealth health seniors card. We've taken action by helping concession cardholders with their power bills. We've made medicines cheaper and we've made it cheaper for pensioners, children and other concession card holders to see a GP. The government is also providing more support for new parents through our historic investment in paid parental leave by expanding the scheme to a full six months by 2026. Families will receive an extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth or adoption of their child. When fully rolled out, that's over $5,000 more in the family budget. And it's not only our government ensuring that parents earn more while they take time off to look after their baby, but we're also ensuring women will retire with more, with our recent announcement that we will pay superannuation on the government paid parental leave scheme from July 2025. In addition, we're also providing more support for community sector organisations, helping those organisations pay fairer wages to their workers. This includes fairer wages for people like Amelia, who works for St Pat's as a support worker, helping those experiencing homelessness. Like all community sector workers, Amelia will not only benefit from a pay increase, she will also benefit from Labor's tax cuts. Amelia will receive $1,330 in tax cuts in July this year to assist with the household budget. Our government is supporting Australians in a range of circumstances through the social services portfolio. Whether it's those who rely on the safety net, work in the community sector or are taking time out to be a parent, it is this government that is ensuring people earn more and keep more of what they earn. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 29 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Bayly, Hon. Andrew 29 14:43 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to welcome the New Zealand minister for commerce, consumer affairs, small business and manufacturing, the Hon. Andrew Bayly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 29 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 29 14:44 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given Australia is in a GDP per capita recession, can the Prime Minister define what a GDP per capita recession is? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Members on my left will cease interjecting, and members on my right will join them. 14:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question and for his constant talking down of the Australian economy. He's quite upset because the comparison of Australia with the G7 or with the former government shows that here in Australia we have an economy that continues to grow. We have wages that are growing—including real wages. We have inflation which is continuing to moderate. We have productivity that is increasing, and we have a budget that has gone from a $78 billion deficit under those opposite to a $22 billion surplus. If you compare that with other economies in the region, we have higher economic growth than Canada, than France, than Germany, than Italy, than Japan, than the UK—not higher than the US, it must be said, but it's higher than six of the G7 nations. We have employment growth that is higher than all the G7 nations— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting. The member for Hume, on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance, it was a very tight question about defining a GDP per capita recession. If the Prime Minister doesn't know the answer, he should sit down. The SPEAKER 53517 Please resume your seat. The Prime Minister was asked about— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government can cease with their interjections. The Prime Minister was asked about GDP per capita recessions. I take it that the member's asking for a definition of what that is. You're requiring an answer? Well, under the standing orders, I've got to make sure—I can't deliver that for the member for Hume. I just want to be upfront. I've got to make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. I know the answer the member for Hume and maybe other members would like, but, whilst the Prime Minister is talking about the GDP, he is been directly relevant. That's not the answer you want, Member for Hume, and I appreciate that, but under the standing orders— Mr Taylor 231027 It was a very tight question. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, I appreciate that. But under the standing orders, for the Prime Minister to be relevant, he has got to be talking about the issue. He may not give the definition that you wish. I just hope everyone is clear on that and what the standing orders enable me to do. You want a direct answer? I can't do that. I can direct the Prime Minister to be directly relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm surprised they don't want to hear that Australia has faster economic growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. They don't want to hear about that or that we have a lower unemployment rate than Canada, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, or that we have faster employment growth than Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the UK—we have a faster employment growth than all the G7 countries. Of course what we saw last week, with their questions, was that when the figure came in at 3.7 per cent for unemployment, with — The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Skills and Training will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 record employment growth under this government now totalling more than three-quarters of a million Australians in work, they hated it. They talked it down and they continue to talk down the Australian economy. I'm not surprised that they continue to talk down the Australian economy, because they have absolutely nothing positive to offer. Economy 30 14:48 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping in the fight against inflation? How does this compare to other approaches, and what does that mean for the budget? 14:49 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin What a great addition the member for Swan is to our team, from the great state of Western Australia. The member for Swan knows, and we know, that Australians are under pressure. But, more than acknowledging that fact, we are doing something about it, and three facts go to this. When we came to office, real wages were falling at almost 3½ per cent. Now they're growing again. Inflation in quarterly terms was 2.1 per cent when we came to office; it's now 0.6 per cent. When we came to office, monthly inflation had a six in front of it; now it has a three in front of it. We'll get another monthly figure tomorrow. The monthly figures, as we know, are a bit less predictable, a bit more volatile and a bit less reliable than the quarterly figures. Whether the number ticks up a little bit or ticks down a little bit tomorrow, the direction of travel is very clear. We know that inflation is down substantially since its peaks in 2022, but we know that people are still under pressure. We know that we're making welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation, but inflation is still higher than we'd like. That's why our approach to inflation and to wages is so important. We don't have an inflation problem in our economy because the lowest paid Australians are earning too much. We see decent wages growth as part of the solution to cost-of-living pressures, not part of the inflation problem. That's why we think cost-of-living help and tax cuts should be in addition to, not instead of, a decent pay rise for minimum wage workers. Our cost-of-living policies are designed to put downward pressure on inflation. The ABS says we took about half a percentage point off inflation last year as a consequence of our cost-of-living policies that those opposite voted against. Mr Taylor 231027 How much did prices go up, Jimmy? Dr CHALMERS 37998 I am asked by the shadow Treasurer right on cue. I'm very fortunate. He asked me about prices. Since the middle of last year electricity prices have gone up about 3½ per cent. If they'd had their way when they voted against our plan, electricity prices would have gone up more than 18 per cent. When they voted against our cost-of-living help, they voted for higher inflation in our economy. Because of our efforts, inflation is coming down and wages are going up. This helps ensure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is more important than ever in uncertain times, with our economy slowing, with consumption flat and with uncertainty in the world. That's why the focus on the next budget shifts a little bit, but not a lot. It doesn't shift away from what is responsible and what is affordable, but it recognises that we've got this inflation challenge but we've also got a growth challenge in our economy. Our fiscal strategy will shift a little bit as well, as we have a bigger emphasis on investment in the drivers of future growth in the economy. There will still be a primary focus on inflation, but not a sole focus on inflation. The reason why the first two budgets were successful is that they were aligned with the economic conditions, and the third one will be as well. Energy 30 14:52 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question as to the Prime Minister. If the government's energy policy is working, why are 500 families a week going onto energy hardship arrangements? The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Spence will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Spence then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 Interjecting during a question, and particularly before a minister answers, is highly disorderly. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that. 14:52 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. The deputy leader was of course one of those people who opposed our Energy Price Relief Plan. She opposed $3 billion in rebates for households and businesses that have made a substantial difference. The fact is that what we are doing is getting on with the job of making a difference, which was what our intervention into the gas and the coal market was about—in an unprecedented way, to be fair. It wasn't something that was anticipated because Australia, like the rest of the world, was not anticipating the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s—since what occurred under OPEC way back in 1974. As a direct result, governments around the world have had to take unprecedented action and have had the courage to do so— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for New England. Mr ALBANESE R36 which is why we intervened, in conjunction with both Labor and coalition governments at the state level, to make a difference—to put caps on prices so as to limit those price rises. Relief was also provided by federal and state governments to households and businesses. In addition to that, mechanisms were put in place to make a difference—for example, $1.6 billion for energy efficiency upgrades for homes and businesses, including the Small Business Energy Incentive. What we have done is make a difference and we are prepared to take action. Indeed, I'll quote what AEMO, who the opposition quoted earlier on, actually said on 25 January: Record generation from grid-scale renewables and rooftop solar is triggering wholesale energy prices and greenhouse emissions to fall … Early Childhood Education 31 14:55 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts provide cost-of-living relief and support the aspirations of educators and teachers in the highly feminised early childhood education and care sector? 14:55 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Many thanks to the wonderful member for Chisholm for her question. Come 1 July, 81,000 taxpayers in Chisholm will get a tax cut because of the actions of this government. They join 13.6 million Australian workers in every single electorate right across the country, who will see more money in their pockets to help with the cost of living. Australian women taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $1,649. Around six million Australian women will get a bigger tax cut under our government's plan, as opposed to the plan of those opposite. The Albanese government wants to support the aspirations of all Australians, whether they be low-income earners, middle-income earners or high-income earners. We want to support the aspirations of highly feminised sectors, like early childhood education and care, where over 90 per cent of the workers are women. Under our tax cuts, an early childhood educator earning $46,000 a year gets a tax cut of $829. The average early childhood teacher gets $1,404 back into their pocket. The dedicated and hardworking professionals who educate our youngest Australians love the work they do. They are passionate about early childhood education and child development. But, as they often tell me, love doesn't pay the bills. That's why we want early childhood educators to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. We've already supported two increases in modern awards benefiting early childhood educators. We've changed the Fair Work Act so that early childhood educators can bargain for better wages and conditions, something that they've aspired to for far too long. We know there's more to do, and we're actively working with the sector and the unions to not only retain those talented and dedicated professionals but also attract new workers into the sector, towards a sustainable early childhood education system for all Australians. When those opposite were last in government, keeping wages low was the centrepiece of their economic agenda. They want early childhood educators to work longer for less. They don't want them to get a tax cut, and they don't want them to earn more. In contrast, on this side of the House, the Albanese Labor government wants all Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Grocery Prices 31 14:58 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Prime Minister, a farmer ploughs, tills, fights disease, weeds, irrigates, fertilises, harvests, cleans and delivers to stores. Cold and Worthless pay the farmer 49c a potato, put it on a shelf and charge customers $4.50, an 800 per cent mark-up. Their CEOs get $10 million a year; the vanishing check-out chick gets $50,000. In 1990 they had a 50.1 per cent market share; in 2001 they had 70.1, according to ABS and ANOP figures. At two per cent a year, they're now over 80 per cent. PM, if divestiture, won't you be like Roosevelt and have your face carved on Mount Remarkable with Tubba Tre, Ralph Honner and Red Ted Theodore? The SPEAKER 53517 One of the best. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thank you to the unique member for Kennedy for that question. The member for Kennedy is many things. I would describe him absolutely, though, as fair dinkum about his commitment to his electorate, his commitment to the people in his seat, whether they be farmers or miners—whoever they are. He's a champion for his community, and the issues that he raises here about Australian producers and farmers—the feeling that they don't get a fair shake from the product of their work—I think are spot on. When farmers are getting less money for their product, whether it be potatoes, like the one he used, or any other vegetable or product, then you would expect that to translate into cheaper prices at the checkout. The truth is that it hasn't done so. That is why my government's determined to hold them to account. That's why we've got the ACCC conducting an inquiry. They'll produce an interim report as well as then a final report. The options that are open for them are, of course, we've already increased penalties on anticompetitive conduct. We've already banned unfair contract terms. We've set up a competition task force in Treasury which is considering Australia's merger laws. The government has also charged former competition minister Craig Emerson with reviewing the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct at the moment. That is a voluntary code, and we're looking at whether mandating is necessary there. I note that the Leader of the Nationals has said that the coalition were too slow when they were in government and that the Nationals wanted to move at a lot quicker pace in terms of a compulsory grocery code. Well, we haven't got the Liberal Party holding us back, I say to the Leader of the Nationals. Mr Littleproud 265585 You're the only one holding us back! The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're heroes in opposition! They just didn't get around to it in the 10 years they were in government. What we'll do, Member for Kennedy, is certainly respond to any recommendations, including recommendations by the ACCC. I want to continue to work with the member for Kennedy. I'm not sure I'll continue to work on some of the creative suggestions that he's made to the landscape of Far North Queensland up there. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 32 15:03 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government helping people to skill up in areas of demand, like nursing, construction and early childhood education, after a decade of cuts and neglect to the skills sector, and how is the government making sure people can attain these vital skills while not adding to cost-of-living pressures? 15:03 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Firstly, I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and his very strong advocacy for the VET sector and TAFE in his electorate and beyond. I'd like to start by informing the House that 355,557 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE in 2023. That's almost double; that's smashing the original targets set at the Jobs and Skills Summit. Of course, like any good government policy, fee-free TAFE serves more than one end and benefits many. It removes cost barriers to much-needed skills for students, apprentices and workers. It provides skills to businesses and the labour market, and in doing so it provides more carers to care for older Australians. It provides more electricians to help with the transition in the economy. It also provides more tradies to help build homes and public infrastructure. The government fully understands that without the right investment in education and training, whether that's universities or TAFE, we will not have the pipeline of skills we need to decarbonise the economy. We will not have the right skills to ensure the optimal use of the National Reconstruction Fund or to improve health services or to teach preschool kids. That is critical, and that's the skills agenda of this government. In 2023 more than 80,000 fee-free TAFE students enrolled in care sector courses, more than 30,000 in technology and digital, and almost 20,000 in early childhood education and care. The combination of the fee-free TAFE policy and Labor's tax plan have relieved cost-of-living pressures for people across this country. Just take two examples: a Victorian training to be a nurse will not need to find a $15,000 fee to enrol—indeed, on becoming a nurse on $75,000 they will actually save up to $1,554 as of 1 July. A civil construction trainee in Darwin need not find almost $3,000 in course fees, and the tax cuts mean a plant operator earning $90,000 will keep almost $2,000 more of what they earn. Indeed, also taxpayers on 1 July will be getting a tax cut. An enormous 84 per cent of those taxpayers will be better off under Labor's plan compared to the plan of those opposite. We want people to access education and training, but we also want to make sure that they earn more and keep more of what they earn. By way of contrast, the opposition have no plans and no policies—not even a thought bubble—when it comes to responding the skill shortage in this country. They do not support our skills initiatives, they do not support real wages going up and they do not support Labor's tax plan. Fuel Efficiency Standards 33 15:06 Mr JOYCE e5d New England My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Can the minister confirm that, even after the Prime Minister's personal intervention to fix the mess of Labor's new family car and ute tax, families buying one of Australia's most popular vehicles—the Toyota Land Cruiser—will still be facing a tax, making it more than $10,000 more expensive than it is today. Why are Australian farming families paying for the price of Labor's naive, ideologically driven energy policies? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. 15:06 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member very much for his question. I'm not sure who he thinks makes the HiLux—Lamborghini, maybe—because the chief executive of Toyota was just at a press conference with me and the minister for transport, explicitly disagreeing with the premise just put by the honourable member for New England. Who should we believe about Toyota? The member for New England or the chief executive of Toyota? Maybe the member for New England knows more about the impact on Toyota than the chief executive of Toyota. The Chief Executive of Toyota said, ' It has really been Toyota's position for some time that we wanted an emissions standard to basically help us with long-term product planning and where we're going. We wanted an emission standard that's basically ambitious but also brings people on a journey and doesn't leave people behind, and that is where we are. We appreciate the fact the government has given us an opportunity and a voice to all parties and have been able to be consulted. We think the amendments that have been made, we support the government in the amendments that have been made and I think they're a positive step forward.' He was asked explicitly whether he agreed with the coalition's description of our policy that the honourable member just put, and he said, 'No.' Why don't you ask us more about the position of Toyota? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The members on my right will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the member for McEwen. Manufacturing Industry 33 15:08 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Prime Minister. What are some of the elements of the Albanese Labor government's plan for A Future Made in Australia, and how's is it strengthening our economy and our communities after a decade of neglect? 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member from the McEwen for his question. To go off the questions that have been asked for those opposite, one of the things we don't make in Australia anymore is motor vehicles because those people over there told them to leave. They told them to leave. They didn't think it was worthwhile. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 This government's position is very different. We believe in a future made here in Australia. We believe in greater diversity of what we can make. We believe that we need to train and upskill Australians to make high-value complex manufacturing all the way through. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if I call your name that's the ideal time to stop. We're just going to make sure that, as the question was heard in silence, the same curtesy is going to be given to the person answering the question. We're just going to take temperature down for the remainder of this answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 One of things we have done is the National Reconstruction Fund. It's already in discussions with companies. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now warned. I can't be fairer than that. Ms Ley 00AMN We're worried about manufacturers! The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). If I'm warning you, that is definitely not the time to interject. The member for Farrer then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 The NRF that doesn't have a colour coded spreadsheet, the NRF that actually requires companies to come forward and have business cases in order to get funding and co-investment from the government—that's the process that we are doing. We believe that you can have cheaper, cleaner energy—making sure that we value-add, making sure that we make more things here and making sure that, in areas such as the former coal-fired power stations that shut under their watch across there, we make use of that access—to make things at those locations rather than have a nuclear power plant, a nuclear reactor from the nuclear reactionaries over there. That's their vision going forward as well. We see practical examples with the deal just announced and completed in the last fortnight for 100 Boxers being made in Redbank in Queensland—an example of where this heavy weapon carrier will be exported to Germany—a deal worth $1 billion to the Australian economy, a deal in which 600 direct jobs will be created in Queensland alone, with flow-on effects right across the supply chain. That's why you need to make things here, to make sure that you have that expansionary economy and that you are also not dependent just upon imports for things that are critical. That's why we have our critical minerals plan. That's why we are engaging in making more things here in Australia. It is a fundamental belief that this government is putting in place day by day, right across the portfolios. Natural Disasters: Response and Recovery Planning 34 15:12 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Prime Minister. A year after the storm and flood disaster hit Eugowra, Molong, Canowindra, Cudal and Manildra in central-western New South Wales, the state and federal governments each stumped up $50 million to support four local government areas. It's become very clear that this amount will not be enough. With the federal budget looming, our communities are requesting further financial support, including for housing, so that nobody is left behind. Will your government answer those calls and deliver further funding? 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Calare for his question, and I thank him as well for hosting my visit to Eugowra on Friday. Previously, the member for Calare had asked me to return. It's a site I went to in 2022—a community that was devastated by these terrible floods, as were many areas in the member for Riverina's seat, the member for Page's and others more recently, which I visited on the Gold Coast and Far North Queensland. All up, we've delivered some $600 million for flood relief, including, of course, in Eugowra. That included $20 million from each level of government for the Resilient Homes Program in the Central West. We've supported the NSW Reconstruction Authority to consult with councils and the local community on a buyback program there—a buyback program that's in place in Lismore in the electorate of Page. We've also provided for a share of the $25 million Community Assets Program, and I've spoken to Kevin Beatty, the mayor of that shire, about applications there. When I was in Eugowra, I think we met just about everyone in that town. They are brave, resilient people, and I pay tribute to them. I thank Kay and Max for welcoming us into their home, which has been rebuilt. You can see the watermark on their property. They lost most of their possessions in the floods. They weren't insured. But they used some grant money, as well as a small mortgage they took out on their house, to repair and rebuild. They moved into that home last year, just before Christmas, and they are just terrific people. They're typical of the people who we met in the main street. There was a vintage car exhibition on in the main street last Friday night, and therefore there were a lot of people around, and we engaged with them and consulted with them. We'll continue to work with the New South Wales government. I thank the member for the genuine representations that he has made on behalf of individual constituents but also on behalf of his communities. At the worst of times, we see the best of the Australian character, and I certainly saw that with the people who I met in Eugowra last week. We will work with the New South Wales government, who, of course, run the Reconstruction Authority, on what further can be done. On all of these issues, I don't regard them as partisan issues. I go into electorates when I'm asked to, and we provide what assistance we can. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues with the member for Calare. Universities 34 15:16 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make it easier for people in regional Australia to go to university, to earn more money and to keep more of what they earn? 15:16 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the legendary member for Lingiari for her question. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Taree with the member for— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Mr CLARE HWL Did something happen? Did you smile again? Once only—only once a week! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will ignore the interjections. Mr CLARE HWL I will try, Mr Speaker. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Taree with the member for Lyne and we visited the Taree university study hub. On the wall as you walk in there is a sign that says, 'Go further closer to home.' In Taree, there are about 270 students at the moment doing more than 80 different degrees and courses at universities right across the country, and they don't have to move away from home to do it. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and a key part of that is helping more Australians to get a crack at going to TAFE or to university. If you have a university degree, you earn on average $30,000 a year more than somebody whose last year of education was year 12. Almost one in two young Australians in their 20s today has a university degree, but not everywhere—not in regional Australia. In regional Australia it's about 28 per cent, and in the more remote parts of Australia it's even less. That's why these hubs are important. The evidence is that, where they are, there are more people who go to university and there are more people who finish their university degree. In other words, they work. At the moment, there are 34 right across the country, and as part of the Universities Accord we're doubling that. There will be 20 more in the regions and 14 more in the outer suburbs of our big cities. Yesterday I announced the location of the first 10 of those new regional university study hubs. They'll be everywhere from the Pilbara in the north-west of WA to East Arnhem Land in the Territory to King Island off the coast of Tassie. There'll also be new hubs in Innisfail, Warwick, Chinchilla and Longreach in Queensland; Victor Harbor in South Australia; Gippsland in Victoria; and Katanning in WA. Yesterday I also announced more funding for two existing hubs, in Mudgee and Cowra in New South Wales. Applications for the new suburban hubs will open shortly, and applications for the next 10 regional hubs will open after that. As I've said in this place before, I urge members to talk to their communities, talk to their local TAFEs and universities, and encourage them to apply. These hubs are a key part of helping more Australians to get a crack at going to university, and that'll help them to earn more, and our tax cuts will help them to keep more of what they earn. Energy 35 15:19 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The Australian Energy Market Operator has warned Australia faces a gas shortage, which could emerge by next winter, and the east coast market would be in yearly supply deficit by 2028. Senex Energy CEO Ian Davies said, 'The gas market is a mess', and, 'Something needs to change, and quickly, before large industries battle for survival and the lights go out.' Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling with Labor's cost-of-living crisis? 15:20 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question and congratulate her on her elevation to the frontbench. She has asked me several questions already; she is already the most effective shadow minister I've faced this term! But I have to correct her, gently, on the premise of her question. She asked me about the Gas Statement of Opportunities and the shortages that the Gas Statement of Opportunities talks about. I ran the House through, a few minutes ago, how every single equivalent statement in the 10 years those opposite were in office warned of gas shortages—every single one. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting, as will the member for Hume. Mr BOWEN DZS And it wasn't just the Gas Statement of Opportunities; those opposite received other warnings. In February 2014 the department of energy said, 'There is uncertainty about the timing and quantum of supply to the domestic market which will flow through to the prices being faced by domestic consumers.' The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting or be warned. Mr BOWEN DZS In April 2016 the ACCC said, 'The future supply outlook is uncertain when it comes to gas.' In 2017 the Australian energy market corporation said: 'Reform is needed now to keep pace with the changing east coast gas market and to ensure sufficient flexibility so consumers don't pay more than necessary for their gas.' In September 2017 the ACCC again warned, 'The east coast gas market outlook for 2018 has deteriorated significantly, and significant supply shortfalls are now likely.' These are just a few of the warnings that those opposite received year after year. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Lindsay, on a point of order? Mrs McIntosh 281513 Point of order on relevance. Australian families are struggling. Why is the government making it harder in this cost-of-living crisis? I didn't ask about alternative policies. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 No, the member for Lindsay is entitled to raise a point of order. The minister can answer the question but he simply can't, for the remainder of his answer, talk about the opposition. He can do some compare and contrast, but he is halfway through so he can turn back to what the government is doing, if he disagrees with the premise. The member was entitled to raise that point of order. Mr BOWEN DZS The honourable member raised the statement of opportunities. As I said, they were warned time after time. What we have done in contrast to those opposite, who did nothing, is introduce the mandatory gas code of conduct, which those opposite opposed. I'll tell you what the mandatory gas code of conduct has done: it has already secured 564 petajoules of legally enforceable additional supply commitments into the domestic market by 2033. In November we announced that another 140 petajoules of gas will be made available between now and 2027. That's what this government's policies have done. We inherited the situation of ongoing gas shortages, and what we've done is introduce policies to alleviate the situation. That is what we've done, and that is what those opposite failed to do. Local Government 36 15:23 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the economic times and delivering tax cuts for local government workers across Australia? 15:23 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for that question. She is a big advocate for her local councils. I met with the City of Bendigo only last week. In her electorate alone, 66,000 taxpayers will be receiving, on average, a tax cut of $1,424; that's 88 per cent of taxpayers who will be better off under Labor's tax cuts. On this side of the House we take local government seriously, valuing the work they do for our communities, undertaken by thousands of workers across our country. We want to make a real difference to the cost of living for those who work in our local government sector. We want them to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, and we have delivered. People across Australia will see an increase in their pay packets. Under Labor, our outdoor teams, who keep our streets clean, our parks tidy and our rubbish collected, will receive an average tax cut of $1,760. A hardworking grader operator—who we know is in high demand right across the country—who earns around $74,200 will receive a tax cut of $1,535. A council parks and gardens supervisor on $105,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $2,304. On this side of the House, we believe people should learn more and they should keep more of what they earn. That's why Labor's tax cuts will deliver on that promise from 1 July, unlike those opposite, who want people to work longer for less. I've met with over 200 local governments across Australia who have told me that cost-of-living pressures are biting in their communities and that attracting workers to the sector can be difficult. I now hear from them that Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference to the sector. On this side of the House, we've always backed local governments. We brought them back to the table of National Cabinet, we re-established the Council of Local Government, we've increased road black spot funding and we're doubling Roads to Recovery. We take our job seriously and we know that there are trusted delivery partners across the nation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: on this side of the House, we believe in what we do. We deliver what our communities ask for, and they asked us to make sure that local governments were looked after. That's exactly what this side of the House is doing. We have delivered more for local government in nearly two years than those opposite did in 10, and that's why they continue to engage with the Albanese Labor government. We've already had over 400 registrations for the Australian Council of Local Government later this year, and every member of this House engages with local councils because we know how important they are to delivering the services our communities need. Energy 36 15:26 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. There are 64,000 households that are on electricity hardship in New South Wales. New South Wales households on hardship have increased by 82 per cent under Labor's watch. That's nearly 366 households added to electricity hardship in New South Wales every week under Labor. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families who are already struggling to cope with Labor's cost-of-living crisis? 15:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member her for her question but feel obliged to remind her that she voted against bill relief. She voted against coal and gas caps to help the constituents she refers to. She voted against providing rebates to people paying energy bills and small businesses. So, instead of coming in here and asking questions about it, it might have been better if she voted to support those constituents she refers to. That might have been realistic support she could have given to her constituents. She could have actually extended a hand of friendship to the government that was introducing those coal and gas caps, which have been effective, as well as the rebates. Instead, the honourable member is a member of a party which is proposing to introduce the most expensive form of energy available, at $86 billion for one nuclear reactor, and we very much look forward to that debate. Medicare 37 15:28 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are the Medicare urgent care clinics making it easier for Australians to see a doctor, and how is the Albanese Labor government working with the states and territories to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:28 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Solomon for his question. He is a relentless advocate for better and cheaper health care in the Top End. He has the great privilege of representing the hardworking hospital staff from the Royal Darwin Hospital and the Palmerston Regional Hospital, every single one of whom will receive a tax cut on 1 July. He knows that a large part of their work is driven by aeromedical retrievals, bringing people into Darwin from outside and also transferring some of them down to the bigger hospitals in Adelaide and Melbourne. Along with the member for Lingiari, the member for Solomon argued relentlessly for our government to fund a second rescue helicopter and a second jet for CareFlight, and it's been terrific to visit CareFlight with the member for Solomon and see those assets already operating, ensuring 365-day-per-year coverage for the Territory. He also promised his community a Medicare urgent care clinic. As of next week, the clinic in Palmerston will have been operating for six months. Seven days a week, fully bulk-billed, it's seen around 5,000 patients already, a third of whom are under 15 years of age. Not only is this terrific service providing urgent care when and where people need it in Darwin and Palmerston; it's also taking pressure off the local hospitals. Around half of the patients who've been asked at that clinic have said they would have had to go to the emergency department if the clinic weren't available. The member for Solomon and our government are utterly committed to strengthening hospital services in the Top End, not just relieving pressure from the EDs but also correcting a longstanding inequity that sees the Northern Territory receive a smaller share of hospital funding than any other jurisdiction in the country. The landmark deal that the Prime Minister secured with National Cabinet in December will fix that inequity, delivering more than $160 million in additional funding to Territory hospitals in the first year of our new funding agreement alone. This government's approach could not be more different from that of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister, kicking off those 10 years of cuts and neglect that the member for Solomon is talking about. By cutting funds to general practice in his first budget as health minister, he piled the pressure on hospital emergency departments. He then cut hospital funding as well—by $50 billion across the country, according to his own budget glossy from his first budget—slashing around $90 million just from the Top End hospital network in the first few years of those cuts. This government is delivering more support for the Territory in housing, in schools and in health care as well. All they got from the Leader of the Opposition was cuts and chaos. Housing 37 15:32 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. Over eight of the last 10 years, the number of homes built in Australia has matched the number of migrants coming in, but in the last two years of your government twice as many people have come in as houses have been built. Why is the Albanese government making life harder for Australian families, who are already struggling with your cost-of-living crisis? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. 15:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. He of course, in referring to the last 10 years, ignored the fact that during this thing called the pandemic—you'd remember that—the borders were closed, so no-one was coming in. They missed that, Mr Speaker—no-one was coming in. And then, when the pandemic ended, their leadership, including the Leader of the Opposition, called for more migration, not less. They called for more, not less. We are, of course, cleaning up the mess that was left because they left a system whereby students could just come in willy-nilly without any proper— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. I want the member for Deakin to state the point, and I'll give a statement after the point on relevance. Mr Sukkar 242515 Thanks, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 Oh, the Prime Minister has completed his answer. Mr Sukkar 242515 The point of order is relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin—I'm just going to remind him—I'm sure wants to stay for the remainder of question time and beyond. I'd like him to. Defence Personnel 38 15:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cost-of-living relief, services and support for defence personnel, veterans and their families? 15:34 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I want to thank the member for Makin for this very important question. I also acknowledge the support that he provides in advocating for the over 4,800 veterans across his community, many of whom work in the very important area of defence industry across Adelaide. Of course, that's an area that is only going to expand with the announcement last week by the Minister for Defence of ASC and BAE being the sovereign nuclear submarine builders in South Australia, which is a great achievement and a great announcement. It's all part of how the Albanese government is committed to delivering the best possible supports for our defence personnel, veterans and families. Labor wants to ensure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why we are delivering a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer, including our veterans and members of our Defence Force. Indeed, 87 per cent of Australian Defence Force personnel will receive a higher tax cut than they would have under the Liberals' plan. Further to that, any serving member of the Defence Force, no matter what industry they're working in, whether it's defence industry or any other area, will now also be receiving a tax cut. Our veterans make great employees, supporting businesses across Australia, because they bring those great skills of teamwork, leadership, agility and being able to work under pressure. They are all great skills that support any industry across Australia. But some veterans do need assistance to be connected to work. Work is of great benefit for those transitioning into civilian life to make sure that that transition is successful. That's why employment and connection to employment is a key feature of our veterans and families hubs that we are rolling out across the country. Over the last few weeks, I have been very happy to announce funding for hubs in the Surf Coast and Geelong region, in the Hawkesbury and south-western Sydney, in the Hunter, in Ipswich and in Tweed, and last year in northern Adelaide and in Rockingham in Western Australia. We're also working to improve supports for veterans through our reform to the veterans compensation legislation system. We are now consulting on an exposure draft of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, delivering on the first recommendation of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. This will deliver a movement, from three different pieces of complex legislation to one ongoing piece of legislation, so that veterans get better access to service and supports, advocates can support them, and DVA can provide better and faster processing of their claims so that we are delivering on a better future for our veterans and their families. Mr Albanese R36 They ran out of questions before, so I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 38 DOCUMENTS Presentation 38 15:38 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Tuvalu 39 Presentation 39 15:38 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I present National interest analysis,2024 ATNIA 5; and Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union,2024 ATNIF 8. I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the documents. Leave granted. Mr CONROY 249127 It gives me great pleasure to table this treaty today. This is the most significant agreement between Australia and one of its Pacific partners since the agreement for Papua New Guinea's independence in 1975. It will elevate the relationship between Australia and Tuvalu to a deep and comprehensive partnership, a true partnership between friends. 'Falepili' is a Tuvaluan word for good neighbourliness, care and mutual respect. These are the values that are embodied in this treaty. Respect and support for each other's sovereignty are at the heart of our Falepili Union. It puts in place transformational arrangements to safeguard the future of Tuvalu's people, identity and culture and to advance Australia's interests in a peaceful and secure Pacific. The Australian government negotiated this treaty in response to a gracious request from the government of Tuvalu. We were honoured to respond to that request and I am honoured to present the treaty to the House today. The treaty seeks to safeguard Tuvalu's future in the face of the existential threat of climate change, and it recognises that Tuvalu's statehood will continue notwithstanding the impacts of climate-related sea-level rise. The treaty is consistent with Pacific solutions to regional security challenges, as agreed by the Pacific Islands Forum. Under this treaty, both Australia and Tuvalu are embracing obligations to achieve our shared interests. The new government of Tuvalu has confirmed its desire to proceed with the Falepili Union. Tuvalu's Prime Minister, Feleti Teo, was an important contributor to the development of this transformational arrangement and I pay my respects to him and his cabinet. Prime Minister Feleti has been clear he will consult with his people, and we'll work closely with Tuvalu to ensure sovereignty is respected as we move to implement this treaty. Tuvalu is a low-lying island state at the front lines of the global climate crisis. Tuvalu's 11,000 people hold deep ancestral connections to land and sea, and that is why Australia will provide climate adaptation support to help Tuvalu's people continue to live and thrive in their territory. This treaty is based on respect for the inherent dignity of Tuvalu and its people. We believe that people of Tuvalu deserve the choice to live, study and work in Australia, and that's we will establish a special mobility pathway to Australia with an initial allocation for 280 people a year. The pathway will allow Tuvaluans to send remittances, diversify livelihoods and acquire new skills. This will strengthen community resilience in Tuvalu. Tuvaluans will be able to move between Australia and Tuvalu based on the principle of mobility with dignity. In doing this, we support Tuvalu's sovereignty. We consider Tuvalu has shown great regard for future generations in driving this union. As part of this elevated partnership, Australian and Tuvalu will also deepen security cooperation. This recognises that, as Pacific countries, our interests are intertwined. Under this treaty, Australia commits to assist Tuvalu in responding to a major natural disaster, a health pandemic or military aggression. This is predicated on Tuvalu requesting such assistance. To enable effective operation of the treaty, Tuvalu will mutually agree third-party security or defence arrangements with Australia. This agreement will be achieved through friendly consultation and frank and honest dialogue in the spirit of Falepili. The Falepili Union demonstrates to Tuvalu and, indeed, the wider Pacific region that Australia is a genuine and reliable partner. When we say we are part of the Pacific family, this is what we mean. We share a region, an ocean and a future. I commend this treaty to the House. BUSINESS 39 BUSINESS Rearrangement 39 15:43 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That: (1) The House notes: (a) the House agreed to a resolution requiring all questions necessary to complete consideration of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to be put at 1:40 pm; (b) the opposition was permitted to move its detailed amendment at 1:45 pm; and (c) the member for Warringah was not permitted to move her detailed amendments after that time, despite her having circulated the amendments and having sought the call. (2) So much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolutions that the bill be agreed to and that the bill be now read a third time being rescinded in order to enable further consideration in detail of the bill, and for the member for Warringah to move amendments as circulated in her name. There has been a double deception of the House today, as part— The SPEAKER 53517 Just before the Leader of the Greens continues, the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B I just want to understand the basis on which the Leader of the Greens has jumped to move this motion. He hasn't called for standing orders to be suspended. We've already had one item which, frankly, should not have come on. And this is showing great disrespect, I may say, to the coalition, which has the MPI for today. The SPEAKER 53517 Under the standing orders, any member can move a suspension at any time. I have confirmed that the MPI will follow this immediately. So any member can move a suspension, but I'd just remind members of the order of business that is occurring and to take that in mind in future for any decisions made. The Leader of the Australian Greens has the call. Mr BANDT M3C Thank you, Speaker. There has been a double deception of the House today. First, there was a dirty deal between the government and the opposition to ram through a bill that takes away people's rights and could see people end up in jail, right? As part of that, the government and the opposition agreed to a debate management motion. That debate management motion massively favoured the opposition, at the expense of the crossbench, and denied all members of this parliament the ability to contribute to the debate, because the debate management motion that Labor and the Liberals agreed to not only deprived us of any capacity to debate this bill in the ordinary course, by being able to take it back to our constituents, gain advice on it and seek how to deal with something so critical as minimum mandatory sentencing that could see people ending up in jail with no discretion at all, but the debate management motion that was agreed to between the government and the opposition said at point 3: … at 1.40 pm, if debate has not concluded earlier, the question being put on any remaining questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill … That's what they agreed to. We opposed this debate management motion—this gagging of debate to ensure that this dirty deal would be done. But, once it was there, we expected it would be stuck to. But a second deception occurred, because, once it hit 1.40 pm, amendments were allowed to continue to be moved. And, at 1.45 pm, the opposition moved their amendments. So it was clear, at that stage, that one of two things was happening: either the resolution was not being followed, or the government had accepted that there would be time for amendments to be moved, debated and voted on. That is critical, because what the debate management motion also said was that, once we got into the debate, there would be a provision for crossbenchers to move amendments. There would be the provision for the government to move amendments, for the opposition to move amendments and for crossbenchers to move amendments. That was all in the motion. Now, the member for Warringah did the right thing. She circulated amendments and sought the call, after the opposition, after 1.40 pm, according to the Hansard, was able to move their amendments, but then was not given the opportunity to do it. So there was a double deception where not only was everyone in this place denied the chance to scrutinise the bill and participate in it properly, but then, when it came to following even the rules of the motion itself, that got thrown out the window. What became clear was that not only was there a double deception but also a double standard. When you have a motion that passes this place that says it will go, 'Opposition amendments and then amendments being moved by crossbenchers,' and when it is the case that obviously some leniency appears to be granted because the opposition is allowed to move theirs out of time, but then the crossbenchers are not, on a bill as critical as this, that is a double standard. The answer has to be that we go back and afford the member for Warringah the same rights that were given to the opposition—namely, to move an amendment out of time and have it debated and voted on. To do that, the second reading question and the third reading question have to be rescinded to allow the debate to be reopened. That is the way to ensure fairness. If this motion is opposed, and the government says no, then the government is saying: 'We will come into this place and bring a debate management motion. We won't require the opposition to follow it but we will make the crossbench follow it, and they will get punished. We will give special treatment to the Liberals; they get to flout the time lines, if this motion is not supported here in the House today and we are not able to recommit the second and third questions.' It also says to us on the crossbench that we can't take at face value what is put in writing and passed through this parliament. It seems there is one rule for the opposition and a different rule for the crossbench. This is especially critical when you come in here with a dirty deal—not you, Deputy Speaker Claydon; I withdraw that. It is especially critical when the government comes in here with a dirty deal between Labor and Liberal to ram through legislation that could see people end up in jail and say, 'Oh, we will only give you five minutes to speak. But it's okay, you will have a chance to debate your amendments.' And then that doesn't even turn out to be the case. This is so critical because we are dealing with legislation that, in the short time we have had available to look at it, permits the following scenario. It could permit a situation where a minister is able to direct a mother to apply for passports for her and her children to return to Iran, even though there is fear of persecution. And, if she doesn't do it, she gets put in jail with a mandatory minimum sentence of one year. Labor's policy platform says that they oppose mandatory minimum sentencing. But this bill doesn't say that. This bill says you get a mandatory minimum sentence. So that mum, who says she has a genuine fear she will face persecution if she has to be returned there, faces a jail sentence here in Australia. When we seek to contribute to that debate, we are not only denied time to do it by being forced to debate it immediately as soon as it comes in, but we are told we can move amendments, and then we are told we can't but that the opposition can. There is no rationale for this double standard. I urge the government to think about the precedent that this sets for whether or not we can take at face value what they say when they bring it to this place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just before I go, I need the attention of the crossbench just for a moment. As I understand it, you are moving a suspension of standing orders, so I want to assist the House to enable this to progress. Your first point would be regarded as out of order. So I am asking if the member for Melbourne might accept that the first point of your motion should in fact be: 'I move that so much of standing orders be suspended in order to move to the second point'—which is in order. Are you agreeable to that? Mr Bandt M3C Yes. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolutions 'That the bill be agreed to' and 'That the bill be now read a third time' relating to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being rescinded to enable further consideration in detail of the bill and for the Member for Warringah to move amendments as circulated in her name. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you. And now I am seeking a seconder for the motion. 15:54 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I second the motion moved by the member for Melbourne in relation to suspending standing orders to enable proper conduct in this place. To be very clear about what happened today, the government moved a very specific procedural motion to limit debate on the second reading of a controversial bill to 40 minutes. It then included in that procedural motion very specific provisions for questions to be put at the consideration in detail stage, with an express provision for the opposition to be able to put its question and then for a separate question to be put by crossbench members. The second reading was not concluded in accordance with that motion. It went beyond that 40 minutes. The opposition was then given the call to move its amendment at the consideration in detail stage, and the record indicates that was at 1.45 pm. But, upon seeking the call following the division that ensued, I was overlooked by the chair, and the chair proceeded to go straight to that. At no point was there a question of any member of government standing to say that I was unable to seek the call from the chair to move my consideration in detail amendment, because of there being a decision to revisit the 1.40 time line. It's clear that, when the opposition were given the opportunity to move their amendment past the time in those provisions, the government had waived the provisions of that motion. It does give rise to a question—I would say a legal question. Once the government allowed the opposition to move their amendment at consideration in detail at 1.45, it had departed from the motion, its own procedural motion. Unless there was intervention by the government to deny the call being granted to me to be able to move my consideration in detail amendment, I respectfully put that it was not within the power of the Speaker to ignore my request for the call to move that motion, because no-one from government sought to deny me that call by saying that the motion limited it. There is a procedural question here that really raises questions of the integrity of the chamber and the way this works, and I think it puts the Speaker in a really difficult position. I do not wish to cast any negative imputation or anything in relation to the role of the Speaker, but it has put the Speaker in a very difficult position as to the proper management and operation of the House, by the conduct of the government itself. It has failed to implement its own procedural motion and then allow for proper debate to occur. So that we're really clear, the consideration in detail amendment that was proposed and circulated was to provide that women at risk of or suffering from domestic violence or abuse could not be provided a removal order by the minister. Everyone in this place stands up time and time again to say that they stand for fighting against domestic violence and protecting the rights of women. Yet here we had a real case, an opportunity to make sure that law was not going to be a complete overreach when it comes to women and children in situations of domestic violence and abuse, and the government did not comply with its own motion to allow me to move that amendment. That is why we should be suspending standing orders and revisiting the question. If, legally, there is a question that we've departed from that procedural motion then the provisions of the standing orders should be regenerated. On the question of reconsideration, standing order 154, for example, specifically provides: Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House. I sought to do that, trying to go by the book, relying on these standing orders. But what was made clear today, by how the House operated and the really difficult position the chair was put in, was that it appears to be a free-for-all. It appears that the government can move a procedural motion that makes specific considerations and provisions for the debate and the process for a bill—rightly or wrongly, of course; I'll put aside my concerns around the curtailing of debate—but then depart from that without amending the motion and, I would say, put the whole consideration in question as to the legitimacy of the vote that occurred. The only way that can be fixed is by supporting this motion to suspend standing orders, return to the question and enable standing order 154 to be engaged so that the bill can be reconsidered and consideration in detail can properly proceed. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

