2024-05-14 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 14 May 2024

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

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Flinders to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Bilyk has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission and that Senator Ghosh has been appointed as a member of this committee. BILLS 1 BILLS Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024, Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 1

Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024

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

Returned from Senate 1 Digital ID Bill 2024 1

Digital ID Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 1

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 1 Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 1

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 1 Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 1 Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024, Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024, Digital ID Bill 2024, Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 2

Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Digital ID Bill 2024

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 2 12:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that unless otherwise ordered the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024, Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; and (2) Digital ID Bill 2024 and Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Digital ID Bill 2024. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 2 12:05 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare Federation Chamber order of the day No. 1, government business, relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Lance Corporal Jack Patrick Fitzgibbon is returned to the House for further consideration. MOTIONS 2 MOTIONS Climate Change 2 12:05 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne moving the following motion: That the House: (1) notes the world is on track for a catastrophic 2.5 to 3 degree warming of the planet based on current policies; (2) acknowledges that coal and gas are fueling the climate crisis; (3) condemns the Future Gas Strategy which intends to expand gas production to 2050 and beyond; and (4) calls on the Environment Minister and Resources Minister to stop approving new coal and gas mines. We are in a climate crisis. With scientists on the weekend saying that they are despairing at the possibility of delivering something close to a safe climate to our kids and grandkids, with people in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales still unable to get back into their homes after the devastating floods, with people in Queensland and Brisbane unable to afford to insure their houses because the risk of coal and gas fuelled floods is now so severe, and with the Great Barrier Reef bleaching yet again on the very same day that the Prime Minister and the resources minister turn up to celebrate the thousandth gas shipment going out of ports there, it is vital that today we debate now and call on the government to stop approving new coal and gas mines. What is crystal clear now, after the announcements we've seen over the last few days, is that Labor want coal and gas past 2050, at a time when they told us they were going to get to zero pollution. They now want it past 2050. The environment minister has approved coalmines to run past 2050. The government now, in a cabinet endorsed gas strategy, says they want gas to 2050 and beyond. 2050 would have been too late to reach zero, but now we're not even going to reach it then, because Labor's policy, crystal clear, is to keep opening new coal and gas mines and have it running past 2050, even though every scientist is telling us that that is a recipe for catastrophic heatwaves and floods and fires for people who are going to primary school today. It means that during the lifetime of kids at primary school today they will see Australia lose its capacity to feed itself as the Murray-Darling Basin evaporates and becomes 92 per cent less productive than it is at the moment. It will mean they go to every school holidays and Christmas holidays worried about how many people are going to die in the heatwaves and bushfires that will hit that year, because this parliament and this government failed to get the climate crisis under control. Five new coal projects and eight new gas projects—that's what the Labor government have approved since they came to power. And now they have embraced Scott Morrison. The Prime Minister is now worse than Scott Morrison, pushing for new gas projects and having them go past 2050, at a time when we should be at absolutely zero pollution, if not much sooner. You know what, Mr Speaker? At 5.15 the day after parliament rose last time, after we had been sitting here for weeks debating gas, we found out that the environment minister had secretly approved the pipeline for the Beetaloo gas project. She didn't tell parliament about it. It just happened to become public the day after scrutiny could have been put on them in question time while parliament was sitting here. I want to make a special mention of those lions in their electorates who are mice in the parliament, the members for Macnamara, Wills, Richmond, Cooper and Moreton, all of whom sat here and cheered on every one of those new coal and gas mines when they were approved. Now, apparently, they're saying that there's a problem with the government's gas strategy. Well, this is a chance to come and vote on it. There's one thing that you get here that everyday people don't get: when you come to parliament, you get your vote. People want to know whether you're going to vote for more coal and gas mines or vote against them. This is a chance now to put your money where your mouth is and be on the right side of history. Stop approving new coal and gas mines. Come and vote with those of us in the Greens and on the crossbench who know the science and want to stop seeing this climate crisis get worse. If you don't—if your party doesn't let you—then quit your party. It is crystal clear now that Labor's policy is for more coal and gas past 2050, unless we stop them with this motion today and a commitment from the government that they will stop opening new coal and gas projects. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 12:11 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I second the motion. It is clear that gas corporations run the Australian Labor Party. It is so abundantly clear. There are three reasons why. Mr Perrett HVP Rubbish! Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 We hear objections immediately; it feels like we maybe touched a nerve again. Firstly, they let gas corporations get away with paying next to no tax. On income tax, Santos pays less income tax than anyone watching this at home. We also know that Santos last year wrote to the Labor resource minister asking for changes to environmental approvals to allow them to accelerate the approval of the Barossa gas project, and then Labor did just that, overriding the wishes of First Nations people and serious environmental concerns. Any other constituent in Australia would love the idea that they could write to the minister and then immediately get what they want. What about all the people on JobSeeker writing to the minister, asking to have their payments raised above the poverty line, or the people stuck on waiting lists or the renters out there? They get ignored. But, if you're the CEO of Santos, you get exactly what you want. We also know that this new gas strategy is something of which every Labor member in this place should be deeply, deeply ashamed. I frankly do not know how anyone on that side of the House can sleep at night. Expanding gas production out past 2050 basically locks in catastrophic climate change. One of the lies that are perpetrated in this place, or these mistruths, is that Australia only has a small part to play when tackling climate change. Australia is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, the two countries that beat us are Saudi Arabia and Russia, which are hardly wonderful company to have. So let's get this straight. The Labor Party is now going to spend public money expanding gas production out past 2050—gas production, by the way, that produces methane that is 80 times more potent in warming the planet than CO2. They let gas corporations get away with paying next to no tax. They're going to give them public money to do it. They roll over when the Labor resource minister gets written to by the CEO of Santos. It's incredible. On taxes, by the way, we're about to have a federal budget, so let's talk about taxes for a second. Over a seven-year period, Santos made $28.9 billion in income. They paid an effective tax rate on that of 0.02 per cent. Eighty-two per cent of all the gas produced in Australia is exported overseas. So, really, what's remarkable about this—what is so destructive—is that they are pursuing a gas strategy that allows large multinational corporations, like Santos, Chevron and Woodside, to export enormous amounts of gas overseas, pay no tax on it, destroy the planet and hurt everyone other than the CEOs of Santos and Woodside. That's who the Labor Party is picking. Let's think about Norway for a second. Some members of this place will say, 'It's very hard to tax gas corporations.' Norway manages it. In 2023, there was $209 billion earned in the Norwegian gas industry. They paid an effective tax rate of 63 per cent. In Australia, in the same year, gas corporations made $164 billion of revenue but only paid tax on that, plus royalties, at a rate of nine per cent. If those gas corporations in Australia paid the same tax rate as they did in Norway, in a single year the Australian government would have earned an extra $88.8 billion in revenue. That would fund putting dental into Medicare and completely solve the housing crisis by funding a mass construction of public housing. We could coordinate a freeze on rent increases. We could make university education free. We could wipe student debt. We could raise the poverty payments that the government forces people to live on, like JobSeeker, above the poverty line. We could do all of that. We could fundamentally improve people's lives and we could fund a transition plan out of coal and gas in the medium term. Instead, this government is raising more money from student debt than they are from gas taxes, expanding gas production out past 2050 and approving coalmines that will be mining coal out to 2070—and expecting Australians to put up with it. Functionally what the Labor Party is doing in this place is acting as the political representative of Woodside, Santos and the entire gas industry. They're attempting to pull the wool over ordinary people's eyes by suggesting that somehow they care about other Australians out there. But let's look at the evidence. There are record low taxes for gas corporations, which see Santos pay a lower percentage tax rate than a cleaner, a teacher or a nurse; they all pay a higher percentage tax rate than Santos does. There's public money to help Santos and Woodside do what they want to do—expand gas production and destroy the planet. At the end of all of this, what do we get? The world's scientists have said that warming is going to expand past 1½ degrees, and God only knows what's going to happen as warming surges past 2½ degrees and three degrees. And many members of this place won't have to be here to suffer the consequences. (Time expired) 12:16 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Let me be absolutely clear: this government is fully committed to climate action and net zero by 2050. This government is fully committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Since we came to office, there's been a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national energy market, and this has driven both total emissions and emissions intensity to all-time record lows. We've doubled the rate of approvals for energy projects and provided over $1 billion for homes and businesses to upgrade their energy efficiency. But the Greens don't want to talk about that. The Greens don't want to talk about the enormous progress that has been made on climate change, during this Labor government, after 10 years of inactivity. Instead, they want to stand up and make a range of outrageous slurs against Labor and against Labor MPs. They want to stand there and make a series of outlandish claims. The reason for that is the Greens are fearful of one thing above all, and that is a sensible and practical path to address climate change. If we have a sensible and practical path to address climate change, we won't have the politics of outrage and we won't have the ability for them to make the perfect the enemy of the good. They are happy when the Liberals are in government, doing nothing on climate change, because it gives them the ability to rev up the outrage politics of climate change. That's why they're so annoyed about sensible, practical, middle-of-the-road climate change policies. I saw this firsthand. In 2009 and 2010, I worked on the then Labor government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was a plan to put an emissions trading scheme into Australia for the first time, a plan that would have been world leading and would have made a massive difference to Australia over the last 15 years. Who opposed it? The Greens. And why did they oppose it? Because sensible, methodical progress on climate change is anathema to the politics that they want to run on this issue. Time and time again, the Greens are opposed to sensible and practical change. Time and time again, the Greens make the perfect the enemy of the good. The reason for that is there is nothing worse for their political strategy than having positive progress, the kind of positive progress that this government has implemented over the last two years: making a real difference on renewables; making a real difference on transmission; signing up to ambitious targets; bringing the business sector and the rest of the community, including the unions, together around a national