15 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 37 NOES Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Caldwell, C. M. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Collins, J. M. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. McIntosh, M. I. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Sukkar, M. S. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wells, A. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 42 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 42 16:07 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's failed policies creating a housing crisis for Australians. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:08 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin What you don't hear in question time from this government is anything about the housing crisis facing Australians. What you see in question time from this government is a very self-satisfied Prime Minister and frontbench who basically come in here every day and tell Australians that they've never had it better. We hear the litany of statistics from the Prime Minister basically telling Australians that they are so fortunate to have us as a government. And they never mention the housing crisis as being failed. The most recent example of that was in question time when we had the Prime Minister blatantly refuse to answer what I thought was a very reasonable question of the government, and that question asked: why on earth, in the last two years of the Albanese government, did we have the number of migrants coming to this country running at the very least twice and on some statistics up to four times as many homes being built? Think about that—twice to four times the number of migrants coming in than homes being built. We saw statistics reported in the Australian last week from Simon Benson, who outlined that 900,000 migrants had arrived from the time this government won office until 31 December, and in that time, when 900,000 migrants arrived in this country, 265,000 homes were built. May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, a figure of 265,000 homes is delving into record lows for this country. Under this government, under the Labor Party, we now see new home builds at their lowest level since the global financial crisis. We see the number of first home buyers at its lowest level for over 10 years. Since this government came to office, the rents that Australians are paying have increased by 26 per cent. Sadly, we see data that shows approvals are at their lowest level for over a decade. What that means is that, if the housing crisis is bad now, it is just getting worse. That's because approvals data is the canary in the coalmine for home builds later this year, 2025 and 2026. If homes aren't being approved now, they won't be getting built over the next two-year period. What do we hear from the government in response? Obviously, we don't hear anything about it in question time. We have heard the minister talk about the Housing Australia Future Fund. Ms Collins HWM Supply! Mr SUKKAR 242515 I'll take that interjection, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Housing from the government says 'supply'. She says, 'We are concentrating on supply.' I don't think I'm verballing the minister. She said that very clearly across the dispatch box. Well, let me give the minister a report card. Let me give the minister a sense of how well she and the government are doing. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has highlighted the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade, with a meagre 23,000 dwellings commenced in the September 2023 quarter. The housing minister says, 'We're focused on supply.' What does the report card say? What does the scoreboard say? It hasn't been worse for over 10 years, Minister, so you are failing your own test. That's why this is just going to get worse. The truth is—for those in the gallery and those watching—the reason it will get worse is that the government won't admit there's a problem. The government say, 'We're focused on supply; that is what we're focused on,' yet they are failing badly. As I said, we have seen renters have their rents increased by 26 per cent, with absolutely no plan from this government on how you get more homes into the market. We also saw, on the weekend, a very fair assessment, I think, from the Australian people. They said, 'We are bringing in record numbers of migrants—900,000 migrants compared to 265,000 homes. Where on earth are those people going to live?' We know that all this is doing is pushing down vacancy rates. We now have a national vacancy rate of one per cent. It's no wonder that in Melbourne, in my home state of Victoria, when you see an 'open for inspection' for a rental the queues sometimes go around the block. When you bring in 900,000 people with no idea of where they're going to live, guess who suffers? It's the Australians who live here. It's the Australians who live here who suffer. I'm a very proud product of migration. I come from a migrant family. I'm a huge supporter of migration, but it must be planned. You must have a clue about where those people are going to live. We often talk about infrastructure and migration and the fact that the infrastructure in our cities has to keep up with the ever-growing number of migrants to this country. Well, there is no more important social infrastructure in this country than a roof over your head. There is no bridge, road, tunnel or drain that is more important than a roof over your head. So I would say to the Minister for Housing and the government: you can't abrogate your responsibility and say: 'Well, that's another minister's responsibility. The number of people coming in is not my responsibility as housing minister.' In the September quarter of the year we had 548,800 migrants, and in that time we had 176,000 homes built. But there's a kicker in those statistics, an important kicker: of the 176,000 homes built, at least a third—potentially up to half—are actually just replacements of existing stock, so a portion of those 176,000 are not increasing the numbers. So those figures are even generous to the government. Mr Birrell 288713 Knockdown-build. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Knockdown-rebuilds—we see it all the time. It's a new home, but it's not increasing the stock of housing in this country. The government say, 'We're focused on supply,' but they're failing. They get an F for supply. No government has done as badly as them since the last time the Labor Party was in government. To get back to what we saw over the weekend, Australians—I think rightly—said: 'Well, if you're bringing in 900,000 migrants, surely you're bringing in some of the people who actually build the homes. Surely you're bringing in some of the trades that build those homes.' But, no, we aren't. We find the 200,000-person increase in migration, year on year, to the September 2023 quarter—the increase by 200,000, to 550,000 people—was predominantly made up of students, not the tradies that are required to build the homes we need. So you don't have that countervailing support for the people that create this industry and build this industry. In conclusion, where do we find ourselves now? We find ourselves in a dire situation. Labor's housing crisis is getting worse. There's no way you can spin the numbers. Labor's housing crisis is getting worse. We're at 10-year lows in the number of homes being built, we are at the lowest level of first-home buyers for over a decade and we have rents going up exponentially. And what's the plan? What's the policy from this government? The minister, after two years in office, will have the Housing Australia Future Fund established on 1 July, which we opposed. If I'm completely and utterly wrong and the minister's right, and her Housing Australia Future Fund works tickety-boo and is perfect, how many homes will come out of that Housing Australia Future Fund? Six thousand a year. So, at a time when they're bringing in 548,000 migrants, this minister's answer is to say, 'We will fund 6,000 homes for those 548,000 people.' I think it's very heroic to even think that they will meet their own targets. Since when has the Labor Party ever met a target like this, whether it's pink batts or school halls? You name it. But, even if I'm wrong and the minister delivers her meagre 6,000 homes, at the same time as the government is bringing in 548,000 migrants per year, what does it mean? It means misery for Australians and it means, quite frankly, our children will not have the same opportunity to own a home in this country as we had, and that is a shame on the government. 16:18 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Can I say to the member opposite who proposed this MPI that we are busy cleaning up the mess that they left us. Everybody in this country understands the time line around migration and fixing it and around housing and fixing that, and these things do not happen overnight. There's no silver bullet here. This takes hard work, something those opposite did not do. We've seen two reviews into migration, the Nixon and Richardson reviews, that said what a mess they left us in migration. Our home affairs and immigration ministers have been cleaning up that mess. They have been the ones making sure we rebalance our migration system so that we do get the skilled workers we need. Indeed, we are bringing in more skilled workers in construction than the former government did. We are working incredibly hard to turn this around. When it comes to housing, let's not forget that, every time we come into this place and introduce a housing measure, those opposite vote against it—every single time. Every single time we want to do something to provide more housing, they vote against it. Of course, the member who was just at the dispatch box used to be the Minister for Housing, and when he was minister, particularly when it came to social and public housing but also when it came to housing generally, they always said it's a matter for state and local government. That was their attitude. The one thing they did was HomeBuilder—a good policy badly implemented. What did it do? Post COVID, it stuffed up the housing construction market; that's what it did. We had all these builders signing fixed-term contracts that they couldn't fulfil because of the supply chain issues. That's what they did. And we're busy cleaning up that mess too. We on this side of the House want to work constructively with state governments and local government, and we want to help turn this housing challenge around. Just last night, with the state ministers, we had a ministerial council meeting where we took a decision to have outcomes: we're actually going to have a performance framework; we're actually going to judge how well we're doing. They had an agreement with the states and territories, and in five years they did not have one meeting with the housing ministers across the country. We've had seven in less than two years because we want to work with them to turn this around. That's what serious governments do; they do the hard work to fix the problem. Unlike those opposite, we understand what an affordable house means. We are out and about visiting tenants of social and public housing, like the people I talked about in this chamber just this week—like Emma, who was at the new social and affordable housing that I opened in Prahran last Friday. It is 434 social and affordable homes, half social, half affordable. She said it had changed her life. She had spent years in insecure housing. When people get a home, they can build a community, they can get a job, they can get their friends and family together, they have pets, they have plans and they actually build a life. That's what having a home is about. That's what we understand on this side of the House. That's why, when we came to government, the first thing we did was unlock $575 million that the former government had sitting there but did nothing with. What have we done? We've built homes already with that money. We have homes on the ground because we unlocked that immediately. In October, after getting elected in May, we expanded, improved and changed the First Home Guarantee Scheme. We've now helped more than 100,000 people into homeownership because of the changes we made. And we introduced our Housing Australia Future Fund—an election commitment that those opposite voted against and the Greens political party held up for more than six months. We finally got it through the parliament, and we actually got it up and running by November last year, and by the middle of January we had open tenders for the first round of funding. That tender round closed last Friday. I can say to the shadow minister for housing that he's going to be awfully surprised when he reads the paper today. He hasn't caught up with how many applications we're going to get for social and affordable homes to be built, to help Australians who need them the most. In our first budget, we funded the National Housing Accord, with funding for 10,000 affordable homes. We set a national target for houses. Those on the opposite side said that target was too big, and then they said it was too small, and then they said it was too big; they don't know what they're talking about over there. We are doing considered, careful policy. We are pulling every lever we have available to us and encouraging the states and territories to do the same. Last year we provided the states with $2 billion straight up for more social housing. That would build around 4,000 homes. Some of them already have tenants in them; they have been built and tenanted already. It's 10 months since we provided some of the states and territories with that money. For the states and territories that haven't given me a list of every single property they are building or have built, I have asked for it and I chase them up regularly because we want to get on with working with them to get more homes on the ground. Then there was the National Cabinet decision last year—a historic agreement with the states and territories where we agreed on a new, ambitious national aspirational target to build not one million homes but 1.2 million homes. We put money on the table for the states and territories to reach that target; we put $3.5 billion on the table. The minister for infrastructure and I will, in the coming week, open up the Home Support Program, which is half a billion dollars for local and state governments to do the necessary planning and infrastructure so we can get more homes on the ground. As part of the National Cabinet decision we got an agreed national blueprint to do the planning and zoning reforms, to do the reforms that are necessary at the state and local government levels so that we can add to supply. That is critical. Then we have been working right across the board to make sure that we can get Help to Buy up. We got the states and territories to agree to Help to Buy, our shared-equity scheme, so that we can, once and for all, have a national shared-equity scheme. We've seen how valuable these are, particularly in the state of Western Australia, with Keystart. We're talking about up to 40 per cent government equity for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes. That, too, will drive supply. But those opposite came in here and voted against that just as they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. Now we've got the Greens saying they won't support it either. So, when we want to get more people into homeownership and to support low-income Australians into homeownership, we're getting people saying no. Through National Cabinet, we also agreed to renters' rights, to have some national consistency for renters so that renters in the country, no matter where they live, understand what their rights and obligations are in terms of them and their properties. We want to encourage more longer-term leases and renters' rights around the country. We also, in our last budget, had the largest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years, a 15 per cent increase to the maximum rate. We are, at every opportunity and at every level, using the levers that we have available to us. We have now invested more than $25 billion in extra funding for the states and territories, across the country, for social and affordable housing, for housing supply and for investments for renters. We are taking this really seriously. We have now announced investments that will build more than 60,000 social and affordable homes. But, importantly, we need to add to supply. There was research done that said that our National Cabinet agreement for renters would put downward pressure of tens of billions of dollars on increasing rents because of that agreement—if the states and territories meet the national target. We want them to meet it, and we're working with them to meet it because we know how important this is. There is a lot of work to do, but you don't do this overnight. We're working as quickly as we can with other jurisdictions. But those opposite don't have a policy on housing—actually, correction. They do have one: raid your super. Even those on the other side have said that what this will do is push up house prices. That's it. They have a policy that will push up house prices. Indeed, the current Leader of the Opposition said in 2017: … you don't want to fuel prices, you don't want to create a situation that's worse than what we've got at the moment. Quite right. The shadow finance minister, the then minister for superannuation, said it would probably push up prices. Interestingly, even last night, the newly appointed shadow minister for homeownership told the ABC that their super policy could push up prices. So you raid your super, you push up prices, you've got no super left and the house has gone up in price. Seriously, those over there have no ideas for how to get more Australians to have a safe and affordable place to call home. We are doing the careful policy work, working with the other tiers of government to turn this around. As I said, we are busy cleaning up their mess in migration. We're busy cleaning up their mess in terms of housing and housing supply. We're busy building more social and affordable homes for the Australians that need them most, and those on the other side should get out of the way and support our policies. 16:28 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I thank the honourable member for Deakin for bringing this matter of public importance, 'This government's failed policies creating a housing crisis for Australians', to this place today. Since this government was elected, the problem of housing affordability in this country has grown to the point that it is now beyond a crisis, and this is because of many of the policies that this government has introduced. It's a national shame, because in Australia we value homeownership very deeply. It is a deep part of our nation's story. We are a country that was built largely on a classless system, and that classless system was built on the notion of homeownership. The founders of our modern country came over here and, particularly from the 20th century onwards, recognised that the way to have a different system to the class system that existed in the United Kingdom was for most Australians to be able to own their own homes. A home provides stability for families, provides social cohesion, builds stronger communities and provides security in retirement. At the moment, younger Australians particularly have been failed by this government, especially in my home state of New South Wales. We are denying the millennials and also generation Z the opportunity that those who went before them had. For example, in Sydney about 40 years ago the median house price was five times the average salary. Today that ratio is closer to 12 times. So, even if these younger people do all we've asked of them—finish school, get an education, get a job—it's still going to take them, on average, about 12 years to save for a deposit. Whether it be homeownership or rent, housing is now almost completely unaffordable in this country, and the problem is largely due to supply. We have failed to build the number of houses needed, particularly over the past 20 years. This government has spoken about addressing supply. It has said it will deliver 1.2 million new homes over five years. That's the promise from this government. That's 240,000 new homes each and every year. That came out of an announcement from National Cabinet towards the end of last year, and a couple of weeks later Labor New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, the Premier of the most populous state in the country, said, 'New South Wales now can't meet its targets.' If New South Wales can't meet its targets, the federal government cannot meet its targets. But I will say this about Premier Minns: at least he was honest about it. One of the main policies the government has failed on is economic policy, for example. The government's failure to grasp inflation, to get inflation under control, has led to 12 interest rate rises in a row. That means that with the average mortgage of $750,000 a family is now needing to find another $24,000 each year just to be able to pay their mortgage. This has of course also led to an increase whereby property owners, to cover their own mortgages on investment properties, have had to increase rents, Also, the shortage of rental properties has meant that national median rents have increased by 26 per cent under this government's watch. We've also seen a government that has failed to address some of the major issues in the building and construction industry, which is now on its knees. We have record construction insolvencies. The ABS has highlighted the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade. According to Build Skills Australia, we need an extra 90,000 construction workers in the next three months just for the government to meet its target of 1.2 million new homes. So this is not going to happen. I've just heard the minister saying that state and local government are completely separate entities. The minister has the ability to incentivise state and local governments to provide better housing choice, to look at very innovative projects. For example, I've got Tiny Solar Homes in my electorate. I'd invite the minister to come and have a look at them. We've got companies doing amazing things in airspace development—building homes in airspace on existing developments. These are the sorts of things the Labor government should be looking at to address housing in this— (Time expired) 16:33 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid What an extraordinary matter of public importance we are debating today. It's not the content that is extraordinary, because I think we all agree that housing is important. What is extraordinary is the member who is moving this MPI, the member for Deakin—the former housing minister. That he is the one who is moving a motion for debate on housing is pure irony—so much irony that Alanis Morissette should rewrite her song—because this housing crisis has been brewing for years and years. And who was the housing minister for many of those years? It was the member for Deakin. In his time as the Minister for Housing, he could not even be bothered to convene a meeting of all the state and territory housing ministers. We know that the issue of housing affordability is complex. It involves local council, development approvals, state and territory planning policy, and support for infrastructure projects. Yet the member for Deakin, in the years that he was the Minister for Housing, could not bring himself to get everyone together to establish a national housing plan. So let's look at the track record on housing of those opposite. A pretty basic part of public policy is understanding the problem. Whether it's monitoring supply or demand, you've got to be able to measure the scale of the challenge. That seems like a fairly uncontroversial point—but not for those opposite. Under the Abbott government those opposite abolished the National Housing Supply Council, the very body charged with giving us that vital information. For those keeping score on how bad those opposite were on housing: they were lazy and couldn't convene a meeting of all housing ministers. They were inept, abolishing the body that was providing us with a better understanding of the housing affordability challenge. Now we've got the real winner of bad housing policy. What is it? Raiding your superannuation, your retirement income. It is such a bad policy that respected economist Saul Eslake described it as 'one of the worst public policy decisions of the 21st century'. I think he undersold how bad it is, but it's pretty bad, because what their housing policy does is turbocharge demand for housing while doing nothing to address supply. But don't take my word for it and don't take the word of Saul Eslake. Let's hear what former Liberal finance minister Mathias Cormann thinks. This is what he had to say: Increasing the amount of money going into real estate by facilitating access to super savings pre-retirement will not improve housing affordability It would increase demand for housing and, all other things being equal, would actually drive up house prices by more. So their one housing policy won't do anything to assist with housing affordability; it will drive up prices. After nine years of neglect from those opposite, this is a government on this side of the House that is finally showing leadership on housing. We are tackling it from four angles. One is providing direct assistance to the most vulnerable through a record increase in rent assistance and the establishment of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build more social and affordable housing that Australia needs. The second thing we're doing is boosting housing supply by working with state governments through the Housing Accord to set a national target to build 1.2 million more homes over the next five years. We're investing an additional $1 billion in the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to finance building more homes, and we've changed tax arrangements to encourage investment in build-to-rent accommodation. The third thing we're doing is providing institutional reform and leadership, because, finally, we have a minister for housing who is willing to convene a meeting of all the housing ministers and who has set up the first National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. The fourth angle that we're taking is providing assistance to first home buyers, getting them a foot on the property ladder through our Help to Buy scheme and expanding the Home Guarantee Scheme. This is a government that cares about addressing housing affordability, and we're doing just that. 16:38 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls 'Our house, in the middle of our street. I remember way back then, when everything was true and when we would have such a good time, such a fine time'—Madness. I'm referring to the band that actually recorded that song, although it might apply to the policies of those opposite as well. Way back then, when a lot of young Australians could buy their own home, we didn't have a cost-of-living crisis and supply was closer to keeping up with the number of people coming into the country. But that's not the case now. Homeownership has never been further out of reach, and loan and construction data points have gone down to the lowest level of activity since the GFC in 2008. What's causing this? What's causing the homeownership crisis and housing crisis that we're debating today? Well, it's the cost of living, obviously. The cost-of-living crisis doesn't help when you're trying to save for a home. If interest rates are going up, electricity prices are going up, food is going up, and your disposable income is going down, down, down, then it's very difficult for young people to save for a home. There's supply. We've talked a lot about supply, and it's not getting better on the ground, that I can see, in my electorate of Nicholls. Even though the government says, 'Oh, we're working on supply; we're working on this; we're putting this into place; we're doing this,' all I'm seeing is added bureaucracy. To be fair, the added bureaucracy is not just from the federal Labor government. In my state of Victoria, it's from the state Labor government. And if you want to come and see what a poor government looks like, get a flight to Melbourne and have a look around! Now, the problem is that it takes a long, long time to turn a paddock that has been zoned residential into something that someone could pour a slab on. Sometimes it's six to eight years. That is not helping with supply. The causes are ridiculous bureaucratic delays: red tape, green tape—every kind of tape you can imagine. Developers are telling me it's so hard to be able to develop new estates, with the services and all of the things. It should be much easier. The federal government should be supporting state and local governments to streamline these processes. Instead of putting money into building new homes, put the money into making sure that state and local governments have the ability to streamline their approval processes, and we'll see more houses get built. Labor has some ambitious targets, but I don't see any credible plan to achieve them. There are some plans that I think are fairly dubious. I mean, take Help to Buy—I'll go back to Madness for a while: 'Our house, was our castle and our keep'. Well, under the Labor plan Help to Buy, 'our house' will be the Albanese government's castle and their keep—that's how that's going to work! I think there are a lot of good ideas that can be put forward. One constructive idea I want to throw out there is the rise and rise of modular housing development. There's a company in my electorate of Nicholls that's aiming to set up a factory that will build modular houses and go out and drop them on blocks and plug them in. I think that's a great advance and a way we can get more people to have a roof over their head. With modular building, you take away a lot of the delay and cost that come from having to be out in the elements to build, as you're doing it in a controlled environment. So I'm really excited to see this company called JMB Modular Buildings set up their facility in Nicholls. I just hope that they can fast-track their housing build and reduce the costs of actually building the houses. But can the governments reduce their planning and bureaucracy delays so we can get more houses on the ground? 'Our house, in the middle of our street'—we need more houses and more streets. (Time expired) 16:43 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I would really encourage the member for Nicholls to speak to the Minister for Industry and Science, Minister Husic, who spoke about modular housing just yesterday in this parliament. So I really would encourage the member to reach out, because, on this side of the House, unlike on the other side, we do understand that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. I genuinely don't believe those opposite do think that this is the case, and the evidence we've seen, with the wasted 10 years with the gift of government, just demonstrates that. We have acted and will continue to act on putting in place short-, medium- and long-term plans to tackle the challenges left behind after a decade of very little action by the former Liberal-National government. We have already committed more than $25 billion in new housing investments over the next decade. This includes the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, with the Housing Australia Future Fund now established. This will help the government's commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes in the fund's first five years. We're a collaborative government, so we're working with states and territories to help them meet the ambitious new national target to build 1.2 million well-located new homes over five years from July through our $3 billion new homes bonus and $500 million Housing Support Program. This builds on the Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes to be matched by states and territories. We're delivering immediate action like the $2 billion social housing accelerator for around 4,000 new social rental homes across the country in partnership with the states and territories. This is on top of an additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental housing through Housing Australia. We've unlocked up to $575 million in funding from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with houses already under construction across the country. A further $1 billion has now been committed to this facility, and Housing Australia has already supported 4,937 new homes since our government came to office. If it sounds like we're doing a lot of work, it's because we are, unlike what happened under the watch of those opposite, when they wasted 10 years in government, which is such a great shame. We're also delivering new action to help Australian renters, expanding opportunities for homeownership, without requiring people to steal from their retirement savings for the future, and we're bolstering frontline homelessness services. We've led the way on renters' rights, securing a better deal for renters, and, for the first time in Australia's history, we're coordinating progress towards a nationally consistent policy to require genuine reasonable grounds for eviction. Renters are benefitting under other work we're doing with state and territory governments, as we support them to change standards, including limiting rental increases to once a year, and minimum rental standards. We're helping to ease the pressure on Australians feeling the pain of rising rents by increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent, because it's really important to understand that many people in our country also rent. We're offering new incentives to boost the supply of rental housing by changing arrangements for investments in build-to-rent accommodation. We've significantly expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, which under our government has already helped more than 100,000 people into homeownership. We're working with states to deliver the Help to Buy scheme, supporting up to 40,000 low- and middle-income families to purchase a home of their own. We are doing so much, and I suspect I'm going to need more than the five minutes allowed in the debate today to talk about all of the action our government are taking to ensure that people have a safe and affordable place to call home, including the work we're doing to ensure that we have a national plan to end homelessness, as part of our $1.7 billion National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. What's really important is that, instead of blaming migrants, for instance, for the housing crisis in this country that those opposite oversaw for a decade, we are actually taking responsibility as a government to build houses. We're getting on with the job, as I described. We don't sow division and fear in our communities. Many of us, including, I note, the member who brought this MPI to the House, represent multicultural electorates, and it would be irresponsible for us to blame them for the housing crisis left behind by those opposite. So we're taking action. 16:48 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden In the nearly two years since this government were elected, they've produced failed policies that have created a housing crisis for now desperate Australians. Homeownership, especially for first home buyers, has never been further out of reach. The Gold Coast, my home town, has always been a place of aspiration, a growing regional city known for our standard of living and quality of life. But under the Albanese Labor government, generations of prosperity and sustainable growth are at risk. Labor is crushing the dreams of aspirational young families in suburbs like Gaven, Pacific Pines, Ormeau and Pimpama. I say to those young Australians: don't write off your dreams; vote for the coalition at the next election, because we are here for you. The number of first home buyers is at the lowest level since the Prime Minister's mentor, Julia Gillard, was equally failing Australians on every major issue back in 2008. Lending for new homes is now at a shameful 20-year low. And it's not at all surprising that there's no confidence in the construction sector, when Labor has presided over 12 interest rate rises. Interest rates are up, inflation is up, construction costs are up and the ambitions of Australians are being hit the hardest. The dream of a first family home is well and truly out of reach for many, and the few first home buyers that are in the market will be lucky to find a home in a price bracket that they can afford. Under Labor, our standard of living is collapsing. Net disposable income is going backwards, and fast. Since the last election, the average $750,000 mortgage is now costing an extra $24,000 a year in repayments. But for those renting, perhaps trying to save a deposit for a home, things are also grim. Average rent has risen by 26 per cent, to an average of $580 per week. The great Australian dream is becoming unattainable, and this government has no plan to fix it. Labor simply has the wrong priorities, and they are failing to deliver for Australians. Despite all of the government's posturing that they are here for working-class families, what they actually do is raise taxes on family cars and utes. They have decimated the skills and training sector, and they make Aussies compete for housing in a market with record-high migration levels. Labor's big Australia has grown even bigger, with migration reaching a new record, of 548,000 arrivals over the last year. This is 1,500 new arrivals every single day. Net migration is outstripping new home construction by a factor of four. Labor has broken the record for the greatest number of migrants to arrive in a 12-month period, beating its own record from the year before. Australians are struggling to find a place to live and struggling to pay the rent, and they're rightfully asking: 'What about us? Where will all these new people live? How can I compete with dozens of other people inspecting a new rental?' The government isn't focusing on delivering for Australian families. I remind the House of the Prime Minister's famous declaration to the Australian people prior to the last election: 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages.' Shall we chalk that one up as another broken promise, alongside the broken promises on tax cuts and cheaper power bills? There have been two giant failed policies: the widely condemned failure of the Help to Buy scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund that Labor tried to deliver. Do you know who's missing from the chamber this afternoon? The Greens. An MPI on housing, and the Greens can't be bothered turning up, despite this being directly in their wheelhouse. The Greens want the government to own your home. Labor want the unions to own your home. The coalition want you to own your own home. So, with so much evidence mounting up that Labor won't get anywhere near the promise to build 1.2 million homes over the next five years, when will the housing minister admit that Labor's policies aren't working? An impending 200,000-home shortfall, confirmed by industry, is proof of yet another broken promise. At a time when Australians need leadership, certainty and a roof over their head, they're being let down by this government. Australians have seen one failed policy after another, one broken promise after another, and we're in the middle of a devastating housing crisis with a government that can't deliver a plan. 16:53 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins As a mum, I'm used to cleaning up other people's mess, and I think that actually makes me highly qualified for this job. I certainly do this in my house, and I do it in this House. That's thanks to a decade of Liberal inaction and messed-up priorities. Inland Rail, commuter car parks, $5 billion on subs we never got, and let's not forget the $20 billion spent on consultants. It goes on and on, as far as the eye can see. That's what we're cleaning up. But, in addition to their threadbare legacy, whether it be energy, health care or skills shortages across the economy, we can now add housing. Their waste was, as the Prime Minister said, radioactive: it takes forever to clean up. Housing is no exception. But the federal government is back at the table after a decade of being absent. We are here to work with the states and territories and indeed with local councils to solve this housing crisis, because we can't afford not to. Housing is foundational. It is a prerequisite to security and to prosperity. Right now there are far too many Australians, in Higgins and elsewhere, who are spinning their wheels in search of a roof over their head. The answer is supply. The number of dwellings peaked in 2016 and supply has been in freefall ever since because the Liberals vacated their role of leadership. What does housing supply actually look like? I have had the privilege of seeing this in action. This is what happens when the federal government steps in. With $400 million, the Albanese government has helped build social and affordable housing in my own electorate. I had the privilege, with the housing minister, Julie Collins, and the state housing minister, Harriet Shing, of opening 434 homes in Bangs Street, Prahran. These are a mix of social, private rental and specialist disability homes. Do you know what? They are beautiful. These are warm, bright, modern homes. They have European laundries, induction stovetops, seven-star electric energy ratings, beautiful wooden floors, built-in wardrobes and bathtubs and showers—people should have the luxuries. I had the privilege of speaking to Emma. Emma is an 80-year-old woman who has been on the public housing waiting list for about three years. She finally got this home and she felt like she had hit the jackpot. She has moved in, she cares for her cat and she is connected to her community. Why? Because we want to see homes built in areas where essential services are present, as well as public transport. Places like Prahran in the inner city are ideal in that regard. How are we doing that? We're doing that by incentivising, dangling a lot of carrots—$25 billion worth of carrot—in front of the states. Mr Laxale 299174 That's a lot of carrot. Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 That's a lot of carrot. Thank you, member for Bennelong. That's going to be over the next 10 years. One of those carrots is the $3 billion New Homes Bonus. This is a performance-based provision of funding to the states to stimulate housing. In addition to that, we have the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. This money was released to the states in June last year. They have two years to disburse these funds. I gather that the applications are now rolling in and the minister is going to be signing off on those. But let's not forget the Housing Australia Future Fund. This was delayed through an unholy alliance of the Liberals and their new besties, the Greens political party, and it was stopped for six months. Six months is not trivial when people are living in tent cities, many of them in Liberal Party electorates. They have the temerity to come into this House and lecture us on what we are not doing for housing. We are cleaning up your Liberal legacy because you vacated the space. You are now doing your constituents a disservice by also blocking the Help to Buy Scheme—a shared equity scheme that can put young Australians and low-income earners into homes right now. All you have to do is vote yes. That shared equity scheme means that the government will stump up 40 per cent of the purchase price for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes, significantly reducing mortgage repayments and the deposit. Don't lecture us; just vote yes. 16:58 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Thank you, member for Higgins, for the contribution. I appreciated the contribution about Bangs Street in Prahran. That sounds like such a great project, a wonderful initiative in Prahran that's open this year, as the member said. I thought I might quickly jump on the website and do a little bit of research and have a look at Bangs Street. When did the early works for the Bangs Street social housing project, which the member for Higgins is happy to talk about, start? They started in 2021. Who was in government in 2021, Member for Fadden? It might have been the coalition government. I'm referencing the official Homes Victoria website. When did construction of the Bangs Street social housing project, which the member for Higgins just referenced as such a great project, start? It started in February 2022. Mr VIOLI 300147 Member for Fisher, who was the government in February 2022? Was that the coalition government? Wow! There we go, people at home. We have just summed up the one moment the Albanese government. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! There's too much noise in the chamber. Mr VIOLI 300147 The Albanese government are happy to take credit for the work of the previous coalition government. The works at Bangs Street that commenced in February of 2022, on the Homes Victoria website—that's what we see from those opposite. When MPIs come up, they're very quick to criticise the coalition, saying nothing happened, yet they're very happy to turn up to the openings that were funded under the previous coalition government. It's very, very awkward for this government, and the Australian people have worked that out. They've worked out that it's a government that is big on spin but not on delivery. They gave this Prime Minister a chance. They didn't know much about him. He ran a very small strategy. They knew that he didn't know the cash rate during the election. They knew that he didn't know the unemployment rate. What they found out today is that this Prime Minister doesn't know what a per capita GDP recession is. We saw him pad three minutes on that. That's the problem for the Australian people—when you have a housing crisis, when you have an economy that's struggling, when you have a Prime Minister that's not across the detail and when you have a Treasurer that's not across the detail and not prepared to make the hard decisions because he's worried about getting the support from the backbench. We know this Prime Minister is not only not across the detail; he can't be trusted. He said at the last election, 'My word is my bond.' And he broke that bond because he was referencing the stage 3 tax cuts which he flipped on. We could also reference has broken promise on electricity—a $275 reduction that he promised 97 times before the election and 30 times after the invasion of Ukraine. But, when he won government, he then referenced Ukraine as a reason he had to break his promise. There's no consistency from this government. This is the problem; it creates this housing crisis. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics have highlighted, this is the weakest quarter of construction in more than a decade, with construction of a meagre 23,058 dwellings commenced in the September 2023 quarter, over 12 months into the Albanese Labor government. That's their responsibility; that's their failure of leadership. BuildSkills Australia are saying that we would need 90,000 extra construction workers in the next three months for this government to meet its target of 1.2 million new homes by 2029. I tell you what, Member for Fisher, I don't think they're hitting that 1.2 million home promise. The real tragedy is that it's communities that suffer. My community has seen housing become harder and harder to get. Rents are going up. Prices are going up. All we have from this government is poor leadership. They're making bad decisions that make it worse. Members opposite are happy to blame the coalition while, at the same time, taking credit for our work and for policies that we have delivered. This government isn't actually delivering any new houses; they're claiming credit for the work of the coalition. It shows the lack of character and the lack of integrity of this Prime Minister that he will break his word. The real question for the Australian people is—when it continues to get tough, they know they're going to be abandoned—what is the next broken promise from this Prime Minister? 17:03 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Australians are sick and tired of politicians playing politics with housing. The Greens do it in the federal parliament when they block the Labor government's housing policies, and they do it in local government when they vote against affordable social housing in our communities. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals are here today doing it too. Get this: the Liberals in my electorate, with a full majority on the local council, opposed their own council's plan to address the housing crisis whilst also opposing the state government's plan. Their choice is no plan. With this MPI here today, the federal Liberals are playing politics as well, choosing to blame this government and, despicably, choosing to blame migration for the housing crisis that we're in. I cannot stress how disgusted I am that the Liberals repeatedly choose to focus on migration as the reason for the housing crisis we are in. I'll break down why I think their attack on migration is despicable. Firstly, the housing crisis existed before the last federal election. Economists, academics and industry are all in agreement that the housing crisis exists today because of decades of poor housing policy and missed opportunity. I am all for having conversations about housing policy and how to solve this crisis, but it's naive at best and wilfully misleading at worst to imply that this crisis is new and that it exists because of migration. Economist Chris Richardson put it well when he said: 'It's not that we've messed up migration; it's that we've messed up housing, but we've messed up housing so much.' Maiy Azize, of the Everybody's Home campaign, called out the fallacy of blaming immigration for the housing crisis, labelling such accusations as nonsense. And there's no better evidence of those opposite's disdain of the facts than looking at what happened to our housing market during the pandemic. You'll recall, Deputy Speaker Georganas, that borders were shut during the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, when our borders were closed, Australia witnessed some of the highest increases in housing prices within the OECD. According to CoreLogic's home values across Australia, prices leapt 25 per cent in the two years to the end of February 2022, and, since the pandemic, rental prices have increased by 32 per cent. The facts show that soaring housing prices and diminishing affordability are not tied to migration rates. We have a housing crisis today because of a lack of supply, poor planning laws, a skills shortage, supply chain issues and a historical lack of investment in social and affordable housing. Yet those opposite choose to ignore all of that, and they focus their gaze on migration and migrants—and it's not right. Punching down on migration and migrants will not solve the housing crisis. I grew up in Seven Hills, in Western Sydney. Both my parents were born overseas. Both my parents didn't speak English when they came here. Both my parents came to Australia for a better life. Both my parents worked hard, employed people, paid taxes and made our country better, and nearly all their friends and all my friends have near identical stories. In my entire life, in 40 years spent here on this land, I've not yet met a migrant family that hasn't made our country better. And when the Liberals come in this place and choose migration as the reason for the housing crisis, it makes me angry. I see it as an attack on me, an attack on my family and attack on migrant families in my electorate of Bennelong. There are people out there who will jump on this language and attack migrant communities and blame them for a crisis that is not of their making. Blaming migration for the housing crisis is dangerous and irresponsible, and it undermines the absolute truth about the role migration plays in modern-day Australia. The truth about migration is this: it makes our country better, it makes our country stronger and it makes our communities safer. Instead of attacking migration and playing politics, I encourage the Liberals and Greens to support the government in our genuine attempts to resolve this housing crisis. Pass our Help to Buy legislation, which is stuck in the Senate. Stop voting against our policies, like you did with the Housing Australia Future Fund. And tell those in your parties to work with the state and local governments who are seeking to address supply. To the Liberals and the Greens: stop playing politics with housing, and work with us to make this the parliament that takes meaningful action on the housing crisis. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 52 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 52 17:08 The SPEAKER 53517 I wish to make a statement regarding the deferred division that occurred last night. After 6.30 pm last night, during consideration in detail of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, a motion was moved, 'That the question be now put', on the amendments moved by the member for Warringah. A division was called for and deferred. Standing order 133(d) does not permit a motion for closure of question, under standing order 81, to be moved during a period of deferred divisions. Consequently, the division that was called for and deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day will not take place. The question on the bill before the House remains that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to. BUSINESS 52 BUSINESS Rearrangement 52 17:09 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 52 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 52