target that it can actually deliver; signing back up to our international commitments; and being a leader on the world stage in climate change. All of this is exactly what the Greens do not want—practical, sensible change. That's why they're trying to whip up outrage on this issue. That's why, first thing in after the break: bang, they're into the suspension of standing orders; bang, full of outrage; bang, lots of slurs against individual Labor MPs; bang, lots of outrage in the speech. All of it is because the thing they fear most is practical, real change that makes the politics of outrage irrelevant. Well, we are going to continue on this path. We are going to continue to methodically and practically work through the challenges to address the climate crisis in this nation and around the world. We have seen more progress in two years than was able to be achieved in the last 10 years, more progress in two years than was able to be achieved in the entire period of Liberal government and, I'm sorry to say, more progress in two years than was achieved in the last Labor government, when we made the mistake of thinking the Greens were fair dinkum on climate change. We made that mistake, and look what happened. They wouldn't support an emissions-trading scheme in this country. How the world would have been different, how Australia would have been different, if they hadn't made the perfect the enemy of the good. They voted against the CPRS then, and that is exactly the tactic they have right now. That was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address climate change in this country, to put us on a sensible path towards a clean energy future. The Greens took that off the table. The member for Griffith stood up a moment ago and said, 'It's a mistake to think that Australia only has a small role to play in addressing global climate change.' We agree. We think Australia has a big role. That's why it's such a shame that back in 2010 the Greens stopped Australia from playing that role, from putting in a world-leading emissions-trading scheme. And that's why it's such a shame that they're trying to scupper the sensible, practical progress that has been made in Australia in the last two years. They don't want Australia playing that role on the world stage. They preferred it back when Australia was making no progress, under the Morrison government. In fact, the Leader of the Greens just a moment ago said, 'This government is worse than Scott Morrison.' Well, it's worse than Scott Morrison for him, friends, because, by doing sensible, practical things to address climate change, we're taking away the politics of outrage. He loved Scott Morrison. He loved the coal in the parliament. That enabled him to really rev up the outrage, to dial it up to 10. That's why we're not seeing them come into this parliament and make any attacks on the Liberals' positions and we're not seeing them come in and support Labor's sensible positions. What we see instead is them pursuing the politics of outrage, because they don't want progress on climate change. Sensible, practical policies are their enemy, and they have always been their enemy. That's why they don't come in here and talk about the change that has occurred in Australia over the last 10 years and they don't attack Peter Dutton for his ridiculous, scandalous neglect on climate change. Australia is making progress, and they want to attack the government for that progress. What they would love is a world in which no progress was made, and they could go back to revving up the politics of outrage. That is the difference. Labor is going to make practical, methodical change. We've made an enormous amount of progress in the last two years, and that is incredibly important to Australians. In my electorate, we face enormous consequences from climate change. In Parramatta, people are already paying the price with the impacts of climate change. Every summer, Parramatta gets almost 10 degrees hotter than the rest of Sydney. In 2019, one out of every eight days were above 35 degrees. And Parramatta is prone to catastrophic flooding—natural disasters that are getting worse and worse. In some of the published scenarios, up to 25 per cent of Parramatta could become a flood zone. That's why the people of Parramatta have been working to deliver a climate adaptation plan, a plan that addresses the local impacts of climate change and supports our progress in dealing with those impacts of climate change while at the same time the government gets on with mitigation. Last week we delivered our Parramatta climate action plan, a plan supported by members of the community and community groups from across the electorate, distilling 137 community led recommendations into a plan that we can action over the next several years. That's sensible, methodical progress on climate change—real, practical action. At a local level, I'm so proud of the people of Parramatta for coming together on that plan. That practical, methodical plan is exactly the opposite of the politics of outrage that we see from the Greens as they come into this parliament. For the first time in a decade we have a government taking climate change seriously. For the first time in a decade we have Australia back at the international table. For the first time in a decade we've got renewables going up. For the first time in a decade we have consensus from business groups, union groups and community groups on the need to address climate change. The people who cannot bear that consensus, the people who are completely opposed to that, who recognise it as the biggest threat to their political strategy are the Australian Greens political party. No wonder they've come into this House and expressed such outrage. 12:26 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I stand to support this motion condemning the Future Gas Strategy and calling on the environment minister and the resources minister to stop approving new coal and gas projects. I'm not into the politics of outrage, but I am fond of common sense. Gas does have a role in the transition. It is better than coal and it is a good firming fuel while we are working out the technology that we need to be truly net zero. We do need some gas during transition. It needs to be a fraction of the gas we're using today. We need to use as little gas as possible for as short a time as possible. This Future Gas Strategy is not a transition strategy; it is an expansion strategy. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton, the Leader of the Australian Greens and the member for Griffith, I'd like to hear the member for Curtin. Ms CHANEY 300006 This is not a transition strategy; it is an expansion strategy. We cannot expand gas all the way to net zero. It just does not make sense. In Western Australia at the moment we are experiencing a forest collapse event. There are dead trees all over my electorate that have not lasted through the summer, despite having lasted for 100 years before that. We know that we need to reduce the use of gas. Gas is only part of the transition if it's replacing coal, not if it's replacing renewables. The danger is if we invest in gas projects now, hoping that the world will prefer our gas to our competitors' gas, we end up with too much gas and then gas becomes cheaper and it starts replacing renewables instead. We cannot use short-term issues to justify making bad long-term decisions. This strategy is not presented in the context that it's as little as possible for as short a time as possible. It's not clear how this strategy fits with our international climate obligations, with driving reduction in demand for gas and with prioritising domestic needs over export. We export 90 per cent of our Western Australian gas offshore. We get little tax for that; the profits go overseas and it contributes to an unlivable planet. We are not sending a clear message to the investment community that we are serious about decarbonisation. It's a very mixed message, saying: 'We're expanding gas. We're open for business to 2050 and beyond. Oh, but we are also trying to incentivise renewables.' We need clear signals here. Alan Kohler points out that this raises the question: what is the point of all the other work we're doing to reduce emissions when it is all undone by these huge gas projects? That is why this future gas strategy is not consistent with a livable planet; it is not consistent with Australia being committed to decarbonisation. I condemn it and I call on the environment minister and the resource minister to stop approving new coal and gas mines. 12:29 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong April 2024 was the hottest April ever, globally; March 2024 was the hottest March ever, globally; and February 2024 was the same. The last 11 months have been the hottest ever. The Albanese government came to government promising that the climate wars were over, but what it's delivered to Australia with the Future Gas Strategy is a reopening of a wound which is a shame to this country. I don't know how members of the government can look at the children in their electorates, knowing what they are condemning them to, with the impact of fossil fuel emissions being apparent now. We're not kicking the can down the road; this is something with which our communities are already dealing. The member for Parramatta has just spoken to us about the issues in Western Sydney and the heat islands in that part of the country, but so many parts of this country are dealing with the egregious effects of climate change now. The member for Curtin has already spoken to the same. There is no way that any member of the government who has looked at the science—who has seen members of the IPCC say on the weekend that 80 per cent of them believe that we will not avoid global warming to three degrees and beyond—can ignore that science. The Australian Academy of Science has said that global warming to three degrees and beyond is disastrous. The SPEAKER 53517 The time for debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 6 Report 6 12:31 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present report No. 25 of the Standing Committee on Petitions. The report read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT No. 25 Petitions and Ministerial Responses 14 May 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Chair Ms Susan Templeman MP Deputy Chair Mr Ross Vasta MP Mr Sam Birrell MP Ms Alison Byrnes MP Ms Lisa Chesters MP Mr Garth Hamilton MP Ms Tracey Roberts MP Ms Meryl Swanson MP This committee is supported by staff of the Department of the House of Representatives Report summarising the petitions and ministerial responses being presented. The committee met in private session in the 47th Parliament on 28 February 2024, 20 March 2024, 27 March 2024 and 22 April 2024. 1. The committee resolved to present the following 81 petitions in accordance with standing order 207: Petitions certified on 28 February 2024 From 18 petitioners—requesting that weight loss medication be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (EN5929) From 8525 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and that Palestinian Australians be made eligible for the Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment (EN5932) From 35 petitioners—requesting an amendment to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986regarding timeframes for the forwarding of documents to the Veterans' Review Board (EN5934) From 57 petitioners—requesting an amendment to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986regarding timeframes of reviews (EN5935) From 351 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government resume funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (EN5938) From 50 petitioners—requesting a review of safeguards and legislation related to cybercrime and online safety (EN5939) From 58 petitioners—requesting that recent legislation related to the use and importation of vapes be revised (EN5940) From 1163 petitioners—requesting that caps to Skilled-Recognised Graduate visa (Subclass 476) applications be reconsidered (EN5942) From 63 petitioners—requesting a nationwide review of Telstra's network and service (EN5943) From 15 petitioners—regarding South Australian regional passenger rail services (EN5945) From 26 petitioners—requesting that Australia's rail infrastructure be modernised to increase efficiency (EN5946) From 16 petitioners—requesting that the House condemn antisemitism (EN5947) From 44 petitioners—requesting permanent residency for temporary residents who lived and worked in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN5950) From 1219 petitioners—requesting an investigation into Australian citizens living or working in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (EN5954) From 23 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government commit to increasing foreign aid to Ukraine (EN5955) From 19 petitioners—requesting that first homebuyers be given early access to their superannuation (EN5957) From 9 petitioners—regarding multiple members of one family having political careers (EN5959) From 866 petitioners—requesting that cash remain legal tender (EN5960) From 50 petitioners—requesting that an update be made to the Statement of Principles concerning tooth wear (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 52 of 2017) (EN5961) From 27 petitioners—requesting the publication of information regarding Australia's largest banks (EN5963) From 35 petitioners—requesting the legalisation of oral nicotine pouches (EN5964) Petitions certified on 20 March 2024 From 27 petitioners—requesting additional funding and other measures to assist the Australian music and arts sector (EN5966) From 135 petitioners—regarding concerns related to a cashless economy (EN5967) From 9 petitioners—regarding interest rate rises (EN5969) From 4 petitioners—requesting an explanation of the Australian Government's position on the recent Pakistani general election (EN5970) From 78 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government consider implementing nuclear power (EN5972) From 13 petitioners—requesting amendments be made to the Gene Technology Act 2000 to protect organic growers from litigation (EN5973) From 6 petitioners—requesting that more immediate action be taken to address climate change (EN5974) From 18 petitioners—regarding Australia's relationship with the European Union (EN5976) From 33 petitioners—regarding the eligibility of voters in Australian elections (EN5977) From 4 petitioners—regarding hospitality workers being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke in hotel gaming areas (EN5978) From 624 petitioners—requesting that Australia implement fixed-price laws for books to protect independent booksellers (EN5979) From 2102 petitioners—requesting restrictions to explicit content in public and school libraries (EN5982) From 651 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government halt the activities of the Shincheonji Church (EN5983) From 8 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5984) From 3 petitioners—requesting legislative changes regarding the adoption of renewable energy (EN5985) From 2332 petitioners—requesting the cessation of unpaid clinical placements and further financial support for healthcare students (EN5988) From 4172 petitioners—regarding National Disability Insurance Scheme plan management (EN5993) From 48 petitioners—regarding eligibility requirements for Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) visa (subclass 191) applicants (EN5994) From 63 petitioners—requesting that the House identify the former Australian politician who was alleged, by the ASIO Director-General, to have been involved in a foreign interference operation (EN5996) From 38331 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government cancel all existing contracts with Elbit Systems and preclude Elbit Systems from receiving future contacts (EN5997) From 10 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5998) From 13 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN5999) From 6 petitioners—requesting the development of a nuclear fusion industry in Australia (EN6000) From 2 petitioners—regarding Australia's response to the recent Pakistani general election (EN6002) From 47 petitioners—regarding supermarket price increases (EN6003) From 12 petitioners¬—requesting a reduction in the burning of fossil fuels (EN6005) From 26 petitioners—regarding increases to the cost of living (EN6011) From 20 petitioners—requesting that all schools and learning spaces be made wheelchair accessible (EN6013) From 3 petitioners—requesting that artificial intelligence be incorporated into school curriculums (EN6014) From 25 petitioners—requesting that further action be taken to address the rising cost of food (EN6016) From 324 petitioners—regarding global shortages of the ADHD drug lisdexamfetamine (EN6020) From 19 petitioners—requesting the publication of e-petitions in independent local and regional newspapers (EN6021) From 3 petitioners—requesting an increase in funding for the Australian Institute of Sport (EN6024) From 17803 petitioners—requesting that the drug belzutifan to be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (EN6026) From 1035 petitioners—requesting further mental health and psychiatric care facilities and practitioners for Karratha and the Pilbara region (EN6029) From 63 petitioners—requesting legalisation of the myxomatosis vaccine to protect domestic rabbits (EN6031) From 144 petitioners—requesting the closure of the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (EN6032) From 30 petitioners—requesting that wheelchair accessibility be mandated for all future non-domestic buildings (EN6034) From 16 petitioners—requesting further supports for people who are experiencing houselessness or who are sleeping rough (EN6036) From 54 petitioners—requesting an inquiry into Members' and Senators' expenses (EN6039) From 73 petitioners—requesting an increase to the Medicare benefit for skin checks (EN6040) From 9 petitioners—requesting legislation to limit increases to the price of food (EN6041) Petitions certified on 27 March 2024 From 18 petitioners—requesting that a tax levy be imposed upon multinational corporations to fund aged care (EN6045) From 135 petitioners—regarding funding and grants for Village Hubs under the Seniors Connected program (EN6046) From 55 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government reconsider proposed new vehicle efficiency standards (EN6047) From 68 petitioners—requesting that the age of permanent independence for Youth Allowance eligibility be lowered to 18 years (EN6048) From 252 petitioners—requesting that medicinal cannabis be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (EN6049) From 58 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government take further measures to reduce the cost of energy (EN6053) From 984 petitioners—requesting legislation to protect against the misuse of artificial intelligence and AI-generated content (EN6054) From 222 petitioners—regarding the potential misuse of neuromonitoring (EN6055) From 115 petitioners—regarding payment methods for the use of electric vehicle charging stations (EN6056) From 128 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government cease funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (EN6057) From 118 petitioners—requesting that further measures be taken to address the availability of housing and rental affordability(EN6058) From 6 petitioners—regarding representation of religious faiths in the arts, communications and on social media (EN6060) From 14 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government consider the resale value of electric cars as part of proposed new vehicle efficiency standards (EN6063) From 145 petitioners—regarding the Australian Government's position on the results of the 2024 Russian presidential election (EN6065) Petitions certified on 22 April 2024 From 44 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government raise the age of criminal responsibility (PN0596) From 44 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government advocate for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza (PN0597) From 1 petitioner—requesting that the House, in response to the recent Russian presidential election, declare the leadership of Vladimir Putin to be illegitimate (PN0602) From 22608 petitioners—requesting that the Australian Government advocate to stop the persecution of Falun Gong in China (PN0605) 2. The following 56 ministerial responses to petitions were received. Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 27 March 2024 From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting permanent residency for international students who studied in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN3877) From the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to a petition regarding changes to the solar feed-in rate (EN5021) From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister to a petition regarding public education on the structure and function of Executive Government (EN5409) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding skilled regional visas and the qualifying period for Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) (subclass 191) visas (EN5417) From the Minister for Financial Services to a petition regarding automatic re-billing by online service providers (EN5478) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding Australia's Humanitarian Settlement Program (EN5536) From the Minister for Financial Services to a petition regarding face-to-face banking services (EN5599) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting support for a national skin check program (EN5615) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting the closure of the Israeli Embassy in Australia (EN5625) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka (EN5631) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that Australia make representations to the International Criminal Court to prosecute Hamas and the Government of Israel (EN5633) From the Minister for Home Affairs to a petition requesting a Royal Commission into Australia's regional processing arrangements (EN5644) From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting the implementation of European-equivalent emissions standards for all vehicles sold in Australia (EN5647) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting Medicare funding for GP-referred Magnetic Resonance Imaging (EN5699) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding Australia's membership of the World Health Organisation (EN5836) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition requesting an audit of the Laura Johnson Home (PN0588) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting an inquiry into the involvement of Australians serving in the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza (PN0591) Ministerial responses received by the Committee on 22 April 2024 From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding lodging and processing arrangements for the Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) (Replacement stream) visa (EN3732) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding visa validity periods for Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa holders (EN3745) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding processing times for Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491) and Skilled Nominated (subclass 190) visa applications (EN3872) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding visa validity periods for Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa holders (EN4366) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding visa validity periods for Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa holders (EN4469) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting the inclusion of childcare workers on the Australian Skilled Migration Occupation Lists (EN4490) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the need for additional childcare workers in Australia (EN4604) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition requesting a permanent residency pathway for temporary residents who lived and worked in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (EN5151) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government denounce and impose sanctions upon Israel (EN5265) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government advocate for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (EN5578) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government impose sanctions and employ diplomatic measures in response to the conflict in Gaza (EN5590) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas (EN5591) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza (EN5601) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government condemn Israel's actions in Palestine (EN5603) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas (EN5622) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Gaza and the response of the Australian Government (EN5628) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the re-opening of the Australian embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine (EN5629) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (EN5632) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government condemn Israel's actions in Gaza and call for an immediate ceasefire (EN5639) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government advocate for an immediate ceasefire in all wars (EN5654) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza (EN5665) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding Palestinian statehood (EN5685) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas (EN5694) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Gaza (EN5704) From the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to a petition requesting changes to the Assessing Fitness to Drive standard (EN5709) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Gaza (EN5756) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the reduction of the maximum age from 50 years to 35 years for Temporary Graduate visa applicants (EN5774) From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to a petition regarding the reduction of the maximum age from 50 years to 35 years for Temporary Graduate visa applicants (EN5790) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the communication of advice about consular support to Australian citizens and permanent residents who have family members in Gaza (EN5832) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government cease funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (EN5838) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding Australia's relationship with Syria (EN5846) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting the re-establishment of direct support to Palestinians evacuating from Gaza (EN5847) From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Review (EN5849) From the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a petition regarding access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme for people living with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (EN5855) From the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a petition regarding the proposed World Health Organisation pandemic preparedness treaty (EN5878) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition regarding the conflict in Gaza (EN5890) From the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a petition requesting that the Australian Government reinstate funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (EN5899) From the Assistant Minister for Social Services to a petition regarding the Child Support Scheme and related legislation (EN5915) From the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry to a petition requesting a moratorium on dingo culling and that the use of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate)be prohibited (EN5918) Ms Susan Templeman MP Chair—Petitions Committee PETITIONS 11 PETITIONS Presentation 11 12:31 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie by leave—I present the following 81 petitions: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 11 Middle East 11 Veterans 11 Veterans 11 Middle East 12 Cybercrime 12 E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 