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

Consideration in Detail 52 17:10 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to. 17:10 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to support the amendment from the member for Warringah, because buried in this bill about workers' health and safety is a provision that has nothing to do with workers' health and safety and everything to do with making the lives of people in Australia less safe, by increasing the climate crisis by allowing the minister to fast-track gas projects. There is currently in place an offshore gas plan that requires corporations to go through certain steps before they are able to proceed with their climate-destroying gas projects. That was put in place by a coalition government. Former prime minister Tony Abbott, if I recall correctly, put this plan in place. The way the legislation works is that if you comply with the minimum steps set down by Tony Abbott then that's taken as complying with our environment laws. Now, that's not the way it should be. Our environment laws should be strengthened so that First Nations owners get more consultation, so that the environment gets a say, so that we take climate change into account, for goodness sake. But what we're dealing with—and this is what's dealt with by the amendment from the member for Warringah—is an attempt by the government to say that even those restrictions that were put in place by Tony Abbott are too much and we should be able to get around them. Why is that happening? It's happening because some First Nations owners took corporations like Santos and Woodside to court and said, 'You've got to consult with us.' And the court agreed, saying, 'Yes, you have to consult with them.' Then Santos wrote to the minister and said: 'Those court decisions are too much of an impediment for us. Can you change the rules?' And the minister said, 'Yes, I will.' That's how this legislation has come before us—after a request from Santos: 'Can you change the rules, because these First Nations owners are winning too many cases in court.' The minister said yes, despite the full Federal Court saying that the consultation provisions are workable. Now, as a result, we have this extraordinary provision before us that's buried in a bill that's about workers' safety. Under the provision as it stands—part 2, schedule 2, which the member for Warringah is rightly trying to remove—gas corporations get a blank cheque. Gas corporations get a free pass from having to comply with regulations that are in force. I want to ask the minister about 790E(1) in particular, where it says: (1) If: (a) a person engages in conduct in accordance with this Act or prescribed regulations made under this Act, as in force from time to time, in relation to a relevant action; and (b) for the purposes of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage approval [that is, the Minister's approval under section 146B], the relevant action would not (apart from this section) be taken in accordance with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage endorsed program— that is, the Abbott one. So, if you take action and it would not have been in accordance with the coalition-approved program: then, despite the conduct, section 146D of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 applies in relation to the approval and the taking of the relevant action as if the relevant action had been taken in accordance with the endorsed program. My question to the minister is this: doesn't that provision, on its face and in its words, explicitly allow a gas corporation to take a step not in accordance with the plan and for it to be just presumed that it is in accordance with the plan—that black is white? Minister, isn't that what that provision means? 17:15 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [17:19]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

51 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. 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. Hamilton, G. R. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. 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.

17:23 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the member for Warringah's amendments be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 14 AYES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 52 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. 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. Hamilton, G. R. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) 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.

 17:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together. Leave granted. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I move government amendments (1) to (3) together: (1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (line 9), omit "If", substitute "Subject to paragraph (1C)(b) and subsection (6), if". (2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (after line 22), after subsection 790E(1), insert: Consultation with Environment Minister etc. (1A) Before the Governor-General makes regulations (the designatedregulations) that amend or replace regulations (the prescribed regulations) that are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the Minister must: (a) be satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and (b) consult with the Environment Minister about the designated regulations; and (c) have received notice from the Environment Minister that: (i) the Environment Minister is satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or (ii) the Environment Minister is not satisfied that the designated regulations would not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (1B) If subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations, the designated regulations, and any subsequent compilation (within the meaning of the Legislation Act 2003) of the prescribed regulations, must: (a) specify that subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations; and (b) contain a statement setting out the effect of paragraph (1C)(b). (1C) If subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to the designated regulations, then: (a) if a provision of the designated regulations would, apart from this paragraph, commence earlier than 28 days after the day the designated regulations are registered on the Federal Register of Legislation—the provision commences at the start of that 28th day; and (b) subsection (1) does not apply in relation to conduct engaged in in relation to a relevant action on or after the earliest day on which any of the provisions of the designated regulations commence. (1D) None of the following affect the validity or enforceability of regulations made under this Act: (a) a failure to comply with paragraph (1A)(a) or (b); (b) the fact that notice mentioned in paragraph (1A)(c) is not given; (c) if subparagraph (1A)(c)(ii) applies in relation to particular designated regulations—that fact. (3) Schedule 2, item 6, page 62 (after line 36), at the end of section 790E, add: Sunsetting (6) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to conduct engaged in in accordance with regulations (the designated regulations) if: (a) other regulations are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) (the prescribed regulations); and (b) the designated regulations amended or replaced some or all of the prescribed regulations; and (c) all of the provisions of the designated regulations commenced after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Act 2024 receives the Royal Assent. In response to the misinformation spread in this chamber yesterday, I want to make it clear that the bill does not change one sentence, one word or even one letter of the offshore resources consultation provisions. The bill does not change the legal requirements for offshore consultation in any way, shape or form. Since the moment I introduced this bill, I have made it clear that I am willing to work constructively with those in this chamber to strengthen the bill, but unfortunately some are much more interested in driving a misinformation and fear campaign for their own political ends. The Senate inquiry in relation to this bill, while recommending the passage of the bill, illustrated that there is scope to introduce additional protections to give the community further confidence that this bill reflects the government's longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime. That is why I'm introducing government amendments to further clarify that any future regulatory changes are consistent with and will not diminish our national environmental laws. The amendments require that any new regulatory changes made by the Minister for Resources must not be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development that underpin our national environmental laws. The amendments require that the Minister for Resources consult on any proposed regulatory changes with the minister for the environment. The amendments require that the minister for the environment agrees that any proposed regulatory changes are not inconsistent with the principles underpinning Australia's national environmental laws, and the amendments include a sunset provision of 12 months time. While the power to made changes to the offshore consultation provisions will only exist for a 12-month period, any regulatory change made by me as the Minister for Resources will endure beyond 12 months, up until the point where the government's broader nature-positive reforms are legislated. As has always been the case, this bill is about bringing a greater certainty and clarification to the existing regulatory regime as it stands today. The bill does not, in any way, exempt the offshore resources industry from the government's broader nature-positive reforms or bypass these important reforms into the future. The bill, importantly, does not silence First Nations voices. I think that is an outrageous claim that has been made in this chamber and outside of this chamber far too often. It is an untrue claim, and I reject it entirely. It's an offensive thing to claim, I think. The bill will enable changes to be made to the consultation process for offshore gas projects. These changes will seek to ensure consultation requirements are better for traditional owners and for the wider community and, of course, for all concerned in such projects. I have absolutely no objection to judicial review of government decisions, but judicial review and the court system should not be the only place where First Nations voices are heard with respect to these projects. They should be consulted properly, and that is what this bill aims to do in concert with the review of consultation provisions we announced in May last year. This bill does not fast-track any approvals, nor change any approvals processes. To claim otherwise is manifestly untrue. The Greens political party and many of the crossbench have pursued a truly unedifying and hypocritical campaign seeking to misinform their own electorates and the wider Australian public. Any changes to Australia's offshore resources environment regulations will be subject to the full suite of parliamentary scrutiny, including committee scrutiny and disallowance procedures. This should give the community complete confidence that this bill, with the amendments, reflects the government's longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime while providing proper consultation provisions for the whole community in relation to offshore gas projects. 17:31 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This is a question to the minister. The minister said that it is her intention that consultation requirements will be better, but the minister also said that the provisions of the bill will allow for changes to consultation requirements. Can the minister please identify which part of either the bill or the recent amendments introduced provide a guarantee that no consultation requirements can be lost? 17:32 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be put.    