12 Skilled Migration Program 12 Telecommunications 13 Passenger Rail Industry 13 Rail Industry 13 Racism 13 Migration 14 Middle East 14 Ukraine 14 Housing 15 Parliamentary Standards 15 Banking and Financial Services 15 Veterans 15 Banking and Financial Services 16 Nicotine Dependence 16 Arts and Culture 16 Banking and Financial Services 16 Interest Rates 17 Pakistan: General Election 17 Nuclear Energy 17 Genetically Modified Organisms 17 Climate Change 18 European Union 18 Electoral Roll 18 Workplace Safety 18 Competition Policy: Bookstores 18 Public Libraries 19 Freedom of Religious and Spiritual Practice 19 Nuclear Energy 19 Renewable Energy 19 Tertiary Education: Unpaid Clinical Placement 20 National Disability Insurance Scheme 20 Skilled Migration Program 20 National Security 20 Defence Procurement 21 Nuclear Energy 21 Nuclear Energy 21 Nuclear Energy 21 Pakistan: General Election 22 Grocery Prices 22 Climate Change 22 Cost of Living 22 Schools: Disability Access 22 Artificial Intelligence 22 Grocery Prices 23 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 23 Petitions 23 Australian Institute of Sport 23 Von Hippel-Lindau Syndrome 23 Mental Health 24 Animal Welfare 24 National Security 24 Construction Industry: Disability Access 24 Homelessness 25 Parliamentarians' Entitlements 25 Medicare 25 Cost of Living 25 Taxation 25 Seniors Connected Program: Village Hubs 26 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 26 Pensions and Benefits 26 Medicinal Cannabis 26 Fossil Fuel Industry 26 Artificial Intelligence 27 Personal Information and Privacy 27 Electric Vehicles 27 International Humanitarian Assistance 27 Housing 28 Freedom of Religious and Spiritual Practice 28 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 28 Russia: Presidential Election 28 Youth Justice 29 Middle East 29 Russia 29 Freedom of Religious and Spiritual Practice 29 PETITIONS 30 PETITIONS Responses 30 12:31 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I present the following 56 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Skilled Migration Program 30 Skilled Migration Program 30 Migration 31 Temporary Graduate Visas 31 Temporary Graduate Visas 32 Migration 32 Skilled Migration Program 33 Migration 33 Israel 34 Middle East 34 Middle East 35 Middle East 36 Middle East 37 Middle East 37 Middle East 37 Middle East 38 Australian Embassy: Ukraine 39 Middle East 40 Middle East 40 Human Rights 41 Middle East 42 Occupied Palestinian Territories 43 Middle East 43 Middle East 44 Road Safety 45 Middle East 46 International Students 46 International Students 47 Refugee and Humanitarian Program: Gaza 47 International Development Assistance 48 Syria 48 Refugee and Humanitarian Program: Gaza 49 National Disability Insurance Scheme 49 National Disability Insurance Scheme 50 World Health Organization 50 Middle East 51 International Humanitarian Assistance: Gaza 51 Child Support Scheme 52 Environmental Management: Dingoes 53 Overseas Students 54 Renewable Energy 54 Australian Constitution 55 Skilled Migration Program 55 Corporate Governance: Online Services 56 Asylum Seekers 56 Banking and Financial Services 56 Skin Cancer 57 Embassy of Israel 57 Sri Lanka 57 Middle East 58 Immigration Detention 58 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 59 Medicare: Imaging Services 59 World Health Organization 60 Aged Care 60 Middle East 61 COMMITTEES 61 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 61 Report 61 12:32 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 3 of 2024, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation: nuclear medicine facility project. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report for 2024. This report considers a proposal referred in November last year from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for its nuclear medicine facility project. The total cost of the proposed ANSTO project is $619.23 million. Since the late 1970s, ANSTO has produced a variety of nuclear medicines, supported scientific nuclear research and advised the government on matters relating to nuclear medicine. ANSTO produces nuclear medicines for diagnosis and treatment of many illnesses and currently supplies 75 to 80 per cent of all nuclear medicine used in Australia. This is between 10,000 and 12,000 procedures each week—time-bound, time-sensitive material shipped all around Australia overnight. On average, every Australian is likely to benefit from nuclear medicine and will require at least two doses or two procedures during their lifetime. This project will secure Australia's access to a long-term study of vital nuclear medicines by replacing an existing, nearly half-century-old manufacturing facility at the Lucas Heights campus, which has reached the end of its useful life. The replacement facility will be a two-storey building with a site footprint of approximately 6½ thousand square metres. The new facility will be able to produce the nuclear medicines—technetium, lutetium and iodine—at a greater capacity than the existing facility, ensuring an Australian supply of nuclear medicine, even in the event of increasing demand. The facility will also support the export of nuclear medicine to our region. Investment in the nuclear medicine sector has a range of economic benefits for the Australian public, especially given projected shortages in imaging and medicine capability worldwide. Socioeconomic benefits will flow to industry, healthcare professionals, the nuclear medicine research sector and, obviously, patients. Australia's ability to manufacture nuclear medicine products for domestic use is dependent on ANSTO's facilities at Lucas Heights. It is clear these treatments are continually evolving as new medical technologies develop. The new facility will continue to provide research facilities into emerging nuclear medicine technology. The committee notes the ongoing question of nuclear waste and reiterates the importance of Australia obtaining a purpose-built facility for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. The committee would like to extend its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of this inquiry. The committee—members of which I'm surrounded by at the moment—would also like to thank personnel from ANSTO for the tour, provided to the committee, of the Lucas Heights campus. It was very impressive. The committee was struck by the passion and commitment that staff have for their important roles, knowing that they are often involved in life or death situation for patients at the end of the process. The committee recommends that it is expedient the proposed work be carried out. I commend the report to the House. Economics Committee 62 Report 62 12:36 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled Better competition,better prices:Reporton the inquiry into promoting economic dynamism, competition and business formation. BILLS 62 BILLS Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2024, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2024, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024, Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2024 62