The House divided. [17:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 60 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Hamilton, G. R. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. 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. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pitt, K. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Wilson, R. J. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:44 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable minister be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

78 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Husic, E. N. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 57 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 62 (after line 36), after section 790E, insert: 790F Ministerial opinions about regulations (1) This section applies for any regulations (the relevant regulations) that: (a) are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 790E(1)(a); or (b) amend regulations prescribed for the purposes of that paragraph. (2) If, before the relevant regulations were made, the Minister: (a) was of the opinion that the relevant regulations would, or would not, be inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or (b) was given a written notice by the Environment Minister setting out the Environment Minister's opinion on that matter; the Minister must table that opinion (including the reasons for that opinion) in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day the relevant regulations were made. Note: If the Minister and the Environment Minister each held an opinion on the matter, then the Minister must table both opinions. In a recent survey of the constituents of Wentworth, repairing our broken environmental laws was at the top of their environmental priority list for 2024. They wanted to see the parliament finally act on Graeme Samuel's review of the EPBC Act, which is now getting on for four years old, and they wanted to see a comprehensive response to the devastating State of the environment report, which made clear the extinction crisis facing our country. When I held a forum in Bondi last Sunday with youth advocates Anjali Sharma and Lottie Dalziel, the message was equally clear: parliamentarians have a duty of care to younger generations—a duty to strengthen our environmental laws and to do everything we can to prevent the accelerating and devastating climate crisis. This is why I'm speaking on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Proposed section 790E of the bill introduced to this House provides the resources minister with an extremely broad power to change the rules governing environmental approvals for offshore oil and gas projects. Under the bill introduced to the House, changes to rules around environmental approvals would have been made without oversight by or even the involvement of the environmental minister, and they would not have had to be consistent with the provisions that currently exist under the EPBC Act. As the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded by 11 Australian universities, set out in their submission to the Senate inquiry, this bill 'is wrong in principle because it would override, indefinitely, an important environmental protection' under the EPBC Act, it 'is inconsistent with' the government's Nature Positive Plan, and it 'takes an objectionable approach to legislation, because it buries' these changes in a bill that is supposed to be about worker safety. It is a bill opposed by many First Nations leaders, who have come to parliament today to ask the government not to pass it, and I believe the government should listen to these First Nations leaders and should remove section 790E of the bill altogether. But if it cannot remove it in its entirety, there must be safeguards put around it. Along with other members of the crossbench, this is what I've been pushing the government to do. At a minimum, we need to see the environment minister consulted before regulations are made, and we need to see this consultation consider whether regulations made by the Minister for Resources under the extraordinary powers conferred by the legislation are consistent with the principles that underpin the EPBC Act. That is why I supported the government's amendments and welcomed those pieces that did that. However, the government amendments still leave a lot to be desired. There are gaping holes in this legislation. Merely requiring the minister to be satisfied that regulations are not inconsistent with the high-level principles of ecologically sustainable development is a very weak test, and it is much weaker than the law currently provides. Under the current EPBC-endorsed program there are detailed requirements around how matters of environmental national significance should be protected, and regulations are then made to operationalise these. Compared to this concrete detail, a subjective test against a few high-level principles offers only minimal protection. At the very least, we need the Minister for Resources and the environment minister to explain why they are satisfied that regulations are or are not consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. We need their reasons, their explanation and their justification for any new regulations made as a result of this law. That is what my amendment will do and that is why I have moved this amendment. It would compel the Minister for Resources and the environment minister to table their opinion on whether regulations made under this bill are consistent with the principles that underpin the EPBC and explained the reasons why. It is an important transparency measure, it would improve the integrity of the amendment already passed today and it would make a bad bill a little bit better. I note I have tried to engage the environment minister's office and the resources minister's office regarding this, and the feedback I have had from the Minister for Resources' office is that they don't have enough time to consider these. These are amendments based on the government amendments which I got on Sunday. We then went through and did the work on yesterday to try to provide a useful amendment to the government's own amendments, and then I was told by the Minister for Resources' office that it looks like they didn't have enough time to consider these amendments. This is why this bill shouldn't be rushed through like this, this is why the debate should not be gagged like this, as it has been throughout this bill, and this is why this piece is so important. Finally, I'm also deeply concerned about the implication of proposed subclause 790E(1D), which states that even a failure to comply with the new provisions does not invalidate any regulations made under this act. That is, even if you don't do what the government's amendments have provided for, it doesn't matter. If this is the case, it's a shocking loophole. Some people are calling this provision a 'get out of jail free' card, and so I welcome the good minister's clarification on the point of the government's own amendments—which I wasn't allowed to speak to because the government gagged my debate and stopped me speaking earlier on this bill. 17:52 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the question be now put.    

The House divided. [17:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 47 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Doyle, M. J. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 14 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. 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.

 18:05 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.    

The House divided. [18:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

14 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. 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 Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Coleman, D. B. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:09 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.    

The House divided. [18:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

54 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 61 18:13 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill be read a third time.    

The House divided. [18:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

55 AYES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conaghan, P. J. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. 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. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 13 NOES Bandt, A. P. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. 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.
Bill read a third time.

 COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 62 Report 62 18:18 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: Department of Defence—RAAF Base Darwin—mid-term refresh and other works: report 2/2024 and the Eighty seventh annual report. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—The committee is required by legislation to make a report every year on its work. Chapter 1 of the Eighty seventh annual report covers the committee's proceedings in 2023. Last year the committee reported on 16 major works with a combined cost of over $2.4 billion. The committee also scrutinised 63 medium works with a combined value of over $905 million. The threshold for works to be referred to the committee is $15 million for non-defence works and $75 million for defence works. Since the early 1990s, the committee has also reviewed medium works—those with a value between $2 million and $15 million. At the start of 2023, the committee raised the lower limit of medium works to $5 million. This change has allowed the committee to review fewer medium works, with each receiving a higher degree of scrutiny. Chapter 1 also discusses the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which applies to all public works. In 2023 the committee saw an increase in projects referred to it prior to the conclusion of EPBC assessments. Where projects are referred to the committee without finalising the EPBC process it can delay committee approval and derail the committee inquiry process. Future projects referred to the committee should have finalised any EPBC assessments prior to referral. The second chapter of the annual report discusses areas of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 which the committee considers would benefit from reform. Although the current act dates from 1969, the concepts and processes are largely unchanged since the first public works committee was created in 1913. The legislation does not reflect the current complex government procurement and construction environment. In chapter 2 of this report, the committee lists the areas that could benefit from change. These include some fundamental questions, such as: What is the right time for committee oversight? What public works should be exempt from parliamentary scrutiny? There are also some suggestions for technical and process changes that would make the committee more effective. The committee recommends that the government conduct a thorough and consultative review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, with a view to repealing and replacing the legislation. Any future review should consider the issues raised in the annual report. In looking back at the work of the committee in 2023 I would like to thank the members of the Public Works Committee—particularly the deputy chair, the member for Hinkler—for their participation and contributions last year, and commend the wonderful work of the secretariat, who, I know, are listening closely to this statement. Mr Speaker, I also table a second report, report No. 2 of 2024. This report considers two proposals, both referred to the committee in November 2023. The total value of the proposed works for the two projects is $822 million dollars with the projects being undertaken near Darwin in the Northern Territory and Learmonth in Western Australia. The first chapter of the report contains the report of the inquiry into the Department of Defence's proposed RAAF Base Darwin mid-term refresh project, which has an estimated cost of just under $160 million. The proposed mid-term refresh of RAAF Base Darwin will address safety and capacity concerns associated with the base entrances as well as deliver upgrades to engineering services. These works will enable RAAF Base Darwin to surge rapidly to full capacity on short notice to support the significant number of defence personnel, aircraft and support elements that operate from the base during major activities, and should the need arise. The second chapter of report 2 contains the report of the inquiry into the Department of Defence's proposed RAAF Base Learmonth redevelopment enabling KC-30A operations at Exmouth in Western Australia. This project has an estimated cost of $662 million. The project will upgrade the airfield at RAAF Base Learmonth to support KC-30A aircraft operations and improve overall airfield resilience. The KC-30A is the largest aircraft in the Australian Defence Force fleet and provides airlift and air-to-air refuelling. The KC-30A is currently unable to land at RAAF Base Learmonth with a full payload due to limitations of the current runway. Specifically, the works will strengthen the runway and parallel taxiway and construct new connecting taxiways and dedicated parking aprons. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and 2020 Force Structure Plan state that enhancing our northern defence capability is an integral part of Australia's defence strategy. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review also urges for the upgrade and development of Australia's northern bases as this will improve the ability of the Australian Defence Force to operate from northern Australia. These two Defence projects directly support both these objectives. The committee would like to extend its thanks to personnel from the Department of Defence who provided presentations and hosted a committee site inspection at RAAF Base Darwin in the course of these inquiries. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed works are carried out. I commend both reports to the House. BILLS 63 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 63

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

Consideration of Senate Message 63 18:25 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024, National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 64

Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024

National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 64 18:25 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand refer to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 and the National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; and (2) the Excess Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024. Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 64

Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024

Second Reading 64 18:26 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 amends the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the legislated requirement for a collaborative arrangement between an eligible nurse practitioner or an eligible midwife and a medical practitioner when prescribing Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—PBS—medicines or providing services under Medicare. The coalition supports the removal of the legislated requirement for a collaborative agreement, which will allow nurse practitioners and eligible midwives to prescribe PBS medicines or provide services under Medicare within their trained scope of practice without requiring a doctor to tick off. We recognise that our nurse practitioners and midwives are proficient professionals who deliver high-quality care to patients within their scope of practice. Australian nurse practitioners have completed prescribed education at a masters level and extensive postgraduate clinical experience. They are trained to provide complete episodes of health care using advanced nursing models of care. It makes sense that they should be able to provide that care within their scope of practice without collaborative arrangements being required. The removal of this requirement will enable eligible midwives and nurse practitioners to support more Australians who require timely access to critical health care. Importantly, we know that nurse practitioners and midwives already provide important support to diverse groups, including Australians in aged care, First Nations people and Australians with disabilities, and this legislation will further support them to do so. This legislation has come at a critical time. Our health care is under significant pressure. It has become much harder and more expensive for Australians to see a GP. Bulk-billing is collapsing, and ramping is reaching record levels across the country as hospitals' EDs are overrun. Workforce shortages in our care sectors have also reached crisis point. This makes it more important than ever that Australians are able to access critical primary care and advice. The fact that this legislation removes a barrier to Australians' primary care access is both timely and critical. This will provide important support for patients in need of better access to primary care, particularly in rural and remote areas, where we know this access is particularly challenging. Approximately 30 per cent of Australian nurse practitioners work in rural and remote areas in a full-time or sessional capacity, providing much-needed assistance to our rural and regional Australians. We know that it is communities in the bush who are being impacted the most by the current challenges facing our healthcare system. This current climate, with our healthcare system under serious pressure, means we must be supporting health professionals to operate at the top of their ability so that we may maximise all available resources. This move has been widely welcomed by many health bodies, including nursing groups, regional health groups and patient advocacy groups. So, the coalition supports this legislation and the way it will remove a barrier to Australians' primary care access. However, if the Albanese government wants to prove they are truly committed to ensuring that Australians have access to timely and affordable health care then they must urgently act on the current workforce crisis. Workforce shortages are putting significant pressure on the entire healthcare system. It is these shortages that are underpinning all the key challenges Australians face currently in accessing critical health care. And it's not just the healthcare system. Our aged care and disability care sectors are also crying out for urgent support for the workforce. The coalition has been calling on the government for over a year now to implement a national workforce strategy for the entire care sector. The Albanese government must stop ignoring this critical issue and start pursuing real and comprehensive action to tackle the nationwide workforce crisis. But, once again, we understand that in a time of severe workforce shortages all health professionals should be operating at their full scope of practice so that we are maximising the use of all available resources to support Australians with their healthcare needs. So, we will support this bill. However, I will put on the record that the coalition will continue to call on the government to implement an urgent and comprehensive national workforce strategy until they start taking real action on this critical issue. Debate adjourned. National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 65

National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 65 18:32 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 amends the National Cancer Screening Register Act 2016 to add lung cancer as a third designated cancer to the coverage of the register. The National Cancer Screening Register is a national electronic infrastructure that currently supports the delivery of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and the National Cervical Screening Program. This bill will expand the register to include lung cancer screening along with bowel cancer and cervical screening programs. The new National Lung Cancer Screening Program was announced by the government last year and will allow screening to be available nationally to eligible individuals from July 2025. In line with advice from the Medical Services Advisory Committee, the NLCSP will target asymptomatic individuals aged 50 to 70 years who have a history of cigarette smoking. The coalition supports this legislation and the establishment of a National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, as we strongly support the intention of the NLCSP to increase rates of early detection of lung cancer in Australians. This builds on the work of the coalition to support better lung cancer outcomes in Australia. On World Cancer Day in 2019 the coalition announced that we were inviting Cancer Australia to conduct an inquiry into the prospects, process and delivery of a National Lung Cancer Screening Program in Australia. Following this announcement, Cancer Australia launched a consultation hub, through which organisations and individuals can make submissions about the proposal. The coalition provided our commitment to establishing a lung cancer screening program, pending the result of the inquiry and the approval of the medical expert panel. The National Lung Cancer Screening Program, which has now been announced by the government, is the culmination of our announcement back in 2019 and resulted from Cancer Australia's feasibility assessment, which reported back in May 2023, and a recommendation from the Medical Services Advisory Committee. We welcome the government's decision to continue the important work we started, to establish a lung cancer screening program, and the fact that our commitment to this goal has now been realised. The coalition understood that early diagnosis is integral to improved lung cancer outcomes, including better survival rates and better quality of life. Early detection and intervention literally save lives. In line with the coalition's intentions, the National Lung Cancer Screening Program will target high-risk individuals to detect lung cancer in its early stages to increase the likelihood of successful treatments and improve lung cancer outcomes. To facilitate the delivery of the program, the National Cancer Screening Register will be expanded, through this legislation, to support patients with their lung cancer screening pathway. The inclusion of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program is a welcome step in preventing and detecting lung cancer amongst Australians and ensuring better health outcomes. Once again: the coalition supports this bill. Debate adjourned. Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 65

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Second Reading 65 18:37 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 increase the excise duty for all tobacco goods and the customs duty for all tobacco products by five per cent per year for three years, starting from 1 September 2023. The five per cent increase is in addition to the current biannual indexation based on the average weekly ordinary time earnings. The amendments to the excise tariff incorporate the excise tariff proposal that applied an additional five per cent increase per year, from 1 September 2023 until 1 September 2025, to tobacco excise duty rates and aligned the per-stick and per-kilogram excise duty rates by progressively reducing the weight conversion factor by 0.000025 per year on 1 September 2023, 1 September 2024, 1 September 2025 and 1 September 2026, taking the rate from 0.0007 to 0.0006. The amendment to the Customs Tariff Act incorporates the customs tariffs proposal that applied to an additional five per cent increase per year on and from 1 September 2023 until 1 September 2025 to tobacco custom duty rates and aligned the per-stick and per-kilogram customs duty rates by progressively reducing the weight conversion factor each year. Increasing duties on tobacco also increases the end-cost of tobacco products. While these price increases typically reduce overall rates of smoking, they can also push customers to seek out black- or grey-market substitutes at a lower price. These increasingly punish small businesses who do the right thing and don't sell those illegal products. It is essential that this be countered through greater enforcement, and these issues prompted the creation of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce under the previous coalition government of 2018. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 66 Report 66 18:40 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Better competition, better prices: report on the inquiry into promoting economic dynamism, competition and business formation, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr MULINO 132880 by leave—I am pleased to be able to table Better competition, better prices. Competition and economic dynamism underpin everything we do in our daily life, whether it is shopping at the local supermarket, using our credit card to make a payment, using an app on our mobile phone to buy an airline ticket or to obtain the latest news, and so much more. Some of the most important decisions we make in our life, such as taking on a mortgage to buy a home, are also heavily influenced by the level of competition and dynamism in the economy. Competition puts downward pressure on prices, as firms battle each other for our business. Competition also leads to better service. The more companies in any one sector, the harder that businesses must work to retain customers and secure greater market share. Economic dynamism includes such factors as the rate of new business formation; the efficient allocation of capital and labour; well-designed regulation; and the development of new factors of production, including skills. Australia has one of the highest living standards in the world. That was built on the back of decades of high productivity growth. However, the data is showing declining competition and dynamism, as measured by the high market share of leading firms, the profit margins in key sectors and a declining rate of firm entry and exit in some sectors. Australia needs to lift its game when it comes to competition and economic dynamism because together they drive innovation, which, in turn, drives productivity. In the short-term, this will put downward pressure on prices, thereby improving the cost of living. It will also place a check on poor corporate behaviour towards consumers. In the long run, it will drive higher productivity growth. If we don't tackle this challenge, future generations will be far poorer than they might have been. This report puts forward practical steps that will help turn things around. Importantly, all 44 recommendations in the report and dozens of key findings were all adopted unanimously. This represents all sides of parliament working together constructively. I would like to acknowledge the positive, cross-partisan approach of all those committee members—government members, and those from the crossbench. It's not something to be taken for granted. Some of the key outcomes in the committee's 44 recommendations include: key findings in relation to rigorous measures of competition and dynamism within our economy, pointing to some concerning overarching trends; recommendations aimed at bolstering the quality of and access to economic and market data collected by government agencies; recommendations to improve competition policy, including strengthening our mergers laws and better regulating non-compete clauses; recommendations for pilot programs and improvement in mortgage and deposit products from banks—so important in people's lives, particularly to achieve better outcomes for passive consumers or consumers with low financial literacy—and also measures to introduce new, more transparent products, such as tracker mortgages and innovative funding products to create a more level playing field across large and small banks; measures to improve regulation of the financial services market, including the payments system, and a regulatory grid, which we're pleased to see the government has taken positive action on in recent times; recommendations to reduce red tape for growing businesses and to better design regulation overall; recommendations to improve government procurement, including a social procurement framework starting with accreditation and procurement processes that give better access to social enterprises and to SMEs; better designed markets for the delivery of key social services, including the NDIS, Workforce Australia, skills and aged care, which would build on best-practice, cutting-edge economic theory already being applied in many contexts, including environmental offset markets, transport markets and student placements; and recommendations for improvements in digital platforms, the aviation sector, retail markets and the interoperability of markets within the economy. The committee's wide-ranging and comprehensive report is the culmination of 14 months of evidence gathering and analysis from numerous sectors of the economy. The committee received more than 60 submissions from stakeholders across industry and government, and followed up with many stakeholders and other experts during over 18 days of public hearings. The House economics committee has a very busy schedule with its normal hearings into key organisations' annual reports, including the RBA, the big four banks and key regulators—so running this inquiry on top of that has been very taxing on the secretariat. I thank all members of the secretariat. Knowing that it's always risky to single one person out, can I particularly acknowledge Lachlan Wilson, who was the committee secretary until just a few weeks ago. He devoted a considerable amount of time to this inquiry in organising many public hearings and through his rigorous analysis and writing. I also acknowledge the enormous contribution of Samantha Mannette, who, tragically, passed away earlier this year. She worked extremely hard on this inquiry and across the committee's entire workload, and brought a great deal of experience and wisdom. I conclude by saying Australia is at a crossroads. This report identifies the many opportunities at an economy-wide and a sectoral level for meaningful reform that will not only produce immediate benefits for consumers but also deliver higher standards of living for future generations. I commend the recommendations in this report and the information that informed them to both government and market for a way forward for the betterment of the Australian economy and society. 18:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom by leave—I thank the chair of the committee, the member for Fraser. This was a very broad-ranging report that we engaged in, and his work in directing us towards an outcome required some work. I thank him for his collegiate approach and thank him very much for coming to Toowoomba, the home of Australia's ninth-largest bank—Heritage, now People First. I thank the secretariat for all their hard work, particularly Lachlan Wilson, and I recall the memory of Samantha Mannette in her contributions, as was very well done by the chair. At a time when Australians and Australian businesses are experiencing cost-of-living pressures, the findings of this inquiry are more critical than ever before. Improvements to Australia's competitive environment, such as more efficient supply chains, reduced regulatory barriers, appropriate regulatory frameworks and flexible employment arrangements, may help to address high inflation and falling productivity. I commend the chair and his willingness to engage with the smaller and customer owned banks—a sector very important to me. It is very pleasing to see bipartisan and cross-party support in this area, and I believe it's already been very beneficial. The issue of a regulatory grid was regularly raised during the inquiry as a practical step the government could take to enable more competition in the banking sector where smaller banks simply do not carry the overheads of bigger banks and are required to navigate blindly through heavy regulatory change. We heard time and again how this step had been successfully taken overseas without detriment to the usual political process of regulatory improvement and reform. I think the fact that the government has decided to take the initiative and move ahead with this issue should serve as a point of pride to the chair and the committee. Our work together delivered results even before we laid down our tools. From the evidence provided, the recommendation that banks should clearly notify retail deposit holders of changes to their interest rates and changes to the eligibility requirements for bonus interest rates must be pursued and supported by government, opposition and the crossbench in the future. That this practice exists and was widely covered demonstrates that an asymmetry of information is being exploited to the detriment of Australians, and there is no justification for that to be allowed to continue. On funding costs, the recommendation that APRA examine the suitability of macroprudential regulation for medium and smaller banks, particularly the capital holding requirements, was well supported in testimony that was given. Given the success of the committee in reaching bipartisan support for previously mentioned sensible recommendations, it was my inclination to keep the focus of the committee's report there. These are very good steps. They will make tangible improvement to competition in our banking sector and they deserve the spotlight. I have thus chosen to provide not just any recommendations but, rather, additional comments that I feel are relevant. I note that all of these points are based on evidence provided to the committee. In seeking improvements to competition and economic dynamism, it's important to understand the impact of declining productivity and significant industrial relations reform. Productivity has fallen by 5.4 per cent in the past 21 months—the largest fall we've ever recorded. The Business Council of Australia said: There are many underlying reasons for this loss of economic dynamism. They include … increased uncertainty (including over government policy), dwindling foreign investment … a rigid and heavily regulated labour market, a heavy burden of tax and regulation … On all of these points, there is a role for government to play. However, following the government's second budget, the Parliamentary Library researchers could not find a single substantive program within the budget papers to boost economic productive capacity. The report said, 'There's little detail on how government is going to achieve a boost to productivity growth.' A year on, a year worse off, the government again has the opportunity to address that with its third budget. On industrial relations, the committee heard evidence, including from the Minerals Council of Australia, on the negative impact the government's IR reforms will have on productivity, competition and economic growth. Given the role that this industry had in underwriting the government's last budget, these concerns should be taken seriously. The lack of consultation about these laws that the Minerals Council described was alarming. Australia needs a modern workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in the enterprise's success and gives all enterprises the agility they need to compete and succeed. Centralising decision-making to the Fair Work Commission and handing power to unrepresentative unions will not fix this. Where to next? A good committee report leads the parliament towards its next field of opportunity, and I think that is one of the best aspects of this particular report. Australia has concentrated markets in multiple industries, particularly in banking. According to Forbes, our four major banks are among the world's largest banks by market capitalisation and are also some of the most profitable in the world. Pursuing further competition in our banking sector means pursuing corporate diversity. Regulators should be held responsible for ensuring that a wide range of corporate providers are available to consumers, including cooperatives and mutuals. Competition policy should support the inclusion of these options going forward. Further taxation settings for mutuals should reflect the value that they provide to the greater society. Again, I commend the chair on his excellent leadership through this wide-ranging report. I'm very happy to see the recommendations come through and receive support across the party. I do believe they will play a part in delivering the better competition and better prices that they set out to achieve. 18:52 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth by leave—Thank you to everyone who contributed to this inquiry, with a special commendation to the chair and deputy chair, the secretariat and my colleagues on the committee. A dynamic economy is one where every Australian can fulfil their potential, where life is rich with opportunity, where our society is diverse, cohesive and fair and where every Australian enjoys a high standard of living and can access world-class services they need. But the evidence is suggesting that our economy is not performing as well as we might hope. In the last decade, GDP per capita growth has been just 0.6 per cent per year and labour productivity growth has grown at its lowest rate for six decades. While the wealth of retired generations has grown handsomely, the wealth of younger generations has stagnated. These are real concerns, so it's appropriate that the committee has inquired into the topic of competition and dynamism and sought out opportunities for Australia to lift its game. The majority report is a thorough inquiry into competition issues and makes a large number of sensible, strategic recommendations, including on things like the use of public sector data and competition infrastructure, and has a focus on public sector procurement so that all firms can thrive. One particularly important part of the report is access to capital for startups, small businesses and dynamic, growing firms, because young firms are critical for productivity growth. They identified issues in funding, including the FIRB process and the superannuation performance test, as well as challenges in accessing bank finance. I strongly support the recommendations of the report, but I also believe we need to go further to address critical economic challenges we are facing, so I've provided some additional comments and recommendations. To start with, the report is mainly silent on industrial relations and tax. These are very significant drivers of productivity in our economy, but both issues have become bitterly politicised. I think we need a sensible centrist, stable approach that prioritises productivity and dynamism. I recommended some institutional reforms such as establishing a tax reform commission and tasking the Productivity Commission to review the impact of our industrial relations settings, as well as other specific changes such as government incentives to reduce stamp duty. The main report acknowledged that government regulation can both drive competition and dynamism as well as hinder it and made recommendations on the government's work on regulation rightsizing as well as specific regulation recommendations on particular industries. All of these recommendations are extremely important. I also acknowledge that the challenges of rightsizing regulation are so significant that we may need even further support, including asking the Productivity Commission to identify priority areas for regulatory review and establishing a minister for better regulation, learning from the experiences of the New South Wales government, to lead a complete overhaul of our regulatory approach. In my comments I also highlighted how climate affects dynamism and also focused on how we can increase the diffusion of innovation, which is so important to raising dynamism across all firms in our economy. Finally, in discussions on dynamism there is so often a focus on business and bad actors, on rent-seeking. This is all absolutely appropriate, and it was an appropriate focus of much of the report. But I believe there is far too little looking in the mirror on the role of government and the public sector in holding back dynamism through its own services, actions and decision-making. I commend the main report, which identified that increased government transparency can improve the dynamic effects of the government sector, but I also believe we can go further. I believe that government should make sure that it relies on cost-benefit analyses when it assesses infrastructure investments and develop a broader, effective evaluative framework to more broadly assess government spending. I believe and recommended that the government should also appoint a minister for customer service, again learning from the experiences of New South Wales, to drive a changing culture so that businesses and citizens are at the heart of government practices, including through things like establishing a federal small business and codes list. Finally, I believe the government should commit to respond to and publish the responses to all inquiries and reports so that the time that committees like ourselves, but also members of the public, have put into inquiries across the parliament is not wasted. My overarching message to the government is that now is the time to address economic dynamism. The Treasurer has indicated that his priority is to start to moving from fighting inflation to starting to drive growth, and I believe that, if we undertake the right economic reforms, we can do both. I acknowledge that the government has made some great progress in things that drive dynamism, including its focus on competition, reforms to skilled migration, increasing apprenticeships, and its recent commitment to the regulatory grid, which was an important part of the recommendations of the report. It is great to see the government already taking action on this. However, I do not think we are doing enough to address the challenges we face or to address the opportunities we can see. We have been a lucky country, but we also need to make our own luck. I urge the government to proactively address the recommendations in the report, including those I have raised in my additional comments, and to present to this House how they will act on them with alacrity. Economic dynamism is not just an idea. It drives the quality of our lives. It underpins the wonderful services that we can access in Australia. It drives the economy in such a broad way that allows all Australians to thrive. The time to act on it is now, and I commend this report to the House. 18:58 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 69 18:59 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 69 BILLS Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 69

Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024

Second Reading 69 18:59 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to ban the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of disposable, single-use and non-therapeutic vapes. The bill preserves patient access to therapeutic vapes for smoking cessation and the management of nicotine dependence under clinical conditions. The bill will impact the sale and supply of non-nicotine vaping products, with vapes containing nicotine already subject to restrictions under the Poisons Standard classification. The coalition will not stand in the way of this legislation passing through the House today so that we can thoroughly scrutinise this critical issue through a Senate committee inquiry. No-one wants to see Australian children having access to vaping products or becoming addicted to vaping. The coalition's primary concern is preventing children from getting access to these products. We're also focused on stamping out the black market driven by organised crime that is supplying these illegal vapes to children. The Albanese Labor government has failed to control the illicit vaping market and has failed to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products. This makes greater scrutiny of this legislation absolutely essential. Right now, it is illegal to buy a nicotine vape without a prescription, yet kids are still getting ready access to flavoured vapes in coloured packaging that contain nicotine. The latest National Drug Strategy household survey found that one in 10 Australians under 18 are current vapers. This represents a fourfold increase since 2019. This is unacceptable. It is clear that the prescription-only model being pursued by this government is failing. Right now, only around 10 per cent of Australian vapers are purchasing their product legally through a prescription. Even the TGA has acknowledged that the prescription-only model has not achieved its goals. We're very concerned that entrenching this existing failing model will not prevent children from having access to vaping products. Historically, prohibition has not been effective in getting black market activity under control. That's why we're also very concerned that the government's approach will further drive the sale of these products to the black market. It is also clear that the resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and the point of sale has been grossly insufficient. Currently, the vaping black market is estimated to be worth well in excess of $1 billion and is being fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. In Victoria alone, the black market for vapes has been valued at up to $500 million. The government has failed to establish or fund its promised Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner to seek to get this thriving black market under control. The Albanese government proved last year that they're not up to the job of cracking down on organised crime, as they sought to pass their Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 without addressing the thriving illicit tobacco trade. In clear acknowledgement of their lack of action on enforcement, the government supported the coalition's amendment to establish a new Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner within the Australian Border Force. The coalition welcomed the government's decision to support our amendment in clear acknowledgement of our strong leadership on protecting Australians from the growing black market in both illicit tobacco and illicit vapes. The commissioner will support developing and implementing strategies for addressing illicit tobacco and e-cigarettes and enforcing existing regulations. We called on the government to act quickly to set up the commissioner so they can adequately and urgently address the illicit tobacco and vaping black markets. Since the government announced they would act on our amendment in January, we have not seen any evidence that this critically important commissioner has actually been established. They must now come clean on what work has been done to establish an Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner, to crack down on these thriving black markets. If they fail to do so, then it's clear that they're not serious about preventing children's access to illegal vaping products. Enforcement is a critical component of cracking down on this issue, but the government has failed to explain how this legislation before us today will not further fuel the black market or how it will adequately fund enforcement measures both at the border and at the point of sale. The government has also failed to explain how this bill will prevent children from accessing vaping products and how they will measure the success or failure of their policy. The government must provide Australians with these details. Importantly, they must be transparent so that Australian parents know what is being done to ensure that their children are protected from the harms of vaping. That is why the coalition will seek to refer this bill to a Senate committee of inquiry to ensure full and proper scrutiny. The government has failed to control the illicit vaping market, and they have failed to ensure that children do not have access to vaping products. The coalition does not want to see this continue to get worse. The coalition will not stand in the way of this legislation passing through the House today. However, we will be moving an amendment to make it clear that we expect the government to address the clear failures of the current prescription-only model. 19:04 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I am pleased to speak in support of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 as Assistant Health Minister and also on behalf of the people of my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales. The bill goes to the heart of protecting Australians—particularly young people—from the harms associated with vaping and nicotine. It builds on the Albanese government's strong focus on preventative and public health, and I thank Minister Butler for his leadership on this issue. Health and education ministers across Australia and across political parties agree on the need for urgent action on this public health issue right now. I'm sure all of us in this parliament have had parents raise concerns about the impacts of vapes in schools and on the lives of their children. This legislation is an important step for the parliament to take in combating this public health risk, and I urge all members and senators to support this important reform. The latest data from the Australian secondary school students alcohol and drug survey shows that about one in eight 12-to-15-year-olds and one in five 16-to-17-year-olds had vaped in the past month. Approximately 80 per cent of these young people were using disposable vaping devices. Nearly one-third of students tried vaping for the first time when they were aged 15 or 16, while 23 per cent—almost a quarter of students—reported being 12 years old or younger when first trying vapes. Young people are attracted to illicit vapes because they are aggressively, deliberately and intentionally marketed to them with packaging and flavours. Parents and teachers are concerned about vape shops opening up in close proximity to schools right across the country. Worryingly, Australians who are have vaped are around three times more likely to take up tobacco smoking than those who have not vaped. Numerous studies have highlighted the concerns about potential adverse effects, including on adolescent brain development, worsening pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. Critically, the long-term health risks of vaping are still unknown. Nicotine vapes may worsen mental health, amplifying stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. Vapes have been found to include more than 200 different chemicals, including listed poisons, heavy metals and chemical by-products produced during heating. Some of these chemicals, as the Minister for Health and Aged Care has said, are used in weedkiller and nail polish remover, and in embalming. A range of other health risks are associated with vape use, including severe burns, poisoning and seizures. In my electorate of Dobell on the New South Wales Central Coast, I've heard from teachers, parents and young people. Just last week I had primary school students come to the parliament and speak to me about their deep concern about the impact that vaping is having on their school community, their families, their children and their friends. A group of young primary school students came to the parliament from my electorate last week, and they raised with me their concerns about the impacts of vaping on their friends' physical health and their mental health. For those young people and for Australians right around the country, the reforms introduced in this bill should be supported by those across the House. They're designed to complement a wider set of actions to reduce the rates of tobacco and vape use, including public health information campaigns and smoking and vaping cessation services. Penalties applied in relation to importation, manufacture, supply, possession and advertisement offences will align with penalty provisions applied to counterfeit therapeutic goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Individuals will still be able to access vaping products as part of smoking cessation treatments, but this will be limited to clinical settings, with therapeutic vaping products available at pharmacies via a prescription from a doctor. This means that Australians who are legitimately using vaping products to quit smoking will still be able to do so under clinical supervision while we remove vaping access to kids. As a pharmacist who's trained in nicotine addiction and smoking cessation, and who has spent much of my working life working in acute adult mental health inpatient units, I understand the risks associated with vaping and the urgent need to combat this public health emergency and environmental hazard. The community sentiment is clear in my community and in communities right around Australia. Anyone who has been to a P&C meeting, has been at school pickup, has heard from a parent or a teacher or a school principal is deeply concerned about the impact of vaping on students' learning and on behaviour. We cannot have vape shops on street corners targeting young Australians, creating a generation of nicotine addicts. Substantial consultation was undertaken on these policy proposals with the public health sector, which has provided unequivocal support to urgently and comprehensively addressing the impact of vaping across Australia. The reforms to the regulation of vapes are appropriately supported by a commitment between the Commonwealth and all states and territories to collaborate on compliance and enforcement activities. It was Labor, back in 2012, that introduced world-first tobacco plain-packaging laws, under the then health minister Nicola Roxon. Now, in 2024, we have an opportunity to lead the world again with vaping reforms. I had the chance, just a fortnight ago, to represent the Australian government at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, and Australia is seen as a world leader. This is a chance, again, for us to be leading globally in reducing the harmful impacts of vapes, particularly on young Australians. I urge everyone in this House—and now we that understand it'll be sent to the Senate and to a committee—to listen to the evidence and to hear from their local communities to understand the urgency. If we act now, we can stamp out this public health menace and this environmental hazard. We can, once again, be global leaders in public health reform around nicotine and the impacts of vaping. So I urge everyone to get behind this significant reform to protect the health of Australians, particularly that of young people, from the dangerous effects of vaping. 19:11 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) criticises the Government for failing to control the illicit vaping market and failing to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products that have exploded in availability through a black market driven by organised crime; (2) expresses its alarm that the current prescription-only model is failing, with only approximately 10 per cent of vapers purchasing their product legally through prescriptions; (3) acknowledges the existence and strength of the $1 billion black market vape trade in Australia, which is fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year; (4) recognises that resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and the point of sale has been grossly insufficient and that policy measures such as prohibition have historically not worked; (5) calls on the Government to consider all policies to prevent children from accessing and becoming addicted to vaping products; and (6) further criticises the Government for failing to establish or fund its promised illicit tobacco and vaping commissioner". One thing we're very good at in this House is celebrating when a policy works well. We'll bring it out time and time again. We'll pat ourselves on the back and point out, if it's continued by another government, that it was our policy in the first place, and we'll throw out statistics and anecdotes galore in self-congratulation. One thing that we don't do well is highlight, or put a spotlight on, policy that has not worked and has not yielded the results that we had hoped for or intended. We do that well from the opposition seats when the government fails, but we don't do it enough when a policy we introduced fails. We introduced the prescription-only vaping policy that we see continued today by the Labor government. State and federal governments, since that time, have tinkered at the edges, but, overall, the premise has remained the same: essentially, a prohibition model. The only exception is through a prescription from a GP to assist smokers in quitting. When we did this, on paper it made sense. It was touted as an aid to quitting, and we went ahead. We agreed that vaping wasn't risk free but that evidence showed that e-cigarettes were more effective than other nicotine replacement therapies to help smokers quit, so we went ahead. But we ignored human nature and the confusion among the Australian public around the continually evolving state and federal policies. We ignored the perceived hypocrisy that we were banning the sale of nicotine in a form that we ourselves had promoted as less harmful while allowing a more harmful product to be sold in petrol stations and corner stores around the country. Logically, to those wanting to move away from cigarettes and onto vapes, this seems to be simply mixed messaging. Based on the surveys and estimates, we know that up to 1.7 million people in this country are currently using vapes, and only eight to 10 per cent are doing so legally, and by 'legally' I mean through a prescription. That means that more than 1.5 million people in this country are currently purchasing unregulated vapes via the black market, either through illegal retail outlets run by organised crime syndicates or online, arriving from overseas, clearing Border Force. We have to acknowledge the existence and the strength of the black market vape trade, which is estimated to be worth $1 billion a year, and we have to acknowledge who runs it, and that is criminal syndicates. More than 100 million illicit and potentially dangerous disposable devices are estimated to be imported every year by organised crime gangs from China and are freely sold, unregulated, from retail outlets and online, including through social media, to adults and young people alike. State and federal bans have been in place for two years. You need only walk around the streets and walk around this place to see that people don't know that these products have been banned and how easily you can get your hands on them. But we have to admit now, after trial and error, that this mechanism for control hasn't worked, and prohibition will never work. We need to think of better ways to ensure that these products are as safe as possible and are not ending up in the hands of our kids. As a former operative and detective, having been in the Drug Enforcement Agency for five years, I am acutely aware of the realities and challenges that our law enforcement agencies at all levels are struggling against in this arena. Combating all black market operations in illicit substances, including tobacco and vapes, is a constant uphill battle, and currently these agencies are certainly not equipped with enough manageable parameters so that they can operate effectively. We've seen serious escalations of turf wars from organised crime groups, including personal violence and firebombings of tobacconist stores in Brisbane and Melbourne. And we know that the same organised criminal groups are utilising their existing networks to include the importation and distribution of vape products. The strength of the current black market has seen criminal entities get richer while law enforcement gets harder. In addition, by banning this we have created a barrier to entry for those wanting to easily switch from smoking to vaping, undermining the health and safety of Australians accessing these products. A coordinated law enforcement approach is required to tackle the entire network. In fact, the 2020 PJCLE report recommended the following: The committee recommends the development of a National Illicit Tobacco strategy, in conjunction with state and territory police forces, as a co-ordinated, national law enforcement-led response … We are always beyond the headlines in this place. We've heard that we're taking a strong stance on vaping, and yet we see disposable vapes flagrantly sold in retail premises around the country without oversight or enforcement, which the public appears to continue buying. Seizures have had little impact. I don't raise this to call out any of the law enforcement agencies, because they work hard—but they're under-resourced. Again, history has told us that prohibition does not work. And the genie is out of the bottle. In addition, expecting members of the TGA or health department workers to undertake inspections leaves them in potentially dangerous positions, dealing with organised crime groups. Any suggestion of this method of control is not only ridiculous but ignores the duty of care to them. The EU introduced regulation for vaping in 2016 which has been adapted and implemented in various member countries. It has seen a swift reduction in tobacco use and black-market activity. A regulated vaping approach is supported by health and tobacco control agencies in organisations across the EU, including in Sweden, and in other comparable western countries, such as the UK, the USA, Canada and New Zealand. The countries that have made vapes more difficult to access than cigarettes have seen a considerably slower smoking quit rate than the other countries. For example, the introduction of regulated vaping policy has resulted in more than 50,000 smokers in the UK stopping smoking with the assistance from a vaping product, with a 33 per cent reduction in smoking in the four years to 2022. Since vaping was legalised and regulated in November 2020 in New Zealand, there has been a 39 per cent decline in the smoking rate over three years. Smoking prevalence amongst Maoris declined by 35 per cent. Two Canadian surveys indicated a 15 per cent reduction for those aged 15-plus, and in the 15 to 24 years cohort there was a reduction of 32 per cent in males and 52 per cent in females. Why would we ignore these successful examples from around the world? Is it arrogance or is it idealism? Whatever the motive, we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we are somehow not subjected to the same criminal elements, the same basic human nature and the same pressures that other First World countries have seen. The Nationals are committed to true harm minimisation for all Australians when it comes to vaping and e-cigarettes. Protecting all of our young people is our main goal. We believe that vaping needs to be viewed in the full context of law enforcement and harm reduction, by reducing the impacts and cost burden of traditional cigarettes and smoking on our health system, stopping the funding of organised crime organisations, stopping the availability of unregulated and unsafe products to the community, implementing plain packaging, regulating flavours, enforcing market bans and issuing stronger enforceable penalties for those caught conducting businesses outside those parameters. We believe in providing our law enforcement agencies with a workable framework to help truly make a dent in the illicit trade. We also believe that this can be achieved through a regulated model that follows the same principles as alcohol and cigarette sales and reduces the strength of the black market by providing a safer and more accessible product to those who need it. It's time to recognise that ideology isn't working and it's time to bring some common sense to this issue if we hope to protect our young people and all Australians. It's our responsibility to make the necessary changes now if we're going to have any hope of controlling this into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Chester IPZ I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 19:25 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan We're working on the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 bill because we want to make sure that we change the lives of Australians—in particular young Australians. Asthma, lung scarring, organ damage, nausea, mouth irritation, chest pains, heart palpitations, seizure and toxicity are just some of the health problems that are caused by vaping, in which people use battery operated devices to inhale an aerosol which contains nicotine, flavouring and other chemicals. Among these serious side effects and health problems, vaping is also regarded as a gateway to more harmful drugs. It's a big problem, and that's why I am proud the government—led by the health minister, who is passionate about this issue—is taking strong action. I know we must act urgently to stamp it out. Vaping creates a new generation of nicotine addicts. It's highly addictive, and rates are soaring. Public data shows this. Cancer Council WA reported that in 2020 two per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds were vaping. By 2022, that number had skyrocketed, with a sixfold increase to 12 per cent. For 18- to 24-year-olds, the proportion of people quadrupled to more than 20 per cent in the same period. We also know that one in three people who start vaping go on to smoke, and we are seeing more young people taking up vaping and then smoking. It's no surprise that people under 25 are now the only cohort showing an increase in smoking. After decades and decades of decline in smoking, it's now a major public health issue. We have campaigns and advocacy around this, and we must address it. We must address it before it's too late. In preparation for the last time I talked about the government's tobacco control measures, I caught up with Professor Mike Daube, who works out of Curtin University in my electorate of Swan. I'm grateful to him for sharing his time and his views on vaping. Professor Daube has been a leader in tobacco control and public health for over four decades. Back in 2008, he was appointed by the Labor Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, to chair the National Preventative Health Taskforce. In response to its recommendations, Australia became the first country in the world to implement the plain packaging of tobacco products, which helped reduce smoking. Professor Daube warns that the major issue that we're facing right now is vaping. To quote Professor Daube, 'We are facing an extraordinary tobacco resurgence.' He said today that, while Australia has been a world leader in tobacco control, the development of e-cigarettes and other novel products threatens to undo much of the progress that we have made. Australia proudly led the way on tobacco reform. Others looked to Australia for inspiration on how to take on big tobacco. Now Professor Daube says that we must lead the way again and we must do everything that we can do to prevent another generation getting hooked on nicotine. What I will say is that, at the end of the day, big tobacco is a business that's driven by profit. When they were losing customers, when people were quitting smoking, they needed to come up something new to attract customers and to bring others back. Some in this place will recognise the term 'Kodak moment', but there's a whole generation of people that don't even know what a Kodak camera is. What we saw with Kodak is that they didn't innovate, and now so many people have digital cameras in their hands. The photography industry innovated, and now people have cameras in their hands, but, for classic Kodak moments, people aren't getting their film developed. Similarly, for tobacco they had the classic analog cigarette and, after a decline in rates of smoking, they wanted to revamp, and they did this through the use of e-cigarettes and vaping products. They're developing newer nicotine and tobacco products, and what they're doing, very intentionally, is targeting the most impressionable of our society—that is, young people. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Calare Electorate: Agricultural Shows 74 19:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare You just cannot beat a country show, and that's why tonight I rise to pay tribute to some of the wonderful agricultural show societies in Calare that strive to keep their local show going strong year after year. The first-ever Lithgow Show was held in 1885. In the past 139 years, it has become a Central West institution. The 2024 Lithgow Show was an absolute cracker featuring a grand parade, classic cars, a lighthorse display and fireworks, just to name a few. Among the extensive line-up of competitions, two new categories were added: the pet pooch show and the Mullet of the Year award. The inaugural mullet winner was Brendan Burgess. Well done to him! This year, Maureen Ford was awarded the Lithgow Show Champion Award for more than 50 years of service to the Lithgow Show. She started volunteering in 1971, the year 'Eagle Rock' from Daddy Cool was ruling the airwaves, as was 'The Pushbike Song' from The Mixtures. Now there are some blasts from the past! At the event, Doreen Peters and other members of the show society, including Carol Crossman, April Pilarcik, Margaret Latty and Sue Giokaris, put on a lovely high tea. Doreen won the scone section at the show, so, as you can imagine, the spread was absolutely extraordinary, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well done to you all! A huge thank you to the Lithgow Show Society executive, whose hard work and dedication ensure that the show continues to go from strength to strength. Thank you to President David Peters, Senior Vice President John Baxter, Secretary Vanetta Renshaw, Treasurer Kim Drury and Publicity Officer Lauren Elkins. This year was the 85th year of the Rylstone-Kandos Show, and some would say it was the best one yet. Held in mid-February, the day was jam-packed with horse ring events; the dog show; cattle, sheep, poultry and bird judging; woodchopping; the farmers' challenge; dog jumping; children's novelty events; and, of course, the stunning fireworks display. The show society made sure the showground looked an absolute picture, and I really enjoyed catching up with so many community members who do so much to make our corner of the country a better place. I'd like to particularly acknowledge the horse stewards, who did an absolutely outstanding job with their display, but also all of the other hardworking volunteers. A big thank you to President Rachael Mann, who did an outstanding job; Secretary Marion Crossman; and committee members Ben Suttor, Max Suttor, Phil English, Cameron Clarke, Deb Johnson, Jeff Rogers and James Johnson. This year the Rydal Show celebrated 101 years. The Rydal Show continues to be a country show powerhouse thanks to the hard work and support of so many kind-hearted community members. The 2024 show was a special one for me personally, because after several years of trying I was pretty chuffed to finally pick up a gong in the special scone section for pollies. It's always hotly contested. After whipping up my batch of scones, I can tell you my kitchen was in quite a state, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was all for a worthy cause. Reigning champion Natasha Hadley again took home the gold medal in the scone open section. Well done, Natasha! Congratulations also to Margie Lowe, who received the Royal Agricultural Society medal for her services to the Rydal Show Society. Margie has been running the Young Woman Ambassador Competition for the last 15 years and has helped many young leaders do their very best in the competition. A big thankyou to the show society's president, Daniel Morton; vice president, Sean Jenkins; treasurer, Eleanor Black; secretary, Rachael Young; vice president, Emma Martin; auditor, Sarah Martin; safety officer, Kirrily Scott; and publicity officer, Lorraine Stack. I should also mention that the Sydney Royal Easter Show is on at the moment. This year, three of Calare's young leaders made it to the final round of the Sydney Royal AgShows NSW Young Woman Competition. That competition is all about fostering future leaders and supporting the development of young ambassadors for rural New South Wales. Congratulations to Eliza Whiteley from Wellington Show Society and Alana Wade from Gulgong Show Society, who have done themselves, their families and their communities proud over the course of the whole competition. A big congratulations to Paris Capell, from Orange Show Society, who was named runner-up in the competition. Paris was the first representative from Orange to make it to the final since 1986. She works at the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries as a climate vulnerability assessment project officer. She's also the Central Tablelands Intrepid Landcare co-president, the Central West Young Aggies secretary and a committee member of the Orange Show Society. Congratulations to all of our hardworking show society volunteers. We appreciate everything that you do promoting agriculture and bringing our communities together. You just cannot beat a country show. Cybercrime 75 19:35 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to commend the important work that our National Anti-Scam Centre has been undertaking since its creation by the federal Labor government in 2023. As many of you would know, Australians were losing over $3 billion each year to scammers before the National Anti-Scam Centre was created. Australians were losing money to intricate scams online, over the phone and via email. Locally, scams are a significant issue on the Central Coast, and, in my electorate of Robertson, we saw around $2 million taken from our community by scammers in 2023. Following on from the federal Labor government's $86.5 million investment to crack down on scammers and to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre, I am pleased to see the government is helping to reduce the number of Australians that are affected by scams. The second quarterly report released this month by the National Anti-Scam Centre shows that losses in the October to December 2023 quarter have almost halved compared to the same period in 2022. This result is an outstanding achievement, and the trend has begun to move in a welcome downward direction. Across Australia, there were 67,116 scam reports registered with Scamwatch in the October to December 2023 quarter. This equated to Australians being scammed out of $82 million in that quarter, with investment scams representing the most common scam type in the country. It is imperative that Australians report a scam to Scamwatch when it is encountered. This way, the National Anti-Scam Centre can use its sophisticated tools to disrupt the scammers from continuing to operate. The National Anti-Scam Centre is a world-leading partnership between government, law enforcement and the private sector that uses cutting-edge technology to disrupt scams before they reach consumers. The National Anti-Scam Centre also focuses on raising community awareness to help arm people with tips and tools to help protect them from scammers in the community. Last year, I was pleased to host Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, at an antiscams forum in my electorate of Robertson. My office has been receiving increasing levels of correspondence from our community about scammers targeting older and vulnerable people on the Central Coast. It was important that my office was able to provide an opportunity for those in our community who wanted to learn about how to better identify scams and subsequently avoid being scammed. The antiscams forum took place at the Davistown RSL Club and attracted over 300 people from across the electorate and beyond. I'm sure that, if there were no capacity constraints on the event, we would have seen even more people in attendance, as we had to stop accepting RSVPs due to capacity. The forum was informative and it was an opportunity for me and the minister to speak directly with concerned members of my community and to impart a range of effective strategies to combat scammers, supported by the National Anti-Scam Centre. Those attending were also able to ask questions of me and the minister and receive a useful little resource from the National Anti-Scam Centre, fittingly titled The Little Black Book of Scams. Fast forward to now, and my office, in partnership with Minister Stephen Jones's office, will again host another antiscams forum in my electorate of Robertson. This time the forum will take place in Umina Beach, at the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club, and invitations will be sent to people right across the peninsula, including to Woy Woy, Umina Beach, Ettalong Beach, Blackwall, Pearl Beach, and Patonga. I look forward to facilitating another highly successful and informative forum which will raise the awareness of scams and arm people with the knowledge to combat scammers. The federal Labor government remains committed to combating scams across Australia and on the Central Coast. I would encourage people within the electorate of Robertson to contact my office should they be interested in attending the upcoming forum. Additionally, if they would like to receive resources about how to better identify and avoid scams, please contact my office, and that includes, as I mentioned earlier, the The Little Black Book of Scams. I would also like to thank the hardworking public servants who work at the National Anti-Scam Centre and are helping win the battle against scammers on behalf of the Australian people. As I have said, this is a huge issue not just on the Central Coast but also right across Australia. The numbers are trending in the right direction, but we can't become complacent. We have to make sure that we are armed with the tools and the information necessary to stop these criminals in their tracks and make sure Australians can keep their hard-earned money. Zimmermann, Miss Aria James, Blood and Plasma Donation 76 19:40 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies In the gallery is a 3-year-old boy named Lucas. His head's popping up and down and he's wearing a checked shirt. He is son to dad, Jamie, who sits with him and served with me in Afghanistan. He is son to mum, Christina, and he will always be brother to Aria, who took her last breath in the arms of her mum one month ago, aged five. Speaker, I want to tell you about Aria. I want to tell you about the people who bought her precious time, I want to tell you that they did it by donating blood and plasma, and I want to plead with Australians to do it again and again. Lucas, your dad spoke of the moment you were born. It is captured in a photo I hope you will cherish as a man. Maybe you are looking at it as you listen to this years from now. In it, you are all wrapped up, surrounded by your family, with Aria resting her gentle hand on your cheek. Wherever you are, look at that photo and know that you came into this world immediately loved. Know that you always will be. Jamie, my friend, you said Aria was 'the most resilient, persistent, loving and caring little girl who showed strength and courage every day'. You said, 'She showed up and fought the fight.' You said this at her funeral, Jamie: 'Aria's impact in her cosmic scale short life was exactly the time she was prescribed. The task of being daughter, big sister, little cousin, best hips dancing, loving niece, artist, manager, cook, and the well deserved trending status of "sassy". She had a full life.' In her short five years on Earth, Aria spent more than 500 days in hospital. It would have been much less time but for the generosity of people who never knew her. Aria was given blood products regularly, including platelets from plasma. Those products gave her more time to heal, prepared her for bone marrow transplants and, in the end, gave her life support. More than anything, they bought her time. They gave her one extra Christmas. She got to go to the zoo, the beach and a dance concert. She had her favourite food, trips to Poppy's and Uncle Ben's, and walks in Parramatta Park. We know giving blood saves lives, but many don't know it buys something just as precious—time between a child and their family. Aria knew this. Jamie, one of your daddy-daughter dates saw you both visit Lifeblood. There, Aria saw where her blood bags came from and how they were made. One-third of Australians will need blood at some point in their life, but only one in 30 will donate. Those donations are needed for emergency surgery, road trauma, bleeding during childbirth and cancer treatment. One blood donation can save up to three lives, and plasma can be used in 18 different ways. Aria's last days were spent at Bear Cottage in Manly, a wonderful facility that serves as a functioning hospital just for palliative care. It's a place that feels like home. Aria's final moments were on the leather couch in the TV room, where she was with her mum, her dad, Sarah and Robin, with Lucas running in the background. She took her final breath there. Her memory will live on in the words of her name, Aria James Zimmermann, now forever in Hansard, in the deeds of those who will, I hope, turn up to donate to save others, in the loving embrace of God, and in the memory of her family. Rest in peace, forever five: fighter, daughter, sister—Aria James Zimmermann. The SPEAKER 53517 Well said by the member for Menzies. Young Labor, Online Safety, Wages 77 19:45 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Young people are apathetic. They don't care about politics and are indifferent to the goings-on in Canberra—or so the narrative goes. Not the young people I've met. The youngsters in Young Labor have a fire in their bellies and, rather than complain, they roll up their sleeves and step into the arena. From uni students, apprentices, grads, men and women, they want to make a difference. They door-knock, make calls and give up their time on top of their busy study and work commitments—and why? For that better future that we all crave. Activism has many faces, and Young Labor have decided that politics is their preferred pathway for change. They're not alone. As the great Labor PM Julia Gillard said, 'Nothing beats politics for driving change at speed and at scale.' Despite the bad press, this House gets things done. But there's a catch—Labor governments are, overwhelmingly, the lifters and the doers. From Medicare to the pension, super, paid parental leave and now super on paid parental leave, a gender-equal government, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the net zero transition with climate targets, childhood dental, the National Reconstruction Fund, a skills plan backed by free TAFE, and more affordable housing, Labor governments get things done, and we are in a hurry. 'Never waste today' is the mantra—we hold it close because these roles are hard-won and always temporary. Young Labor members know that ours is a party of government. We are not the spectators in the cheap seats. Ours is a broad church, from struggle street to billionaire's row and everything in between. We welcome the challenges because it is only with challenge that you grow as a leader. Young Labor members know that ours is a government and a movement intent on doing good rather than entrenching the status quo. I look at these young people with admiration that they figured this out in their youth at a time when many young people are going with the flow, unaware of their own agency. I thank them for their contribution because, thanks to them, Labor is here to stand in their corner and in the corners of all Australians. The $10 billion Reddit stock market float in the US was a stunning result that leaves me cold. What is the market rewarding—conspiracy theorists, extremism, violence? Meta turns 20 this year, and I reflect that it should have been strangled at birth. To the litany of social harms, from extremism, scams and the weakening of democracies we can add the deteriorating mental health of our children. Social media companies push 'ana' tips—short for anorexia—restrictive eating patterns that are incompatible with the demands of growing brains and bodies, leading to the emergence and perpetuation of eating disorders that affect one in 10 young people below the age of 20: kids—our kids. Ideally, we should all go on a social media diet, but failing that, we need guardrails: algorithmic transparency; better content detection and moderation, knowing that it is not watertight; age verification mechanisms that keep kids out of adult content. Is that image or voice synthetic or real? What is the source of origin? It a liberal democracy or a failed state? Is it machine or bot that is pushing this, or a human? Show me the fingerprints of man or machine and then let me decide before I reshare. We can put as much scaffolding around our kids—like respectful relationships education and critical thinking skills or kitchen table chats, and we should do all those things—but it is no match for tech giants who employ an army of behavioural scientists and who have created algorithms that know us better than ourselves. Self-control is a Jedi mind trick. If the people of Higgins—young and old alike—want action then I urge you and the crossbench to support our Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill and speak up when our review into the Online Safety Act opens. The social media giants are not above the law. Let's hold them to account. Low income workers are more likely to be women, migrants and young people. They are more vulnerable to insecure work and exploitation. They are also the ones who needed a $23 billion cost-of-living lifeline, ranging from energy relief to rent assistance. Now there is a furious argument that they should not be given a wage rise. In fact, if you don't want to throw a lifeline to people, you should raise all the boats, and that is what we are doing by backing in a minimum wage rise for people, so that we do not end up with a permanent underclass of working poor in this country. Mouse Plague 78 19:50 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It was Yogi Berra, the famous American baseball catcher, who gave us the phrase, 'It's just like deja vu all over again.' It feels like that to me, because in 2011 I gave a number of speeches in this place urging the APVMA to register the new treatment for mouse plagues along with the deregistration of strychnine for farmers. I was pretty frustrated with their sluggishness at the time, but eventually we got there, and a product, zinc phosphide 25, was registered for use. Over the years, some suspicions were raised amongst growers that the formulation was sublethal. Of course, the problem with the sublethal dose is that a mouse will eat one grain of wheat, get poisoned, get very sick, recover, and then not go near another grain of poisoned wheat. So the GRDC, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, commissioned the CSIRO to conduct trials on a higher rate of zinc phosphide—zinc phosphide 50. At the height of the 2021 plague—and some of you might remember the pictures of it from central New South Wales—a temporary permit was granted for zinc phosphide 50 on the back of the research that GRDC and CSIRO had undertaken. Grain Producers Australia were the peak grains body that were entrusted with the coordinated rollout of the new treatment. I was a farmer for a long time before I got here—30 years, in fact—and I can remember losing hundreds of hectares of crop to mice. It's a fascinating thing. You can't even see where the row is, but the mice know where the row is, and they'll go through and take grain after grain after grain, leaving hundreds of holes. The zinc phosphide proved to be an improved mixture, and there has been no reported off-target damage. So it's a good thing. The permit was subsequently renewed on an annual basis until late last year. Then, suddenly, the answer from the APVMA was 'No'. Granted it's a slightly different permit, going from being an emergency permit to a minor use one, but the use is the same. As we've had no ill reports, it is a bit bemusing as to why they might have done that, as we're always only this far from a plague. A female mouse can deliver as many as 10 new mice every 20 days and become pregnant virtually as soon as she has given birth. They make rabbits look highly inefficient in this area. The GRDC have ploughed more than $7½ million into research with the CSIRO and are confused as to why the application would be refused. Another bid has been lodged, with a quantity of extra information. I understand Grain Producers Australia, the applicant, have been informed that it will also be refused unless they can provide more information in a very short time. So I ask the question: what on earth is going on? No-till farming has been a revolution. It's great for the soils. It's great for the environment. But it provides a natural habitat for mice—it provides feed and shelter in the paddock—so mouse plagues are much more common than they were in the past. So farmers need something on hand all the time to deal with rising mouse numbers. Now, we have manufacturers who are not willing to produce the zinc 25 formulation. It's certainly not what farmers want, and the manufacturers fear that should the zinc 50 be approved they will be stuck with a truckload of it. I would be less than honest if I did not say that there are rumours around the industry that a certain manufacturer is holding considerable stocks of zinc phosphide 25 and is not keen on the registration of zinc phosphide 50. I state that these are rumours, and I haven't named anyone. But, given the rumours are about, I'm asking the minister for agriculture to take a direct interest in this situation and clear the air, and establish why it is that registration is being refused, given the views of the premier national science organisation, the CSIRO, who believe this is a fit and proper purpose for zinc 50. We are in March. Farmers will start seeding next month. High-ish mouse numbers in the paddock need to be treated early. A single mouse can turn into about 400 in about two months or more. Early action is good action. I'm urging the APVMA to get on with this and the minister to take an interest. Higher Education Contribution Scheme 78 19:55 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Tonight I want to talk about our universities, and specifically about HECS—or HELP, as it was formerly known. For people who entered university in the nineties—and that includes me—and ever since then, our HECS has made university study possible. It has made going to university a reality, particularly for people who may otherwise have struggled to pay or who may not otherwise have considered university as an option. The data we have from the introduction of HECS in that time shows it has expanded the number of people in Australia who have received a university education and all the benefits that come with a university education. HECS has made a difference, helping more people to go to university. But we also know that, for many people today, HECS is not working as well as it perhaps should be, and that for many people today it can feel unfair. I have heard this from my community, in particular from younger people who are currently studying or who have finished their studies in the past few years. I've also heard it from their parents and grandparents, who look at the situation for young people now and wonder what a HECS debt burden is going to mean for their future. People are telling me that paying off a HECS debt is arguably harder than it has been in the past. We are seeing now that, while HECS is still helping people get to university and gain the qualifications they need for a better future and the qualifications that help all of us in our community, people are often left with a debt in the tens of thousands of dollars and are facing repayments in an environment where indexation can sometimes mean less of a net reduction in the debt. When you consider that many of those with HECS debts are also often looking at paying them back at the same time they're considering saving for a home deposit, or paying rent, or maybe trying to establish a family, it is understandable that young people today feel like paying off their HECS debt will take forever, in a way that, I think, didn't feel quite as burdensome for previous generations of graduates. I'm very grateful to all the locals who have shared with me their experiences of and their fears about the current situation with HECS, and what that might mean for future students and their willingness to go to university and to take on a level of debt. I'm confident that the Minister for Education has heard these concerns as well. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to catch up with him last weekend and to let him know about what people in my community are telling me about HECS. I know the minister is keen to ensure our tertiary education system is working as well as it can be, with fairness at its core. It is timely to have this discussion about HECS because only last month the government and the minister released the final report into the Australian Universities Accord. This report was led by an expert panel appointed by the minister to work on a year-long review into higher education. The accord has considered the challenges that universities are facing and the short-, medium- and long-term opportunities that we need to take on these challenges, to make sure that Australia's higher education sector thrives into the future. The report examined HECS and found that some aspects of the system are due for a change, saying that higher student contribution amounts 'have significantly and unfairly increased what students repay'. The accord panel expressed their concerns that, with the HECS system as it is, there is a real risk that some people will be deterred from going to university at all 'at exactly the time we need growth in participation', in the number of people going to university. The accord report tells us that by the middle of this century 80 per cent of people will need to have some form of tertiary qualification so they can be prepared for the jobs that will see them through their working life. There is work to do. We currently sit at around 60 per cent. We need to move to that 80 per cent mark. And we need to make sure that, as we do that, we address the barriers that are impacting the participation of people from low socio-economic status backgrounds, people from regional and rural areas, people with disability and First Nations people. I know the Minister for Education is giving the accord report a lot of thought. I know he is looking to the long term about how we make our university system fairer and how we set it up so that we are helping young people to get the qualifications they need to have the best possible future, and that we're doing so in an environment where we understand that young people want to feel like they are being supported to get ahead and supported with their cost-of-living issues. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister and supporting him as he does this important reform. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Tuesday, 26 March 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Young ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Indi Electorate: Albury-Wodonga Hospital 82 16:00 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise today with a message to the federal government and to the New South Wales and the Victorian state governments. On all available evidence, these three governments are planning on spending more than half a billion dollars on a hospital— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:00 to 16: 10 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I call the member for Indi on resumption. Dr HAINES 282335 That was a clinical services building, which they already know will not meet the health needs of our community. I'm speaking of course of the planned $558 million redevelopment of the Albury hospital campus announced by the Victorian and New South Wales premiers ahead of the Victorian 2022 election. The need for a new hospital for Albury Wodonga, serving a catchment of 300,000 people, has long been documented. The current situation with two hospitals on either side of the border, where services are duplicated and separated, is inefficient, inadequate and unsafe. When the current funding was announced, I welcomed it. The two premiers said they would fulfil our community's need for a single-site hospital, and I took them at their word. But, since then, it has become increasingly clear that this funding will never deliver that promise. In fact, a letter from Albury Wodonga Health's chief executive, Bill Appleby, and chair, Jonathan Green, to the Victorian and New South Wales health ministers on 19 December last year said explicitly, 'This investment will deliver the government's policy intent of a single-site hospital.' Of course, the New South Wales and Victoria governments will not admit this. We only know about this letter because of the excellent work of Dr Amanda Cohn in the New South Wales parliament. Instead, the New South Wales and Victorian governments are stonewalling, dismissing the evidence from our health leaders, clinicians and patients. And here I must acknowledge Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, who has come to the border and listened to our communities, for which I am most grateful. Why is it that our health service—the biggest, busiest health service between Melbourne and Sydney—must look at other, smaller hospitals with smaller catchments and see that they got more funding? In 2018, the Tweed Valley Hospital in New South Wales was allocated $723 million from the New South Wales government to build a new hospital for a catchment size similar to ours on the border. Shellharbour Hospital gets $700 million as well, and the Victorian government has committed up to $675 million to build a new greenfield hospital in West Gippsland to service only 60,000 people. Why would the state governments only allocate $225 million each to our region? We need the federal, New South Wales and Victorian governments to all come together and commit to addressing our needs now and into the future. We need this health service funded properly so we get the single-site, world-class hospital we so desperately need and ultimately deserve. Smiddy, Mr Brian, International Women's Day 82 16:12 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm really proud to call Brian Smiddy my friend, and I was so disappointed to miss his book launch the other day. But to hear about it and flick through the book's pages is something I want to share with this chamber. Brian Smiddy is an extraordinary man who has given so much in a life lived entirely selflessly. That was why more than a hundred people gathered together to celebrate his book launch with his local state member, Colin Brooks MP. Brian's book tells the story of his life in the Labor movement, and he spent 70 years—seven zero—as a member of the great Australian Labor Party. He has spent his life dedicated to the values of unionism and to selflessness, making a difference everywhere he has gone. Brian has always lived his values and inspired those around him. I do feel very grateful for his support, and I was devastated that he was redistributed into the electorate of Jagajaga at the last redistribution. But the member for Jagajaga is a great beneficiary of his wisdom, as I continue to be. I'm so pleased that Brian has shared his story with the world, and I wish him and his wife Ellen, also a wonderful, selfless activist in the community, all the very best. I was able to join with many community members at Creeds Farm in Epping North just a couple of weeks ago to mark International Women's Day. I was so pleased that my staff brought together a group of incredible women to talk about some of the initiatives the government has embarked upon, led by Senator Gallagher. They also talked about local perspectives. To hear from Alex Haynes from Whittlesea Community Connections and Meredith Budge from Lalor Neighbourhood House created some fantastic conversations. I was so pleased that a really diverse group of women was brought together. I was even more pleased that they weren't there just to listen; they were there to share their perspectives, demand more from our parliament in their communities and think about how they can be more active in the community in political, social, and economic life. Hearing the stories in that room and thinking about the conversations that have been generated through Alex and Meredith's wonderful contributions and leadership was a real privilege. I'm so grateful to the volunteers and, of course, to my staff for bringing together this important event. It was an opportunity to reflect on all that has been but also never to be satisfied until we have constructed a truly equal society in which everyone has every opportunity to contribute on their terms. Youth Crime 83 16:15 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Only the state government has the power to change the Queensland youth justice legislation, and the Miles Labor government is refusing to do so. They refuse to enforce an appropriate punishment for bad behaviour and refuse to remove detention as a last resort from the Youth Justice Act. That's why, at the federal level, the former coalition government introduced the Safer Communities Fund, a highly successful program with the benefits being realised across the country. In his very first budget, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cut this fund and, as a result, all the programs created under it. We must bring back the Safer Communities Fund to deter at-risk youth from a life of crime. The Safer Communities Fund was incredibly successful, providing over $200 million in funding through over 600 grants to establish early intervention programs and crime prevention infrastructure nationwide. Across Australia, programs were established to offer young people a safe space to keep engaged and reduce the risk of offending, reoffending, or antisocial behaviour. There is no doubt this program was a success, and our community of Townsville has seen firsthand the benefits of this. One fantastic example is Community Gro's Youth Hub, which I visited again a couple of weeks ago. This hub provides our at-risk youth with a safe place to drop in and connect with culture and support services. It has supported more than 80 young people, from participants learning valuable life skills to gaining full-time employment. But all good things came to an end under the Prime Minister. He abolished the Safer Communities Fund, which cut the funding source for the hub. With this and any alternative funding options off the table, the youth hub will close its doors at the end of April, potentially taking away the only safe space that more than 80 of our at-risk youth have. It's hard to imagine what a young, vulnerable child from a very rough upbringing must be thinking when they hear this news—a child who had finally found a safe place to connect, learn and be set on a path to success now having had that safe space taken away from them. That is the harsh reality of what the end of this funding means for our at-risk youth. Townsville locals do not need to be subjected to violence, stealing, and living in a constant state of fear, but the weak state Labor government continues to fail to do its job, which is why we took action. We provided the Safer Communities Fund so that we could make a difference at the federal level when we were in government. The Albanese Labor government must not shut the doors on our nation's at-risk youth. It must bring back the Safer Communities Fund. JoCare, Disability Services 83 16:18 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Australians want to retain their autonomy as they age. Staying at home for as long as possible came out loud and clear in our consultations around aged-care reform. One group that is ahead of the curve is JoCare, a volunteer led organisation in Higgins that pairs volunteers with vulnerable elderly in the community they call neighbours. This matching service delivers companionship to elderly neighbours and the gift of service to volunteers, and it is slowing or, indeed, stopping the pathway to residential care. It's a win-win-win. JoCare also runs a digital platform to help elderly neighbours learn basic tech skills so that they can stay connected with family or friends. I had the pleasure of joining them at JoCare's Christmas celebration in December. I marvelled at the camaraderie, the togetherness and the sight of so many neighbours and volunteers, young and old alike. This is the intergenerational bridge in action. I pay tribute to chairperson Dr Susanne Tepe, secretary John Davies OAM, and the entire committee for their leadership, and I encourage my constituents to volunteer their time and support JoCare in any way they can. What do we mean by wanting an inclusive country? Malvern Special Needs Playgroup has taken this to another level for children with complex needs. For over 50 years, the group has delivered individualised early intervention for children aged nine months to five years, and respite for parents. During my visit I saw littlies with significant disabilities or complex needs, like nasogastric feeding, truncal weakness or gait and dexterity problems, who were supported by a team of volunteers and therapists. There were experts in speech, physical and occupational therapy and play. Parents from Higgins, and well outside, are making the trip to Malvern Special Needs Playgroup. The children were engaged, and parents received a warm welcome and respite to attend to other matters while this impressive team swung into action. Parents regaled me with the importance of the centre and the need for more like it and sang the praises of the team. It is not only big reforms like the NDIS but small place-based interventions like Malvern Special Needs Playgroup that create the inclusive nation we strive for. Energy 84 16:21 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume In recent weeks, many Australian households have been receiving their quarterly electricity bills, and they've been shocked by what they've seen. Of course, they don't need reminding that before the last election the Prime Minister said over 100 times that there would be a $275 reduction in their electricity bills. But, instead of seeing relief, they've seen an unprecedented surge in their electricity bills. Australian families are drowning in financial strain and paying amongst the most expensive energy bills in the world. In my electorate of Hume, I'm seeing huge increases amongst households and small businesses. Warwick from Goulburn recently shared his frustration with me at seeing that his electricity bill had increased by $480 since Labor came to power. That's alongside Warren from Camden, who saw the price of his power soar from just over 21c per kilowatt hour to 29c per kilowatt hour in March 2024. Kurt from Crookwell saw his power bill skyrocket from $450 to $715 in the latest quarter. That's an extra $265 a quarter that he has to find in after-tax income to pay his power bill. The draft DMO, default market offer, that came out recently confirmed that Labor has fallen short by over $1,000—$1,027, to be exact—of its promised price reduction for everyday households. Just think about that for a moment. Instead of saving money, families and pensioners are facing higher bills than ever before. It's not just families, of course, that are facing the brunt of this. Our small businesses, the backbone of the economy in an electorate like Hume, are also reeling from Labor's spiralling energy costs. I recently heard from Russell, who operates Downes Wholesale Nursery in Theresa Park in Western Sydney. His business power costs have risen $24,000 since the Albanese government came to power. Those numbers don't lie. Startling figures from the Australian Energy Regulator revealed that over 116,000 people have been placed in hardship due to their skyrocketing energy bills. There are nearly 200,000 people in energy debt. These aren't just statistics; they represent the faces of our neighbours, our friends, our fellow Australians, who are suffering under the weight of Labor's incompetence. They have lost all credibility on energy prices, and it has completely shattered trust with the Australian people. As I said, the Prime Minister promised his $275 cut at least 100 times. He should make an unreserved apology to the Australian people for his failure. Aston Electorate: Community Organisations 84 16:24 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston As many of my constituents know, I'm a strong advocate for community organisations that focus on bringing people together and ensuring the wellbeing of the people of Aston. Social enterprises and day service providers like Knoxbrooke perform an important role in helping provide a supported workplace for young adults and other people of all abilities. Last week I attended the opening of Knoxbrooke's brand-new facility in Bayswater. Integrating participants with diverse abilities to learn and develop skills is crucial to bridging the divide between school and work as well as introducing them to the workforce. Knoxbrooke, throughout its life, is a fantastic example of the ever-changing needs in this space. Knoxbrooke have been around for over 50 years, and the Achieve and Outsource programs, which have been running since 2017, mean that they have been able to build strong business-to-business relations with recognisable brands and customers. Knoxbrooke currently supports approximately 265 NDIS participants and provides development and support services to them. Community organisations provide crucial support services and safe settings for individuals to come together and provide creativity, friendship and support for each other. Thank you to Annie and Amanda from Knoxbrooke, who took me through how the program works and how it achieves great things for the people involved. Also, whilst I waited in line for a much-needed coffee from the Coffee Vibes van, which is one of the social enterprises run by Knoxbrooke, I met the wonderful Claire, who explained how Coffee Vibes works with communities and supports their employees with diverse abilities. Also, thanks to Kelly, who made me a great coffee. I'd like to give a big shout-out also to Jenny, who is one of the workers at Knoxbrooke in Bayswater and who was a terrific MC on the day. On a recent visit to Rowville Men's Shed, just on Sunday, I had the pleasure of meeting some more wonderful community members. The Men's Shed is a great space for members of our community, which now includes women members, to socialise and put their handiwork skills to good use. I was rapt to hear that the Men's Shed has a repair cafe, where locals can bring in all manners of items for repair, from vacuum cleaners and radios to kids' toys. You can also grab a cuppa and have a chinwag. It's great recognition—especially for many working families that I represent—that the values and training that many older generations have are still being passed on to future generations. The canny organising skills of Barry were on full display as he talked about the challenges of setting up Rowville Men's Shed and how they included women in the initial set-up, with three women members—very progressive altogether! Not only that but Rowville Men's Shed also tend their own beehives, and we're aware of how crucial bees are for the local ecosystem. There's also some honey available, and it's a great tasting treat. So, of course, I bought some honey—and it's a bargain to boot—because supporting local communities and organisations is something that I'm very proud to do. Economy 85 16:27 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin As I travel around my electorate, I must say that people don't often want to unload their problems. People want to catch up, and they want to chat about their kids, work, family and life. But, inevitably, when you ask them how things are going, they emphasise how tough it is at the moment under this Labor government, and the hard things they are facing when they're around their kitchen table trying to just make ends meet. The data we see at an economic level that we speak about in this parliament confirms, quite frankly, what I'm seeing as I'm out and about in my electorate or, indeed, throughout the country, and that's that people have, in their experience, never done it tougher. In their lives, they have never found life more difficult, and I think that's explained by the fact that we know—it's an undisputed fact, not a number that the government can refute—that real disposable incomes are down by 7½ per cent under this government. So people who were already doing it tough when the Labor Party came to government are now 7½ per cent worse off. We're in a recession; let's be frank. We call it 'per capita recession'. But, if you're a household, your income's gone backwards. To put it crudely, every single Australian on average is poorer after nearly two years of the Labor government than when they were elected. They're poorer. They have less money to go around at the end of every week. If you've got an average mortgage in this country, you're spending $24,000 a year more just servicing the interest on that mortgage. If you go to the supermarket, as we all do, food's up by nearly nine per cent. Electricity's up by 20 per cent and gas is up by 27 per cent. Those two figures are damning for the government, because you've got a 20 per cent increase in electricity and 27 per cent increase in gas when they all went to the election promising cheaper energy—by $275 a year. Indeed, they went to the election promising cheaper mortgages. Again, $24,000 a year more on your average mortgage is another broken promise from this government. In addition to having conversations around the electorate, I receive emails from those in my electorate. John from Croydon wrote to me recently and said that his latest gas bill cost him over $600. Narelle from Ringwood East said that it cost her over $200 to fill up her car—one tank of petrol. This is all occurring with a Prime Minister who promised that life would be easier under him. He has just provided more misery, and Australians are poorer as a result of this Labor government. Richmond Electorate 85 16:30 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond A big, big congratulations to Dylan Wright of Bangalow in my electorate, because last night Dylan won Australian Idol. He is absolutely amazing. Particularly, his rendition of 'Tiny Dancer' last night was sensational. Dylan, we are all so incredibly proud of your great achievement. The whole North Coast was behind you. Congratulations! I would like to highlight to the House some of the election commitments that I made prior to the last election. I am delivering on all four of those commitments, so I want to update the House. First of all, prior to the election, we committed to building a veterans hub in Tweed to provide services and support for our valued veterans community. Just last week, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs visited Tweed, and we announced that more than $5.4 million had been awarded to RSL LifeCare to build and operate this very important hub. The Albanese government is committed to providing the best services and supports for defence personal, veterans and families. We will soon have that hub right in Tweed Heads. Also prior to the election, we announced that a Labor government would invest $750,000 towards the building of a new social enterprise commercial laundry in Bangalow. Well, Beacon Laundry is now operating and will be officially opened on 10 April. It's the only commercial laundry located in the Byron Bay area or the whole North Coast. This project creates jobs and supports locals in our area, as well as providing a very, very important service for the tourism and hospitality sectors. We very much look forward to that opening. Also prior to the election, we committed $1 million towards building a new animal pound and rehoming centre at South Murwillumbah. This funding was on top of the $1.76 million in more federal funding for the project. This pound is desperately needed since the other one closed in 2019. Just recently, Tweed Shire Council called for tenders for the design and construction of this new state-of-the-art centre. I want to especially acknowledge Friends of the Pound, the incredible not-for-profit animal rescue charity that works so closely with council and the community to ensure that all these wonderful animals are cared for. When we made the announcement on 21 October, Friends of the Pound came along, and I met one of their rescue dogs, Teddy, who is a half-chihuahua. We adopted him, and soon after adopted his lovely sister, Cindy Lou. They are both beautiful little animals. Another election commitment was $1.5 million to build the final portion of the Lennox Head village upgrade. That commitment funded stages 2 and 4, which is wonderful, with improvements to Ballina Street and Ross Park, as well as stormwater and pavement reconstruction. Having that in place has made such a beautiful difference to Lennox Head, one of the many beautiful villages on the North Coast. I'm very proud to be delivering on my election commitments. Warrnambool Racing Club, Warrnambool Golf Club 86 16:33 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon On Friday night, I had the great honour to go to the Warrnambool Racing Club to launch the May Racing Carnival which will take place this year. That's three fantastic days of flat racing and jumps racing. I say to everyone: get along if you possibly can, because it will be great entertainment as always. There were also the inductees into the Warrnambool Racing Club Hall of Fame. I commend Mark McNamara, the committee chair of the Warrnambool Racing Club, and all the committee for this great, great initiative. Eight inaugural members were inducted last year, and another four were added this year: the great jumper Al Garhood; Ted Byrne, a legendary jockey; William Lindsay, a legendary chairman; and Bill Gibbins. It was Bill Gibbins who had the foresight and the initiative to put in place the Jericho Cup. It is now another great feature of the Warrnambool Racing Club, and it goes from strength to strength. Bill, your health isn't great at the moment, but hopefully being inducted to the Warrnambool Racing Club Hall of Fame will improve your spirits and make sure you have a speedy recovery. We all wish you the very best. On Saturday night, I was pleased to be able to go to the Warrnambool Golf Club, where they unofficially opened their wonderful new $7 million clubhouse. It is a fantastic facility. It will be there for many, many years to come so that people can have a quiet beer after playing golf. People will be able to go there and have 21sts. They will be able to get married there. It's got a beautiful vista. There are 12 to 14 holes at the golf course. It's just a wonderful venue now. I say to Paul Blain, the chairman of the goal club, well done for having the courage to say: 'We're going to do this. We're going to get on and do it.' Now there is a wonderful legacy as a result of your inspiring leadership. Also, Ashlee Scott, who oversaw the whole project, did a wonderful job in making sure that it was been done in a way that, when you go there, you just know that it is a quality place to have a drink after golf, have a function or have a celebration. The community is all the richer and all the better for the great work that Paul, Ashlee and the whole of the golf club have done in putting this new facility in place for the local Warrnambool community. Tasmania 86 16:36 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Two very exciting things happened in Tasmania in the last week or two. One of them was an election and the other was an AFL team. I want to talk about both of them. The Tasmanian election was held on Saturday and the Liberal Party, the state government at the moment, had a 12 per cent swing against it at that election. This was a very clear message to Premier Rockliff and the Tasmanian Liberals that the Tasmanian people aren't happy with the direction Tasmania is heading in. Indeed, there was a swing of 20 per cent of the primary vote against the Liberal Party. They need to listen to this, as we will. We really need to listen to what this means for Tasmania. Tasmanians are doing it tough, particularly on health, housing and the cost of living. Our Prime Minister came down and stood by the Labor leader, Rebecca White. I want to pay tribute to Rebecca White as our leader today. Rebecca has faced three elections. She is a terrific leader of the Tasmanian Labor team. I'm sorry to say that Rebecca today has said that she'll be stepping down from the leadership. She will be greatly missed by the Tasmanian Labor people but importantly by the Tasmanian public. She is a woman of incredible integrity and intellect, and her tenacious and fierce advocacy for the Tasmanian people I'm sure will be directed into her local constituency in Lyons in Tasmania. We didn't see Peter Dutton during the state election. It was almost like the Tasmanian Liberals didn't want him to turn up. I don't blame them, because, quite frankly, the Liberal Party and Peter Dutton are not particularly liked in Tasmania. Peter Dutton and the Liberals' policies are not welcome in Tasmania. Tasmanians need support. They need the cost-of-living support that the Albanese Labor government is delivering. We will be working with whomever forms the next government in Tasmania to continue to deliver for Tasmanians. But the former Liberal government and current Premier need to make sure they listen to that election result. The other big that happened, as I talked about, was to do with AFL. Tasmanians, after waiting decades, finally have an AFL team—the Tassie Devils. I am a proud foundation member of the Tassie Devils. I am one of 170,000 people that have joined up to the Tassie Devils. I think this shows that Tasmanians are behind this team. We have been hanging out for this for a long time. We provide a lot of talent to the AFL nationally. It was great to have Rodney Eade, the great AFL legend, in Tasmania for this launch. We have had some famous Tasmanians in the AFL, and I am pleased our team is up and running. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 87 BILLS Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 87

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024

Second Reading 87 16:40 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I will be opposing the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the other legislation which ushers in a new tax for Australia's farmers. Our farmers make an extraordinary contribution to the life of our nation. They feed and clothe Australians and many people around the globe. They battle drought, floods, bushfires, plagues and way too much government red tape. Agricultural production has been a crucial plank in the economic success of Australia. In 2022-23 the value of agricultural exports reached $79.9 billion, which was a record high. Given this extraordinary contribution, it is outrageous that our farmers should be slugged with a new tax to pay for biosecurity, which is the responsibility of all Australians, not just farmers. It's also concerning that, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, the government is going to add to agricultural production costs, which will end up making this crisis even worse. I note that the agricultural sector has strongly opposed the introduction of this new tax on our farmers. Barry Large, Chair of Grain Producers Australia and a WA grower, said: Australian producers take biosecurity seriously on our farms every single day … That's why we already pay significant amounts to fund biosecurity protections directly within our own businesses. We also pay directly through other compulsory industry levies that raise hundreds of millions of dollars—including biosecurity levies. We've been calling for increased funding and protections to make the system better and fairer for producers with increased accountability and shared responsibility, but this proposal in its current form is grossly unfair and fundamentally flawed and needs to be reversed. WoolProducers Australia CEO Jo Hall has said: Farmers are facing ever increasing pressures to produce food that's affordable, and the highest quality in the world, whilst others rake-in record profits … This move by the Federal Government will only amplify these production pressures by hitting farmers with another tax that's nothing more than double dipping and cost-shifting on biosecurity. To those organisations you can add NSW Farmers, which points out that this new tax: … would impose additional costs on the very farmers who already paid significant levies for biosecurity efforts, and bore the cost of dealing with previous biosecurity failures such as Varroa mite and Red Imported Fire Ant. NSW Farmers Biosecurity Committee chair Ian McColl also points out: … there is no container levy imposed on importers, despite the threats to our national biosecurity coming from overseas. It beggars belief that you would hit farmers up with a new biosecurity tax and not the importers who represent the biosecurity risk. It's not just NSW Farmers who oppose this new tax. The Victorian Farmers Federation has been vocal in its opposition to the new tax, as have the National Farmers Federation and a host of other farming organisations. I had a recent conversation with Orange area orchardist Guy Gaeta about this issue. He didn't varnish his words when he said: It's disgusting. These people are off their rocker. I'm not going to pay it. I should add that that quote is the part of the conversation that is suitable for printing in Hansard. Farmers around our nation would agree with Guy. This new tax is a very poor way to treat the farmers who have done so much for our country and is a very clumsy and ill-conceived way to fund biosecurity measures. I will be opposing it, and I urge all members of the crossbench in the Senate to join me in voting against it. I also urge other members of the House of Representatives to vote against it. Our hardworking farmers simply deserve better. 16:44 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to make it be contribution on the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the related bill. There are some genuine concerns with what the government is doing with this package, concerns which I don't think are resolved by the material we've been provided with, and so I'd like to indicate that I will be opposing the bill. As I understand it, the background here is that the government has decided to increase revenue for biosecurity through two channels: expanding cost recovery for low-value imports and putting a special levy on domestic primary producers. I have three concerns with the government's approach and these are shared, obviously, by a number of my colleagues in this place. The first mirrors those concerns raised by the Productivity Commission in their 2023 paper on Commonwealth industry levies. That paper demonstrated the incredible growth in industry levies in recent years and how they represent a form of microtaxation, which can be an inefficient revenue source that impairs broader efforts to support private sector investment, innovation and productivity growth. That paper provided a framework for testing the case for industry levy proposals, to ensure that they target a public good effectively and aren't simply imposed as a revenue-raising measure. Of the 11 tests, the biosecurity proposal passes just three of them. This suggests that the department has not worked through the framework or considered how the proposal could be redesigned or improved to address concerns. The second concern reflects issues raised by Sasa Vanek and Robert Breunig at the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute. Their paper, which was published last month, notes that the proposed approach is not a suitable way of dealing with a negative externality, such as a biosecurity threat. Instead, they proposed two alternative approaches, both of which reflect policies which are grounded in economic science and are already used by the Commonwealth in various portfolios. One approach is to charge those who create the externality—in this case, importers and international travellers—by taxing those who create the greatest biosecurity risk and aligning their private costs with the social costs. The other approach is to recognise biosecurity as a public good and fund it accordingly through consolidated revenue. Both of these approaches resolve the problem and do so in a more efficient way than that proposed by the government. The third concern reflects the process by which this legislation was developed and consulted on. I understand that there's significant concern in the industry about this issue, but my particular concern is the failure of the government to follow its own processes and best practices in policy development. The government launched the Office of Impact Analysis back in November 2022, with some fanfare about collaboration, transparency and ensuring sound, evidence-based policy. But it's clear that departments haven't got the message, as the OIA assessment of the biosecurity levy proposal makes clear. It was rated as 'adequate' and fell short of the good practice standard which is expected of legislative proposals due to the lack of analysis of impacts, including properly quantifying the costs and qualitative impacts of the policy, and also its approach to consultation. There's a clear lesson here for government about the need to take its own processes seriously, and I do mean that this is a lesson for the whole of government. The problems with this policy are similar to the problems seen in other portfolios, and it's a worry that these problems are becoming more common over time. Surely we should see lessons being learned and practices improving, rather than the opposite? In conclusion, this bill falls far short of what the community expects of the government and so I will be joining with my good friends in the National Party in opposing its passage. 16:48 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro We all understand the importance of a world-class biosecurity system, and the role it plays in protecting our people, our economy, our unique environment and our way of life from devastating exotic pests and disease outbreaks. Maintaining a robust system is fundamental to protecting our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industry sectors, forecast to be worth $86 billion in 2023-24, and the 1.6 million jobs they support across the nation. Our world-class system also supports almost $80 billion worth of exports each year. Australia has one of the best-regarded biosecurity systems in the world. We are free of many of the crippling diseases and pests which impact other countries, such as foot-and-mouth disease, lumpy skin disease, khapra beetle and the devastating Xylella, which has wiped out generations of vineyards in Europe. But a strong biodiversity system doesn't just happen; a strong system cannot maintain itself. Australia has 25,760 kilometres of coastline to monitor and protect, with an increasing focus on our most northern borders. There is an increasing volume of mail, cargo and travellers arriving from overseas. All of these pathways are biosecurity risks. The vigilant effort and operations required to monitor and keep our borders protected is costly and ever present. Fundamentally, that is why the government is investing an extra $1 billion over the next four years and an extra $267 million every year after that to make our biosecurity system stronger and more sustainable. This investment is locked in. It is permanent, now and every year into the future. This is something that has never happened before. These bills are an important part of our sustainable funding model, along with more funding from taxpayers and significantly increased contributions from importers. The bills are underpinned by the principle that strong biosecurity is a shared responsibility, and so is paying for it. The government is taking consultation on the biosecurity protection levy seriously. It's not just a box-ticking exercise. We took time after the May budget to listen to the industry feedback. We have addressed industry concerns about levy and charge design, the imposition of the levy and the charge, and the transparency and accountability of biosecurity funding. The government heard industry's concerns about the initial design. In response, we have acted. Rates will be set using a common and equitable basis for industry sector products and goods and be calculated on a proportional share of total gross value of production. Details of each commodity's levy rates will be set out in regulations and subject to consideration by the Governor-General in Federal Executive Council. To give context, the proposed rate of biosecurity protection levy imposed on the sale of bananas would be in the order of 0.0958c per kilogram of bananas. That's 1c for every 10.4 kilograms of bananas produced. We anticipate that the proposed rate of biosecurity protection levy imposed on the slaughter of pigs at an abattoir in Australia would be in the order of 18½c per head, against an average price of around $250 per head for a bacon pig. The final proposed levy rates are dependent on consultation with industry on the proposed imposition points for levied products. Government has listened to feedback from industry that they want the interruption to their business operations to be as minimal as possible. They have said loud and clear that they want imposition and collection arrangements to be as simple as possible. Taking this on board, imposition points will mirror agricultural levy arrangements as far as possible to minimise business impacts. We also listened to feedback that imposition points should be streamlined so that the levy is only applied once throughout the supply chain. This will be particularly important for the cattle sector, where, without any streamlining of imposition points, an animal could be levied multiple times throughout its life. We are working to develop the most appropriate arrangements with industry to support industry, businesses and farmers. Perhaps most significantly, the government has listened to industry's feedback about improving confidence in how biosecurity funding, including from the biosecurity protection levy, will be used. We have taken this feedback on board, and we have announced a new sustainable biosecurity funding advisory panel. The panel will give our producers, for the first time ever, a say on biosecurity priorities and transparency on how biosecurity funding is spent. Importantly, this oversight is not just for the $50 million to be raised through the biosecurity protection levy but for the $800 million annual biosecurity budget as a whole. This has never been done before, and it responds to longstanding industry concerns about priority setting. The panel is in addition to the government's earlier commitment to annual public reporting on biosecurity funding expenditure and outcomes. While biosecurity protection levy funds will not be directly appropriated to the Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry, the additional contribution to consolidated revenue means that we can provide the permanent increases in ongoing appropriation funding announced in last year's budget. More specifically, this funding will support the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to continue to undertake biosecurity activities as part of a risk based approach to managing the risks of pests and disease entering Australia. It is not just down to producers to contribute more. Under the changes we have introduced, risk creators, like importers and travellers, are also contributing much more to biosecurity funding. Under our sustainable funding model, the contribution from importers will increase by more than 35 per cent, or more than $102 million, per year between the former government's last year of office and 2025-26. We are raising the same amount from importers as the National Party said it raised through its failed container levy, where it did not raise a single cent. By doing the right thing and making importers pay their fair share for the first time since 2015, we have already raised $256 million since 1 July 2023. This includes $33 million extra compared to what would have happened under the National Party's failed funding model. These funds go directly to our biosecurity system, protecting agriculture and the community from harmful pests and diseases that threaten trade and our way of life. From 1 July 2024, a new cost recovery charge on low-value goods imported into Australia by air or sea will be introduced and is expected to recover around $27 million annually. Up to now, taxpayers have borne this cost, diverting crucial resources away from other biosecurity functions. We achieve this where the previous government and the previous minister, the member for Maranoa, comprehensively failed. The Liberals and Nationals thought it was a good idea to provide short-term terminating funding for our essential biosecurity services. They thought they could do biosecurity on the cheap, locking in biosecurity funding cuts of $100 million a year. That is funding cuts of $100 million a year. It has been well documented that the former minister's financial incompetence almost broke the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It was the Albanese Labor government that put a stop to that by locking in permanent long-term funding at a sustainable level to ensure our protection from pests and diseases remains strong. Even now the member for Maranoa, through his second reading amendment, which we oppose, has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of how our biosecurity system works and how it is funded. The member likes to talk a big game about making importers pay more towards the cost of biosecurity, but fails to acknowledge that his government did nothing and our government has done just that—made importers pay more. The member lives in a fantasy when he says that all that the incoming government had to do after the election was sign a piece of paper and it would have all been fixed. In fact, the complete opposite was true. We had to provide a financial bailout to the department last year to ensure it remained sustainable—a direct result of the member's budget failure. The member completely denies reality, in which he had over 1,300 days as agriculture minister but did nothing to make importers pay their fair share. Nothing changed between 2015 and 2022. The member for Maranoa's silver bullet, the so-called container levy, which he still thinks is the answer, was first announced by him as minister in May 2018. It was supposed to raise more than $100 million a year to fund our biosecurity. It did not raise a single cent—not a single cent. You can't make that up. The member continues to demonstrate that he has zero understanding of what the independent Craik review said about biosecurity funding, even though he was the responsible minister at the time. The Craik review recommended introducing a container levy or increasing cost recovery through the full import declaration, or FID, charge. The government has already done this, increasing the FID charge for sea cargo from $49 to $63 in the past year. This is more than was recommended in the Craik review, which suggested a $10 increase for sea cargo FID in lieu of a container levy. The member for Maranoa also continues to demonstrate that he has no understanding of how the agricultural levy system works. Levies paid by industry to Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia do nothing to fund the critical biosecurity services at our borders. These levies are important, but they do not fund Commonwealth biosecurity operations at mail centres, airports or seaports, nor do they fund the technical, scientific and surveillance work that is funded through the Australian government biosecurity budget. The sustainable biosecurity funding package is a new era for biosecurity in Australia. It recovers more than ever before from biosecurity risk creators, whether they be importers, international parcels and mail, or international travellers. Australia has never had sustainable and predictable biosecurity funding, despite this being recommended in multiple reviews and continually sought by industry and environment groups. To finish, I'll make this point. The National Party's amendments seek to criticise the government for changing its mind on how the biosecurity protection is calculated, but that is the result of genuine consultation with industry. We listened to feedback from industry and are making our new biosecurity protection levy more equitable, more proportionate and more transparent. For the first time ever, the government is also giving industry a say on biosecurity priorities and how the Commonwealth biosecurity budget is used, through our sustainable biosecurity funding advisory panel. As a former president of Cattle Council of Australia, Markus Rathsmann, put it: Biosecurity has been underfunded for the last twenty years. …   …   … The recent proposal for industry to have a seat at the table and address Biosecurity concerns has real merit and is a positive step forward. …   …   … We can argue about fairness and the prospect of a new tax year after year till the cows come home. …   …   … As a cattle producer I am happy to contribute more via a levy if we can help build a stronger properly funded biosecurity system that properly protects our livestock and plant industries NOW and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Maranoa has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 As it's necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 91

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024

Second Reading 91 Consideration in Detail 91 17:02 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 ():  As no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question immediately: That this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 91

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024

Second Reading 91 17:03 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 ():  As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. CONDOLENCES 91 CONDOLENCES White, Senator Linda 91 17:04 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke It's with great sadness that colleagues and I rise to speak on this motion. It is with enormous admiration and appreciation that we reflect on the legendary contribution made by Senator Linda White. While her time in this place was unfairly brief, her service to working people and to our union movement is the work of her entire life. Throughout her time as a lawyer, as a union official, as a senator and in her many other endeavours, Linda always fought for social justice, for fairness and for equity. She was driven by the relentless desire to improve the pay, the conditions and ultimately the lives of working people. The magnitude of Linda's contribution to the Labor movement and to our society more broadly was very clear couple of weeks ago as hundreds of people from all across the political spectrum gathered together in celebration of her life in Melbourne. It was attended by our Prime Minister, by ministers state and federal, by union leaders and, most importantly, by rank and file union members and delegates who had fought alongside Linda at the bargaining table. Like them, I was lucky to work with Linda. Whether it be in this place or within the broader Labor movement, we would often find ourselves in the same political arenas. She was usually an ally and sometimes a very fierce adversary. I had great respect for Linda and always enjoyed working with her on shared causes. And I will freely admit to sometimes steeling myself for those times when our causes diverged. She was absolutely formidable. And despite these occasional divergences of views, Linda was also a very dear family friend to Zoe and I, with Zoe working for her at the Australian Services Union for very many years. Zoe was one of the many ASU women who benefited from Linda's mentorship, her patronage and her friendship. Linda's role in our party's affirmative action policies have been celebrated widely—and rightly. She is rightly credited with playing a critical role in the achievement of 50 per cent women in our Labor caucus. At an individual level, Linda's contribution is arguably even more significant. Linda was a loyal and proud friend. She was an advocate, pushing women forward for positions, singing their praises and plotting their futures. This was a rare and special role that she played in so many people's lives, and her legacy can be seen in the lives and careers of so many ASU and ALP women leaders. Her fingerprints and her advocacy are certainly evident in many of the big decisions of Zoe's life. We are forever grateful for the role that she's played—her generosity, her kindness and her loyalty. As a union leader, Linda was tough and unrelenting. She was a formidable negotiator and advocate. She understood power—how to build it and leverage it for the benefit of workers. She was unrelenting in the pursuit of causes she believed in. Her career highlights have been told at length: securing entitlements for Ansett workers after the collapse, the equal pay case for social and community services workers, addressing the superannuation gap for women. Those are the achievements that got headlines. But her daily work at the bargaining table for aviation workers, the legal industry and social and community services workers was just as significant. She fought for every clause, and she fought for every entitlement. She was unrelenting and motivated entirely by the interests of the collective—the members she was there to represent. Linda is loved by ASU delegates and members who served at the bargaining table with her. Zoe tells me that walking through the airport with Linda was like being with a celebrity. From the check-in, through security and in the lounge and customer services desks, Linda knew all the ASU members, and they knew her. They knew she was on the way up to Sydney to hold their bosses to account. She had their respect and their trust. It was telling that, amongst the many dignitaries at the funeral, there were delegates from Qantas, Slater and Gordon, Maurice Blackburn, Virgin and many more places. Those people saw Linda at her finest—deep in the detail, prepared, forensic, fierce, strategic, terrifying and magnificent. She had their respect, as she had all of ours. My deepest condolences go to her brother, Michael, and their extended family as well as all the ASU family, including the workers and delegates that Linda stood by and fought for and her many, many friends all across the Labor movement. We are so proud to have known her and to have enjoyed her glorious friendship. Vale, Linda White. 17:10 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I want to acknowledge the comments made by the member for Hawke and his amazing partner, Zoe, who I know quite well, and their connection to Senator Linda White. In reflecting on what I would say today, I couldn't help but remember all the times that I bumped into Linda in the Capel Street lift, the dodgy old lift that we had at North Melbourne. I worked then for the LHMU you and she was there visiting the ASU. They shared a building. The thing about that very slow lift is you can have some very good conversations quite quickly. Usually, it was a catch-up about the latest campaigns or what they were focused on but also quite often it was about the worry of actually working on the campaign internally in terms of the great work she was doing within the Labor Party. What is challenging about this is that I just feel that we've lost such an opportunity with Linda passing. She was only a senator for the briefest of times and would have made such an enormous contribution not just to this place but to public policy and the Australian people. For the majority of her working life, she was a real activist, a campaign warrior, a feminist and someone who really fought for working people within her role when she was at Maurice Blackburn and then in her role at the ASU. One of the things that I learned at her memorial was that she was so heavily involved in the arts. I knew she was interested, but to learn that about Linda also helped to really understand the full picture of her character and her capacity along with how funny she was as a person and how much of a joy she was to be around. I really feel for and want to acknowledge the grief that many of our ASU brothers and sisters are going through. That's the union that she worked with for many, many years, with the delegates, members, organisers and people that she campaigned with. She really turned rhetoric into action. She didn't just say, 'Women should be paid equally.' She made it happen. She worked with members and delegates. She worked on a campaign at a time when gender equality and pay equality were considered done. We were still at that place in the debate where we had equal pay laws and people thought the job was done, but that was not the reality. A lot of community sector workers were still paid much less than their male counterparts in equivalent-qualification positions. That's where the equal pay case really became a big campaign. It really helped revitalise the movement across Australia around gender pay and gender equality. Linda and her union, the ASU, were a big part of that. I recall a meeting I had. I'd just been elected. And when you're a backbencher from Victoria and from the left, if Linda White asked for a meeting, you'd say, 'Yes; when do you need to meet with me?' That was partly so that you could have an opportunity to ask for Linda's advice on this place, knowing her history, experience and understanding to be better than a lot of people's, even though she wasn't yet a senator, but also partly for her advice, knowledge, experience and understanding around policy. In those meetings, when she would bring members and delegates to speak, what always struck me about the ASU and their campaigns was that they were never just campaigning for themselves or their wages or their conditions; they were campaigning for all women. Their campaign around paid super on all hours worked, not just after earning $450 a month, was a real example of where they pushed for that campaign. They not only helped their members; they also helped every worker who earned a small amount of money that wasn't being paid super. That's the kind of leadership they show— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:15 to 17:29 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Linda was a warrior for women's super, and that continued in this place as well. For a long time she campaigned that we needed super on government paid parental leave. I wasn't surprised at all to hear her comments when they let her know that the government was about to make this decision. She said, 'It's about time.' That's the kind of person Linda was. She was like: 'Great. It's done. It's about time. What's next?' She was always someone that was very true to her values and true to her idea of what was fair and right and just. That really was a big driver behind the campaign around gender equality. She didn't just do that for a lot of women working in her industries that she helped advance from low pay to very good pay, or for workers at Ansett and in the community services sector, in her role as assistant secretary of the ASU; she also did that for women in the Labor Party. I know that other speakers on this condolence motion have really highlighted the effort that she made and the role that she played in changing our rules in the Labor Party so that we would reach our affirmative action targets. She was always very strong on this one. I can remember at every national conference when the women would get together and say, 'Right; what are we going for this time?' from the very early days. It was always about progressive change but having to hold the line. In those early days, there were formulas like 40-40-20—that is, 40 per cent women, 40 per cent men and 20 per cent it doesn't matter. It was always about setting goals, reaching that goal and moving to the next goal. As Linda said, it was about setting the goal and changing the culture, and that's what we did. By setting that goal, by setting that target, we created the space to make the challenge. If we hadn't, then we wouldn't be standing here today as a government with a majority of women. I think it is quite fitting that Linda helped to drive that change internally in the party. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:32 to 17:53 Ms CHESTERS 249710 I'll try and speak quickly because we might have another division. The final remark I wanted to say about our friend Linda White was that she was that real driving force within Labor around making sure we did have women at the table, whether they be at the national executive table, at the admin table, in the internal party structures or here in parliament representing the broader Labor Party and our communities. Quite often politicians and political parties get criticised for being faceless men or the backroom boys, and Linda was our answer to that. She served with distinction in these internal committees, and she was the honest broker. She was the one that made sure that we were being true to our values, and I really want to thank Linda for that. Her leadership, her work and the collective way that she helped bring women together—and she wasn't the only one—really helped make it possible for other women like me to even be considered and to be preselected. When Linda was preselected to become a senator, it was a real case of merit. She had the runs on the board, and she was the most qualified person to be preselected to be our new senator in Victoria. When you're proposing that a big bear like Kim Carr is about to retire, you've got to have a pretty good name and a pretty good shortlist. I'll be really honest with you: there was only one name on the shortlist, and that was Linda White. Vale, Linda White. You will be missed in a big way, not just in this place but in your union. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17 : 53 to 18 : 21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T There being no further speakers, I understand now that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the Federation Chamber. 18:21 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Fitzgibbon, Lance Corporal Jack Patrick 94 18:22 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Today, I rise to speak on this condolence motion on the very sad and tragic passing of Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon. I pay my respects to Jack's family and loved ones—to Kass, Joel, Di, Caitlin and Grace. To Joel, who always supported me over many years by visiting my electorate of Gilmore many times in his agriculture portfolio and here as a member of parliament, and to all of Jack's dear Special Operations Command workmates and friends: I know that you are all going through the most inordinate amount of pain, but I hope that some comfort can be taken from knowing that Jack passed away doing what he loved—and for his country. Nowra, in my electorate, is home to the Special Operations Command's Australian Defence Force Parachuting School, where, in early November last year, I had the honour of doing my ADF parliamentary exchange. Before I went there, I did not know anything about Special Operations Command nor ADF parachuting, but, as I went around and talked with various SOCOMD defence members, I began to get a real appreciation for the work that they do and the way they carry out their work. They were open and honest. They answered my most basic of questions. In those three days, they did their best to leave me with the best possible understanding of the ADF Parachuting School, but what I went away with was so much more. The relationship between the 2nd Commando Regiment—Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon's unit—and the parachuting school means that 2nd Commando Regiment parachuters often travel to Nowra to do their parachuting proficiency jumps. I also found 2nd Commando Regiment members on course at the ADF Parachuting School, and the ADF Parachuting School instructors and 2nd Commando Regiment members do rotations between the units. But now, thankfully, I understand that a bit more. It is, after all, such a necessary relationship, training our Special Operations Command members to be able to carry out their vital work so they can go back to their SOCOM units and carry out ADF parachuting exercises: parachuting jumps at night, from high or lower altitudes, in freezing temperatures; parachuting into hostile situations; parachuting in humanitarian aid and infrastructure. Most people in our communities will never really know or understand what our Special Operations Command members will go through. But I can say, from my time at the ADF Parachuting School, that I deeply appreciate and have great respect for what our Special Operations Command members do. There's no fanfare; they just get on with it. That's how Jack, a popular guy, has been described: a no-fuss type of person, confident yet modest, charismatic yet humble, and compassionate yet ruthless. People in this place will know that I experienced a canopy malfunction and cutaway during my ADF tandem parachute jump. I knew when I stepped out of that plane that all steps had been taken to mitigate risk, but sometimes it isn't enough and a random accident can happen. ADF parachuting, by its very nature, is inherently dangerous and risky, but it's also so necessary for special operations capability. That's what makes our Special Operations Command parachuters like Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon so special. I can now firmly see why they love parachuting: the adrenaline, falling through the clouds, that feeling of gravity and your senses really feeling alive. I can honestly say I now crave that feeling every day—simple things like feeling the wind or rain on my skin. I was out the day that I heard of Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon's passing. It was not until I finally stopped that evening that I read that Jack had passed away as a result of an ADF parachuting incident. My heart sank. I felt shattered for Jack's family, for his loved ones, for his workmates at the 2 Commando Regiment, for the wider SOCOM and Army family, and for the SOCOM members at my local ADF Parachuting School and their loved ones that I knew would be hurting. There have been many wise words of advice given that even I have struggled to comprehend. Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon was doing something that he loved. It's a dangerous activity, but it's the nature of the work SOCOM members do to train in order to protect us all. May Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon's family, loved ones and friends take solace in that he was doing what he loved and for his country. May Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon rest in peace. Lest we forget. 18:28 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak on the condolence motion for the late Lance Corporal Jack Patrick Fitzgibbon. In doing so, I pass on my heartfelt wishes to his father, Joel; to his mother, Di; to his sisters, Caitlin and Grace; and to his partner, Maxine. No parent should ever have to bury a child. There is no word in the English language for a parent who has had to lay a child to rest. There is a word for a child who loses his or her parent; it's 'orphan'. There is no word in the English language to describe the reverse. I know Joel very well, and I know Grace very well. Joel, of course, was the long-serving member for Hunter. Grace is a wonderful news reporter. My heart goes out to the family. I intend to keep this mass service booklet on my cupboard in my office here in Canberra to remind me of the fragility of life and of what Jack meant to this country, to his family and to his community. There's only one other mass leaflet that I have on my cupboard, and it's for Simon Crean. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B, and regrettably there's no flexibility in that for the member for Riverina. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Riverina will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 95 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Fowler Electorate: Higher Education Loans Program 95 18:30 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise today to shine a spotlight once again on the challenges and struggles facing the young people pursuing higher education in my community of Fowler, which is one of the lowest socioeconomic communities in the country. My biggest concern lies with the fact that our young people will not be able to keep up with the aftermath of their student debt. Last year, university students and graduates were slugged with an average 7.8 per cent increase in tuition fees. This was on top of the already massive HECS debt hanging over their heads. Students are going to see their student loans increase by thousands of dollars following this spike in indexation. Although HECS-HELP loans are considered a 'good' debt and incentivise eligible students to repay their debt after completing tertiary education, many graduates struggle to pay this off, even when they have a job, especially now with the cost-of-living crisis. The burden of student debt is growing, and, nonetheless, Labor has decided to sit back and watch millions of Australians suffer from the highest indexation rates we've seen in 32 years. How is this acceptable? I've called on the government to freeze HECS-HELP indexation, as it's certainly not helping students at all. It's doing the opposite of helping; it's putting pressure on our youth—as if they don't have enough to worry about with the cost-of-living crisis. Young people are the future of our community and economy. While the Australian University Accord has made recommendations, such as making the system fairer, the decision-makers in this room haven't budged, and I urge the government to take this issue seriously. There are currently 38,000 students in the Fowler community, of which 20 per cent are attending university and 21 per cent are in high school and are hopeful of going to university in the future. With the possibility of HECS indexation increasing due to CPI and the spike in the price of goods and services, the younger generation will struggle to keep up with their massive student debt. This will result in graduates taking longer to pay this off. The government must intervene urgently to assist our future generations. The feedback I received from my Fowler youth advisory committee was that the cost-of-living crisis remains the key issue concerning young people in my area. They expressed concerns about how they will cope in this economy in which the price of everything is rising. This group of passionate young people is just a small representation of the large cohort of students within Fowler who are calling for the government to do something to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis. I can assure you that the increase in indexation will be felt most by those in Fowler, so I'm asking the government to consider the voices of future generations. It is our responsibility to create systems that make life easier, not harder, for people. When discussing the federal government's budget, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated that his government would not consider pausing indexation, as the budget does not allow this. The Treasurer and I have spoken in the past about the similarities of our electorates, so I'm sure he understands the seriousness of this issue for the youth in his electorate as well, and it's more pertinent now than ever. I refuse to believe this is an issue of affordability. When examining this year's budget, I saw the government has committed $368 billion to war machines and $251 billion to tax cuts for billionaires. Has our government got their spending priorities wrong? How are we to be a clever country if we don't invest in our young people and ensure that they get access to the best and affordable education? I think it's fair to say that the government doesn't care about the future of our young people, and their refusal to address this increasing mountain of debt our students are facing is just so they can help balance the budget. Last year, the government generated $3.6 billion just from HECS-HELP indexation alone. I think it's unprecedented for the government to generate mass student repayments from indexation, on top of drowning students with a steep increase in student fees. How do we encourage high school students to pursue higher education and to plan for future careers with this rate of debt? I call on the government to reconsider the budget allocation and to ensure that students who are struggling and calling for help are looked after and heard. The Labor government, the so-called party of the working people, says the current indexation system is fair and working. Is it fair? Is it working? The reality of the current system can be summed up in two words: unfair and unsustainable. This is especially true for bright young people within lower-socioeconomic areas like my community. Therefore, it's imperative that the government address concerns about how an increase in indexation is disproportionally impacting youth within these areas. It's my understanding that students can avoid the increase of indexation if they're willing to pay off their HECS through voluntary payments. In May 2022, 33,543 voluntary student debt repayments were made when the income indexation rate was only 3.9 per cent. We then saw a spike in voluntary payments in the following year: 130,494 voluntary debt repayments were made when the income indexation rate was 7.1 per cent. This exponential payment growth suggests that students had to rush to repay their debt to avoid the indexation rate. But this was for those who were able to pay up-front; what about all those who couldn't? I can assure everyone that the majority of young people in Fowler would not and could not afford to do it—and also those in the rest of Western Sydney. Many are struggling to juggle their studies along with part-time jobs and other commitments, with many having the responsibility to contribute to rent and water bills to help support their families in this cost-of-living crisis. As the representative of my Fowler community in Western Sydney, it's my duty to voice their concerns, struggles and stories regarding the current student debt crisis. I'd like to remind members of this House that the weekly income of individuals within Fowler is about $521. It's expected that the median income for graduates will be lower. How do we expect young people to survive? The increase in indexation makes it harder for young graduates working in entry-level jobs to make ends meet—to pay bills and rent, and to put food on the table. What is our role in this House? Surely, as legislators, we legislate to make life easier for people to go to work, to earn a living, to set up a business, to buy a home or to raise a family. We must look at opportunities to assist students and graduates who study, while also limiting the impacts of ever-increasing indexation. In doing so, we can ensure that students within lower-socioeconomic areas aren't left behind. Any steps taken to alleviate the burdens imposed upon young people count. According to the Australia Institute, HECS-HELP indexation in the last year will leave people earning less than $62,000 a year, with an increase in indexation bigger than the repayments. This concerns me, as many young graduates, especially those in Fowler and Western Sydney, will fall within this threshold. The steep increase in student debt will cause a domino effect, which will inevitably hold its own social and financial consequences. Maybe this is the reason why young people are still living at home longer. One of my constituents from Fairfield East has concerns about the student debt crisis. The constituent shared that she has followed the traditional pathway of studying hard at university and then finding a job, but she is struggling to pay off her $60,000 HECS debt due to the 7.1 per cent indexation rate. On top of that, much of her salary is going in income tax. How do we expect these people to survive in this economy? Every student and graduate should be able to enjoy an equitable and fair education system. However, it is challenging to achieve this when some students, who have started with a larger debt, see their loan amounts grow more rapidly than expected. Where does the equity lie? We need a fairer system. I call on the government to reconsider the ramifications of the Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates package, which aimed to encourage students to study in areas of national priority. Although the package is designed to decrease tertiary fees for some courses while increasing them for others, the fees increases outweigh the decreases. In particular, the overall student contribution to degrees has risen by $476 million per year. It's clear to me that our youth are still struggling to breathe because of the government's failure to unwind unfair systems. This will only increase with ever-growing burdens and stress on students, who just want to pursue their dream degrees and careers. Those who have completed tertiary education and are locked into HECS repayment will also experience difficulty obtaining a home loan to purchase a first property. HECS debt has a direct impact on home loans. What will the government do to ensure that young people are not being locked out of the housing market unfairly? According to ABC News, more than three million Australians are struggling to secure loans, such as mortgages, due to debt, including HECS-HELP debt. Let's ensure that HECS-HELP actually does what it says—help, not hinder, our youths' future. Northern Territory 96 18:40 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Two weeks ago, the federal cabinet came to Darwin, to my electorate. It was the first time since 2011, when Julia Gillard was the Prime Minister of Australia. A Northern Territorian reflected on that day 13 years ago that it wasn't often the locals saw the leadership of their federal government in action in the Northern Territory. That was often, in recent times, also true. Territorians have seen a step up in action, though, in the last two years and before that from our Prime Minister when he was the opposition leader and now as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has visited the Territory on no less than nine occasions, which is as many as his three predecessors combined. Having said that, last week's cabinet visit was also long overdue. I'm very proud that the Labor Albanese government is the one that delivered it. It was a jam-packed few days in Darwin, Palmerston and throughout the Northern Territory. It started bright and early on Wednesday, with infrastructure minister Catherine King, Chief Minister Eva Lawler and NT infrastructure minister Joel Bowden down by Tiger Brennan Drive and the Berrimah Road overpass, which is roaring ahead. It's a $165 million project, jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments. It's a project that will improve road safety, reduce traffic delays, particularly at peak hour, and increase traffic flow for better freight connectivity, particularly out to the port. It's already 60 per cent complete. It's a big project. It's a really important one. This project will make the daily commute for 20,000 Territorians a whole lot safer and quicker. From Tiger Brennan Drive to the Tanami and the road projects out there, our government is ensuring that our region has the funding it needs and deserves to improve roads. This is a big step forward for Darwin's infrastructure and for the Northern Territory. It's a classic example of what two Labor governments can do working together and what we can achieve for the Northern Territory. That was Wednesday morning. Next I joined the education minister, Jason Clare, along with our Prime Minister, the NT Chief Minister, Eva Lawler, and my mate the NT education minister Mark Monaghan at Stuart Park Primary School for the incredible announcement that public education in the Northern Territory will be fully funded. This is 20 years before it was scheduled to be fully funded. At the moment, Territory schools are funded at only about 74 per cent of the level that David Gonski said that they should be, way behind all the states. This is proof of our government, the Albanese government, leaving no-one behind. A billion dollars will be invested into Territory public schools. That's $700-odd million from us, the Commonwealth, and more than $300 million from the Northern Territory government to make sure that we get all of our public schools in the Northern Territory fully funded to that Gonski level, which is only fair. We are doubling the amount of funding that the Commonwealth puts in to public school funding from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. It's a huge step-up in funding, which, as I mentioned, brings forward by a full 20 years the date by which our schools will be fully funded. That's one whole generation of Territory school kids that will go to fully funded Territory public schools. It was a massive day for the Territory and a landmark day for public education in Australia, following on from the announcement a little while ago of full finding for WA schools. The education announcement followed on from the previous day's announcement of $4 billion for housing—that's 'billion' with a 'b'—which everyone knows is such an issue in the Northern Territory. With that commitment we will be addressing in a serious way the social determinants of health, which have been driven by poor housing and overcrowding. We're providing people with the security of a roof over their head. The 10-year plan delivers appropriate housing that prioritises jobs for local people and the skills required to do those jobs. That comes on top of our last National Cabinet meeting, in December 2023, where it was established that the Northern Territory, more than any other state or territory in the nation, would benefit from our national hospital's agreement. Education, health and housing are the fundamentals, and these are the practical differences that can really assist in closing the gap whilst also providing great jobs not only for First Nations Australians but also for Territorians. This demonstrates that our government is committing to working with the government of Chief Minister Eva Lawler up until the next election and beyond, because we want to make sure that the Northern Territory doesn't miss out—that it's not forgotten—and that we can expand the horizons of Territorians into the future. But these great announcements were just the beginning. It was only 10 am at this point. We still had plenty more, with the health minister, Mark Butler, visiting CareFlight to understand the vital services they provide to Territorians in remote areas through their aeromedical evacuation capability. I can tell you: Territorians are very thankful for the redundancy that comes with an extra aeromedical evacuation helicopter and jet, meaning we can get Territorians to a higher level of medical support when they need it. The trade minister, Don Farrell, visited INPEX to discuss the importance of gas exports to the Territory and to Australia's economy and to meeting our domestic energy needs in the short term. The Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, attended a roundtable to discuss the disability royal commission's findings and the impacts on Territorians. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles visited the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre, and the agriculture minister, Murray Watt, and I met with the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association to hear about the issues they're dealing with. We want to work in partnership with them. With the Prime Minister, I also participated in a deeply touching moment of national reflection on how far we have come as a city, 50 years after Cyclone Tracy, which hit in the early hours of Christmas morning in 1974. It was a cataclysmic natural disaster for our nation. Seventy-one people died and more than 600 were injured. Eighty per cent of Darwin was destroyed, and the population was left traumatised. The Prime Minister announced that, working with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory government, we will honour the memory of those who died and those whose lives were irrevocably changed by that cyclone, with a permanent monument down at Bundilla Beach and a separate art installation memorial at East Point, pointing out to sea, into the harbour, where Cyclone Tracy approached from. The federal government is giving a total of $600,000, split evenly between those two projects—one developed by the survivors and one being built by the City of Darwin. Later that day, after cabinet met, I joined the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, to discuss our work on justice reinvestment—that really important work of diversion for our young people. We don't want our young people going into Don Dale Youth Detention Centre and onto a lifetime pathway that surely ends up in further detention and recidivism. We talked about the work we are doing with not only Larrakia nation and the Danila Dilba health service but also other stakeholders. With Minister Plibersek, we went down to Rapid Creek to talk with Landcare there about the funding we've provided to make sure that our creeks and rivers that flow into Darwin Harbour are much cleaner and free of weeds. That's going to make our harbour cleaner, and the harbour is so important to Territorians. It's a beautiful natural asset and we want to keep it clean. Following that, Minister Bill Shorten conducted a town hall meeting at the Darwin Convention Centre about the NDIS. So it was an incredibly important day for our northern capital—the capital of the north, Darwin—with all these ministers, under the leadership of the Prime Minister. But they weren't finished yet. There is a rare earth project we are investing in in the Northern Territory, near Alice Springs. It will create real jobs for people not only in Alice Springs but in the surrounding areas. It's important we are providing funding to support the financing of this project, because rare earths are so important throughout the economy. They are important to our sovereignty. We're not only going to mine these rare earths; we're going to process them for a future made in Australia. Tertiary Education 98 18:50 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I did enjoy hearing from the previous speaker, the member for Solomon, about Darwin and surrounds and the whole of the Northern Territory. It's greatly loved by all Australians. I want to pass it on to you that I love the place and my wife loves the place. We've only been there a couple of times, but it's a great place to visit. And you've reminded us that it's 50 years since Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin. I can recommend a trip to Darwin to anybody. In particular, go down to the wharf and have a look at the presentations they've got down there about the bombing of Darwin. One of the saddest things that happened to me as a federal member was when I went to Monash University—Monash was playing a part in Gippsland at the time and had a role down there. I was meeting someone in the Clayton campus and I couldn't find a car park. I was driving round and round, trying to find a car park. I finally got a car park and went to the area where I was meeting someone. I said to the person that greeted me, 'It's very hard to get a car park,' and he said, 'Yes, but don't worry; all the country kids get over it this term and they'll give up. They won't come back next term. There'll be car parks everywhere.' He was talking about students from the regions—that it's all just too hard for them. Education is a really important issue in Australia. I'm going to talk about HECS in a minute, but I want to just put the framework there for you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. We have education because it's the lifter of all young people. A good education means a good future. What was said in the parliament by the minister today—he talked about somebody with a tertiary education earning $60,000 a year more than someone who has just come out of a secondary college or whatever. Now, I'm not a tertiary educated person. I came up in a different way, through business. But I know how important education is. Education is funded by the states and federally, and it's important to train our population for greater productivity, greater opportunity, greater lifestyle, greater science, greater maths, greater chemistry, greater engineering, to make a greater society. That's why we invest in our students—because they can grow Australia. They can make Australia great—not to be confused with an American politician! Why do we educate them? We educate them to make Australia a great place, and we need people who are highly educated to be able to have the future that we desire for them. So we invest in education. However, once HECS fees came in—and I've got to tell you upfront that Bron and I, my wife and I, paid for our children's university fees upfront so they didn't have a HECS debt. Most students don't have parents who are able to do that at the time. Currently in Australia our young people are facing the toughest times that I can remember in my years in this parliament, especially our tertiary education students. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about high food costs or skyrocketing rents, if you're fortunate enough to get a rental; it's exceedingly difficult for students to survive, let alone what country kids have to put up with, with the dislocation from their country area to go to university. If studying a full-time course wasn't enough, most university students are also juggling work, and many have career responsibilities as well. But on top of this, with regard to their HECS fees, they're being lumped with yearly indexation that dramatically increases their student loans, not to mention their stress levels. From a long time ago up until recently, it was about a four per cent annual increase in the HECS debt. In three years, there's been a 12 per cent increase. If you haven't paid any back, that's 12 per cent on top of what you had before. As you know, compounding interest when you're investing is good, because it compounds and compounds and compounds, and over ten years whatever you've invested comes out nearly double or triple what you put in. That's just compound interest and nothing else. Compound indexation over a period of time, especially for women—and I'll come to that in a minute—has left people with an ever-increasing bill. But that four per cent over the last couple of years went to 7.1 per cent. Over three years, that's a 23 per cent increase in your HECS debt. That's what has happened in Australia. That's what has drawn my attention to it. Let me tell you about Tom. Tom's HECS debt two years ago was $13,609. Then it went to $28,553. Now it has gone to $32,334. That's a remarkable increase. Someone who had a $13,000 HECS debt suddenly has a $32,000 HECS debt. I know that you're interested in gambling, Deputy Speaker. If you were losing that much when you were gambling, you'd be pretty upset! Here we are as a government, actually thinking this is a good idea. I know the background from when John Dawkins was the education minister under Paul Keating. They said, 'We'll give a whole lot of young people who wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity the ability to borrow the money from us and then pay us back when they get a job.' It sounds simple, until you realise that today the total HECS debt is $78 billion. Our former students owe the federal government $78 billion. Can you imagine! Is that a cash cow for the federal government, or an asset of the federal government that they claim is an asset on the books? The latter would be right, because, of $78 billion, 10 per cent is an $8 billion a year increase. Five per cent is a $4 billion a year increase added to the debt of young students when they come into the workforce. None of these payments made throughout the year take into account the time the student's loan it is indexed. Even the rate of indexation, as I said, has dramatically changed from four to seven per cent. That's a massive increase. According to ATO statistics, it's women who hold the majority of student debt in Australia. I'll repeat that: it's women who hold the majority of student debt in Australia. These HECS and HELP debts are further entrenching women's economic disadvantage in this nation. Today, I read that total HECS debt, as I said before, is $78 billion. Since the start of HECS in 1989, $111 billion has been lent through student loans, with a whopping $19 billion added to this debt in the form of indexation. Only $51.5 billion has been repaid since 1989. Our teachers and nurses carry the biggest repayment burden of any group. These are already overwhelmed frontline workers who take on our most essential and critical roles. In fact, I know multiple women who were mandated to get the COVID injection and lost their jobs. Yes; many were terminated for, as will be put on their reports, so-called gross or serious misconduct, because they refused to submit to an experimental COVID injection. These women now find themselves unable to work in their professions, but they are still lumped with repaying their HECS debts. They're still there. Even if your job is taken away from you by government mandates, your HECS debt is still there. Now, another report that I read, which will be interesting to you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, is about how HECS and HELP debts have helped entrench women's economic disadvantage. This is important. These are the key points. Women say they are frustrated by the HELP debt system and feel disadvantaged. Women hold the majority of all student debt in Australia. Researchers say the student debt system has exacerbated structural financial inequities between men and women. That's a fact. So why do women have a heavier debt burden? More women undertake university education, but, on average, men can expect to earn higher incomes than women after graduation. That's crazy stuff. There's a maths equation here that simply doesn't add up. Why are we penalising people, especially our frontline workers, who are paying for the privilege of serving our nation? But there's another double blow lurking for women. Because they're the ones that give birth and necessarily take the most time out of the workforce raising children and they're the ones who pick up the lion's share of other caring obligations, such as caring for elderly parents, they spend significantly longer repaying their debt and then are gravely affected by the reduced amount of superannuation in their nest egg. (Time expired) Family Businesses, Boothby Electorate: Health Care, Electrify Adelaide 99 19:01 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby That was very worthy topic from the member for Monash. Family businesses account for around 70 per cent of Australian businesses. Now, when we think about family businesses, we often think of small businesses such as your local hairdresser, restaurant, maybe an accounting practice or tradies. So many of the businesses we need and use in our community are in fact family businesses. But family businesses also include some very big businesses and some very big names. In South Australia they include very well known brands such as San Remo, Coopers, Thomas Foods, Bickford's, Haigh's, Beerenberg, Sarah Constructions and Seeley air conditioning—all family businesses. And, as can be seen, family businesses cross many sectors. The economic contribution family businesses make to the Australian economy is significant, and, particularly for those large businesses, there is often an element of philanthropy in them. So they're not only embedded in the community; they also give back to their communities. This week I met with Catherine Sayer, the chief executive officer of the Family Business Association for Australia and New Zealand, and we discussed how family owned businesses have some specific issues around managing the family dynamic within the business. For some smaller family businesses, the formalising of employment conditions for family members can be an issue. Succession planning can also be a particular pain point in these businesses, often taking three to five years to resolve, and of course, being a family, you want to avoid conflict. Currently there are no actual statistics collected on family businesses, either specifically counting which businesses consider themselves to be family owned or what their contribution to the economy and employment is. Given that 70 per cent of Australian businesses are family businesses, our best guess would be that around 70 per cent of GDP and employment outside the public services comes from family businesses. The Family Business Association is keen to get the Australian Bureau of Statistics to collect statistics on this important business type in order to better support them continue to grow and thrive. Over the weekend, I attended Flinders Medical Centre in my electorate for the announcement of yet more new beds being fast-tracked. We've already opened an additional six care beds at the nearby repatriation hospital, along with a 26-bed GEM unit coming online in September. These are really important because they enable older people not only to get fast, appropriate care away from the emergency department but also get a proper workup by medical staff, since they often have quite complex health conditions. We all know that one of the reasons for ambulance ramping is that the emergency department is full, and the reason the emergency department is full is at least in part that there aren't enough beds to transfer people into. It's not an easy thing to fix, but these units are part of the solution. On Sunday, I accompanied Premier Peter Malinauskas, Health Minister Chris Picton, Human Services Minister Nat Cook, and the member for Davenport, Erin Thompson, to announce not only another 20 beds being fast-tracked and opening in May but also the plans for the redevelopment of the Flinders Medical Centre. We had a look around the site, and it's coming together really amazingly well. This was a $498 million joint election commitment between the state and federal Labor governments, and it's very much needed. Flinders is over 50 years old and, while it was state-of-the-art when it opened, it's now a bit tired and some areas really aren't up to the standards required for best practice modern medicine. The new development will feature a 20-bed inpatient ward; a 232-bed adult inpatient unit; an 18-bay same-day medical unit; a 16-bed intensive care unit and CT suite; four new operating theatres; a 14-bay recovery area; a new day surgery admission centre; and a dedicated floor for the Flinders eye surgery clinic. Having worked in the health sector for many years, I know how important top-quality, timely and local health care is to quality of life for Boothby residents, so I'm really pleased not only to see this taking shape but also by all of the other health commitments that the Albanese Labor government is rolling out. We have an urgent care clinic in Marion to take pressure off the Flinders emergency department, and there have been 3½ thousand patients through the doors as of early March. That's 3½ thousand fewer patients in the emergency department and they're getting fast, appropriate care. It's walk-in—you don't need an appointment—it has long hours and it bulk bills. We've also established an endometriosis clinic at Glenelg, which is providing such enormous relief to women across Adelaide. The recent tripling of the bulk-billing incentive has led to a 4.8 per cent increase in bulk-billing in Boothby, which is really pleasing, and the reduction in prescription copayments has saved Boothby residents more than $2¼ million since 1 January 2023. Over 29,006 prescriptions have been filled in Boothby already, meaning 29,000 scripts at close to half the cost. Accessible, affordable health care is a proud legacy of the Labor government, and I'm really pleased to see that we're building on this. Over the weekend, I attended the Electrify Adelaide information session, which was held in Unley, just across the border from Boothby—I'm allowed out occasionally! My husband has always said that working your way through a solar panel and energy rebate contract is the new version of what we went through with mobile phone contracts! They're way too complicated. Electrify Adelaide is running information sessions so that people can come along and ask the questions they want to ask, hear information from people who know what they're talking about and hear from people who already have the products. If you want to find out about renewables, about saving money and about reducing your carbon footprint then this is the place to turn up to and ask your questions. We had a chat about solar panels and batteries: how many are the right number? What angle do you put them at? How do you fit them on your roof? What about solar access and battery size? We also talked about Mitcham council's bulk-by offer, which is a fantastic way of getting solar panels and batteries on roofs in the Mitcham council area. They have done all the due diligence on the contracts and the companies. They've had three rounds so far and have been oversubscribed each time. It's a really fantastic initiative and I know that they're now rolling this out to other councils. We had conversations about heat pumps and induction cooking—there were some live demonstrations with some very yummy momos from Corinne—and of course we talked about electric vehicles, with questions on cost, charging, range, towing capacity and maintenance. While people understand that they don't have to buy petrol for an electric vehicle, they don't necessarily understand that they don't actually have to maintain the car so often either because there are very few moving parts in the car. We had lots of conversations about range. I always tell the story that my husband and I took an electric vehicle a year ago and drove from Adelaide down the Great Ocean Road to Melbourne, then from Melbourne to Canberra and then from Canberra back to Adelaide through Halls Gap. We had no problems finding chargers. It takes about 15 minutes for a supercharger every three or four hours. By that stage you're probably ready to stretch your legs—to get out, find a toilet and have a coffee. I can absolutely guarantee that this is a really great way of getting around, saving money and reducing your carbon footprint. RAA in Adelaide is also rolling out chargers across the state so, increasingly, you can find them in more and more remote areas. Of course, the aim is that there should be one about every 150 kilometres—much the same as you would find for petrol anyway. As someone who mostly drives in the city, I have to say that I just charge my car at home, maybe once a week or even once a fortnight. I don't need to find a charger because I've got one at home and I'm not doing that many charges. The charges are really for long distances. If you have an Electrify event happening near you, I'd highly recommend you get along. They are free. They are very friendly. They are happy to answer any question. No question's too silly; no question's too complex. It's a really great event, and I congratulate them. Australian Football League 101 19:10 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I rise to bring the House's attention to deeply troubling allegations of egregious misconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club president Glen Bartlett, former Melbourne team doctor Zeeshan Arain and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith. The allegations include: the prevalence of drug abuse and other illicit behaviour across the AFL; off-the-books drug testing of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former chief medical officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt; the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests ostensibly on account of injury; wilful inaction by AFL chairman Richard Goyder and former CEO Gillon McLachlan; and the removal of Mr Bartlett as president of Melbourne after he suggested to Mr Goyder and Mr McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drug tested. The allegations are credible and detailed and provided in signed statements which have been given to me and which clearly identify the sources of the information. The allegations are obviously deeply troubling, particularly the allegation of the systemic failure by the AFL to effectively test for and prevent the use of prohibited drugs or to support or, where necessary, sanction players and officials found to have used prohibited drugs. It's deeply troubling because such appalling behaviour endangers the lives, safety and future of players and officials, subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sport Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority and is a fraud on the governments that provide millions of dollars in support to the AFL, directly and indirectly, through tax breaks, grants and beneficial capital works conditional on the AFL being a signatory to and complying with the World Anti-Doping Code. This is not conjecture, with Dr Arain describing the matter clearly in this signed statement here. He states: The off the books testing took place in Heidelberg Dorevitch. The former Chief Health Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt, gave me the contact of the guy at Heidelberg who would do the testing. Here is what happens as it has been described to me. The AFL wants a player to play at all costs, and so the cover-up begins. If there are no illegal drugs in the player's system, they are free to play. If there are drugs in their system, the player is often asked to fake an injury. They are advised to lie about their condition while the results of the off-the-books tests are kept secret and never shared with Sport Integrity Australia or WADA. In other words, hundreds of thousands of Australians will watch the game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. Thousands of Australians will also bet on that game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. So the next time you hear a player has a hamstring injury you could be forgiven for wondering what's really going on. But as Dr Arain also explains, this isn't just a Melbourne problem; it's an AFL problem, with multiple players coming to Melbourne from other teams with pre-existing cocaine dependencies more than suggesting that drug-testing workarounds are in fact commonplace elsewhere in the AFL. Moreover, the documents in my possession also indicate a shocking unwillingness by senior AFL executives to address drug abuse by players and executives, particularly in relation to cocaine usage. For instance, here are very detailed notes of a telephone meeting between Gillon MacLachlan, Richard Goyder and Glen Bartlett. Two things jump out at me from this record. The first is the cavalier way the AFL executives discussed Mr Bartlett's concerns about alleged cocaine use by Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin, which is reflected in this signed statement by Mr Bartlett where he says he believes efforts were made by AFL executives and others to cover up Mr Goodwin's alleged cocaine use, specifically hiding their concerns about the alleged drug use for up to 18 months. That seems to me to be well explained by Mr Bartlett's testimony where he states: They all knew my views on this issue and that as an employment lawyer I would have taken appropriate action to deal with the alleged illegal behaviour and would have refused to turn a 'blind eye' to it. The second thing that jumps out at me is that Mr Bartlett made it clear to Mr Goyder and Mr McLachlan that he planned to tackle cocaine abuse at his club at every level, including at the executive level, and, eight weeks after that, Mr Bartlett was unexpectedly pushed out of the AFL, despite having just recently been asked to serve as president for three more years. I will say that again. The highly regarded President of the Melbourne Football Club, Glen Bartlett, was dumped by the AFL just eight weeks after a meeting with AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and AFL Chair Richard Goyder where he suggested mandatory drug testing for AFL executives. I've also obtained a signed statement from retired player Shaun Smith, the father of player Joel Smith, who is of course under investigation for alleged cocaine trafficking to his teammates. In his statement, Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son's situation to the AFL's aiding and abetting of illegal drug use. To quote Shaun: If I had known that there was a massive drug problem at the AFL when my son was 14, I would have said 'You're playing baseball. You're playing something else.' To quote Shaun again: Something is not right when you get so many broken players. And Shaun is absolutely right. The men and women of the AFL and the AFLW deserve so much better than the way they are currently being treated by AFL executives. Remember, when players enter the AFL, they are often barely out of their teens, and the culture they go into matters. But too many players are coming out broken, with addiction issues that had not been addressed and in fact had been enabled, because the players are currently being treated as corporate cannon fodder, being expected to play at all costs, regardless of their health. In other words, for some players Aussie Rules turns out to be a game that destroys their lives forever. That must stop, because those of us in the know are sick of hearing AFL executives talk about player welfare, when we now know they are actually sabotaging player welfare. Australian Rules football plays an incredibly important role in this nation's culture. To many footy fans, Aussie Rules is one of the most important things in their life. Indeed, many of us watch the games almost religiously. We take our children to Auskick clinics week after week. And, to be absolutely clear, I'm stoked that Tasmania is set to finally have an AFL team. But it's exactly because of all that that we expect the AFL to act with integrity and not for us to be left standing and sitting here tonight wondering just how many young lives have been ruined by illegal drug use known to but not acted on by the AFL. To be clear, the AFL is not a private company, and these matters are no ordinary drug scandal. No. The AFL is an entity regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect tax breaks, government grants and beneficial capital works. But the AFL is also big business, sustained in part by helping players secretly break the World Anti-Doping Agency code. As a result, it is not an exaggeration to say that the off-the-books testing scheme I've described sees the AFL effectively involved in a multi-hundred-million-dollar fraud on governments and taxpayers. Aussie Rules football is far too important to our nation for it to be damaged by the actions of some in the AFL, which is why tonight I call for intervention at the highest level and ask the Prime Minister to personally intervene in this matter, to study the documents in my possession and to do everything he can to restore and protect the reputation of our beloved game, because right now the term 'white line fever' has taken on a different and sinister meaning at the AFL. To assist the House and the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table documents I've referred to tonight. Leave not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T Deputy Speaker, could I just seek leave again? Leave not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T You want to hide these documents? That reflects shockingly on the government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You don't have an opportunity to debate that, sorry. Thank you, Member for Clark. Cost of Living 103 19:20 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The Albanese Labor government knows that the cost of living is front of mind for Australians. It is the No. 1 issue, and I think, when we talk about the cost of living, this is about the pressure that is on people. Two people from my electorate, Ismael and Zali, told me recently that, even with both of them working, nearly all of their income goes to child care and rent. They budget and try not to eat out much, but they still feel that it's impossible to have much left in terms of savings. They also don't see themselves becoming homeowners any time soon, because of that pressure. The overwhelming sense I get from them is: Where do we go from here? How do we overcome this challenge? We know obviously that many people are like Ismael and Zali. We know that the basics are costing more. Australians are walking away from the supermarket with much less for their money. Rising interest rates are making it really hard to pay the mortgage, for so many people, and, for many renters, the costs are being passed on in the form of increased rent as well. Surging rents have kept many Australians trapped in the rental cycle for prolonged periods. We, in the Albanese Labor government, are acutely aware of how difficult it is right now for people to just get by. That's why we're so absolutely focused on doing what we can to relieve that pressure. The government has done a lot so far, in less than two years of government, to relieve that pressure. Let's start with child care. As many parents know, childcare costs are a significant burden. However, 96 per cent of Australian families will be better off under Labor's childcare reforms. That's 1.26 million families, which is remarkable. Our cheaper childcare reforms will help families save up to 90 per cent on child care. Per the 2021 census, in my electorate of Wills we have roughly 23,000 families that are raising children. Many of these families have told me they directly benefit from Labor's childcare reforms, leaving them with more money to spend on groceries, save for a house and spend on activities for the kids. We've also put forward and passed through the reforms on paid parental leave, which will now better meet the needs of modern Australian families. From 1 July this year, new parents will be able to use a total of 20-weeks leave as they choose. That's more flexibility, and parents will be able to share leave with that flexibility and access leave in multiple blocks as small as one day, with periods of work in between. Single parents will also now have access to 20 weeks of paid parental leave, which was increased from 18 weeks. For our new paid parental leave policy, the rough estimate is that it's going to benefit 180,000 Australian families. That's really significant, and that's just the start. There's a lot more to do to help those working families. By 2026, every single family with a new baby will be able to access six months of paid leave shared between parents. That is going to be a huge relief and a lifting of the burden from those parents. We've also passed reforms to deliver cheaper medicines and access to medical care. We have made medicines cheaper for millions of Australians, and they've saved $250 million on 21 million cheaper prescriptions in 2023 alone, thanks to the government's policies. The maximum out-of-pocket cost for most medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, is now $12.50 lower. So, for families like those in my electorate of Wills who rely on two or three medications, this can put as much as $450 back into the household budget. Again, that's real relief for those families. The government is also working to strengthen Medicare and reduce the pressure on our hospitals, which we all know is significant. We've delivered on our commitment to open and operate 58 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, making it easier for people to seek urgent care. I can vouch for them because my mother-in-law had to get some stitches taken out in one of the clinics in an emergency after she had a fall. Those urgent care clinics are so important because you can go there at any time of the day or night when you don't want to clog up the hospital system. So they're really significant, and I got to see firsthand how important they are. We've increased the Medicare levy low-income threshold for 2023-24, ensuring people on lower incomes continue to pay less or are exempt from the Medicare levy. We've invested $143.9 million for after-hours primary care, through the primary health networks, the after-hours program and Healthdirect. These programs improve access to services for people affected by homelessness and to culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. We also expanded access to the seniors healthcare card for pensioners, helping more Australians access cheaper medicine and visits to the GP. We also know the pressure on families and individuals with respect to energy bills. Obviously, we know that Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has pushed energy prices to historic highs all over the world, and other conflicts have had similar effects. We've taken direct action to help shield Australians from the worst of those rising energy costs. We implemented additional energy rebates last year which helped eligible households by up to $500 and small businesses by up to $650. This is money back in the pockets of Australians. It included targeted relief on power bills to households receiving income support, pensioners and Commonwealth Seniors Health Card holders, those receiving family tax benefit A and B and small-business customers. We're also investing for the long term so that our kids can continue to enjoy our quality of life—that's really important. I want to come to housing too, because this is where there has been a real need for relief—the pressure around housing affordability issues, rental stress and mortgage stress, which I touched on earlier. The government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and the dignity of Australians. It's something I understand personally, as does the Minister for Housing and the Prime Minister. The three of us are all housos: we grew up in housing commission places and we're proud of it. We understand, I think, the fact that there's a transformative power which comes with accessible housing—to have a home, with a roof over your head. Too many Australians are struggling with rising rents and mortgage repayments; many are struggling to buy a home or save for a deposit, and many are experiencing homelessness, sadly. That's why the Albanese Labor government is pursuing an ambitious housing agenda in this place. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in generations. I don't have time to go through all the policies, but we have housing policies that are basically aimed at supply—supply, supply, supply—because that's where the solution is. We have committed to building tens of thousands of new social and affordable homes and we have delivered commitments around acute housing needs, including $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote and Indigenous communities. We're also helping more Australians to buy their first home with our Help to Buy scheme, and the government will support eligible homebuyers through that with an equity of up to 40 per cent for new homes and 30 per cent for existing homes. Again, this is about people. I know a woman by the name of Sandra in my electorate. She's in her 50s and her husband, who's around 60, is working full-time. They will benefit from our Help to Buy scheme. Sandra had to stop working recently because of rheumatoid arthritis and other health conditions. Sandra and her husband have never been able to save enough for a deposit to buy a home of their own. They've always lived in rentals and are worried about how they'll live as they get older. Sandra told me that she would do anything to have a secure home to live in until they don't need it anymore. She said that they don't care if the government had equity in the home, despite the scare campaigns from the other side. With Help to Buy, she and her husband can finally buy a house. That's the transformative power for Sandra and her husband. This government wants to ensure that no matter where you come from, whatever your background—whether you're socioeconomically disadvantaged or come from a diverse background; wherever you live; whatever your age group; and whether you're a teacher, a nurse, an early educator, an aged-care worker; an ambo; or a police officer—that you get that fair go. Also, a lot of our housing policies are about making sure that those types of essential workers, some of whom I just named, are able to live somewhere within cooee of their workplace, rather than having to commute for two hours to get to their place of work. We're absolutely committed to providing genuine cost-of-living relief that does not drive inflation upwards but is actually targeted and delivered where it's most needed. We're delivering this ambitious agenda because we actually care about people. I think that most of us who come to this place, or who put our hand up to run for office, do so because we think we can make a difference to people's lives—whether it's Zali and Ismael, or Sandra or any of the tens of thousands of people we represent, it's about making their lives better. It's about giving them some hope and actually putting policies in place in this place to change their lives for the better. That's why we have such an ambitious agenda and that's why we're delivering such an ambitious agenda. That's what Labor governments have done in the past and it's what this Labor government is doing for the people who we represent and for all the people of Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). 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 19:30