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2024

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2024

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024

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

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024

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

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2024

Assent 62 National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 62

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

Second Reading 62 12:37 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning We in this House all know that we are living in a changing world, and with that change have come security challenges. We know that authoritarian powers are on the move, and the last two ASIO directors-general, Duncan Lewis and Mike Burgess, have both said that espionage and foreign interference are occurring in Australia at unprecedented levels. I think that last night ABC's Four Corners, which documented the intelligence activities undertaken by China's Ministry of Public Security, underscored that very point. So it's important that we make sure our legislative framework for our intelligence agencies is fit for purpose. We've got to make sure that our intelligence agencies, our intelligence officers and supporting personnel can do their jobs, on behalf of Australia, to protect us, maintain our security and defend our interests. That means we have to adapt our framework to make sure that it's fit for purpose as we see shifts in threats, technology and modes of statecraft. That's why the Richardson review was commissioned in 2018, the same year that the former Turnbull government passed landmark, historic espionage and foreign interference legislation. The Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, also known as the Richardson review, was the most significant review of Australia's intelligence legislation since the Hope royal commissions in 1974 and in 1983. The majority of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 deals with the 12 recommendations of the Richardson review, all of which the former coalition government agreed to in 2020, so we support this on a bipartisan basis. The bill includes additional elements that the current government has identified in consultation with national security agencies. The bill contains a number of provisions to amend the ASIO Act, the Intelligence Services Act, the TIA Act and the Archives Act to support and provide increased oversight of our intelligence agencies. These reforms address those 12 recommendations. Separate to the recommendations, the bill clarifies the operation of existing provisions in the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Services Act and updates the publication offence in the ASIO Act. Very generally—for the Australian public—the measures in this bill will support Australia's national security agencies by strengthening identity protections for employees, particularly against the backdrop of increased espionage and foreign interference in this country; increasing operational flexibility and sharing of information; clarifying some authorities to provide greater certainty for our intelligence agencies; and supporting quicker processing of security clearance suitability assessments. This is actually really important. Our whole national security enterprise, from Defence through to the national intelligence community, is undergoing greater recruitment efforts, and, as people are onboarded into Defence or our intelligence community, they need to have security clearance. So speeding that process up is vital for our national security, particularly when you add in AUKUS and the need for defence industry, which supports AUKUS, to have people who have the highest clearances. This bill will also promote increased oversight of national security agencies by introducing additional safeguards to provide oversight of ASIO's work on security assessments and vetting and by limiting who can exercise certain powers. We on this side of the House, the coalition, will always support sensible changes to ensure that Australian men and women serving in our intelligence agencies can do their jobs effectively—that they can gather the intelligence, on behalf of us, to keep us safe. That's why they do what they do. We need to ensure that they are subject to appropriate oversight, and that's why we support these amendments. As such, we support the passage of the bill. 12:41 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The previous speaker, the member for Canning, is also a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I thank him and other colleagues for their work on that committee. We did a fair bit of work on this bill when it was referred to the committee, as part of our work in making recommendations to government to always try and improve national security legislation. I want to say at the outset that this government's primary commitment is to keeping Australians safe and protecting Australians' way of life, and this legislation is part of that effort. It's part of the effort to ensure that we have all the necessary resources and frameworks in place for our intelligence agencies. Of course, many of the elements of this legislation, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, flow from the intelligence comprehensive review. The key part of this bill is the enhancement of transparency, and the frameworks for transparency around our intelligence agencies and the work that they do, in what we call the NSLAB. We've done a lot of work in this space to ensure that our intelligence and security agencies have the tools and resources they need to do their job efficiently and effectively. That's been part of the work of the PJCIS in reviewing the bill. We've worked towards finding a bipartisan consensus within the committee to ensure that the bill is passed in the best possible way, which is in the national interest and will get the best possible result for our intelligence agencies. It is about a continual improvement of our national security laws to ensure that our agencies are well equipped to continue their work to keep Australians safe and, as I said, protect our way of life. The introduction of this bill is very much part of that framework. Last year, the PJCIS released its report in relation to this bill, the NSLAB. As you have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill covers 12 recommendations of the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. This is actually the third in a series of bills that directly respond to the recommendations of that comprehensive review. As I said, its primary purpose is to ensure our intelligence agencies remain able to undertake their important functions efficiently, effectively and, of course, with the appropriate oversight. In many respects this bill consolidates the secrecy offences in the Intelligence Services Act and creates stronger protection of the identities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO. That is a central element of the bill. What I want to emphasise today are the amendments this act creates in relation to part IV of the ASIO Act, which relates to the agency's security assessment functions. These include improvements in the transparency and accountability of our intelligence agencies, a core objective of this bill. The comprehensive review that was released publicly in 2020 was the most significant independent review of Australia's collective intelligence legislation since the Hope royal commissions in 1974 and in 1983. That comprehensive review found that the legislative framework governing our intelligence agencies has been well maintained and largely fit for purpose but that targeted reforms are required to ensure our laws continue to keep pace with the ever-changing technological and security landscape. That has clearly been accelerated, particularly over the last decade and certainly over the last couple of years. The technological advances, the changes and the impacts and implications they have on our intelligence agencies and the work they do are profound, so it's critically important that we deliver these targeted reforms to keep pace with that increasingly complex environment—best described as our symmetric security landscape. That is critical to this bill because of the use of more and more complex technology in various attacks—cyberattacks, cybertargeting and throughout the cybersecurity space—but also more broadly in the way that adversaries tend to use technology in much more sophisticated ways to diminish our democratic institutions and our governance structures. This bill continues that government reform agenda in response to the comprehensive review, with a very clear line of sight on these challenges. The Albanese Labor government take these reforms extremely seriously and we are intent on implementing them as efficiently as possible. So far, we as a government have enacted a series of targeted amendments to our national security laws to implement the recommendations of the comprehensive review. These include the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 1) Act 2022, which implemented 12 recommendations, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Act 2023, which implemented a further 10 recommendations, and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Act 2023, which implemented two recommendations. With this bill, we will be implementing another 12 outstanding recommendations of the comprehensive review. The bill supports Australia's national security agencies through the implementing of those recommendations with a couple of important elements: strengthening identity protections for those security agencies' employees; improving operational flexibility and the ability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to communicate information; providing greater certainty as to who can provide authorisations for various activities; and supporting quicker processing of security clearance suitability assessments. National security legislation inevitably—and, in most cases, importantly—grants security agencies very critical functions that can be quite powerful as they're wielded in the day-to-day operations and investigations that these agencies undertake. That is why it's so important that we are enhancing the transparency and accountability of ASIO's security assessments, because we believe that more checks and balances are actually a good thing. That transparency in the work of our agencies, and those checks and balances, are important elements in our responsibility as a government to ensure that the powers that are being used by those agencies are used in the best possible way. We as a government are broadening the definition of a prescribed administrative action to include decisions relating to parole, firearms licences and security guard licences. That means any advice provided to a state or Commonwealth body relating to parole, firearms licences and security licences in relation to an individual will now be regarded as a formal security assessment made by ASIO. This, in turn, means that individuals now have expanded rights of review and notification in relation to any advice ASIO gives in relation to the topics I just mentioned. This can sound quite complex, but I want to make this point: the reform just shows and demonstrates how committed the Albanese Labor government is to taking a transparent, accountability based approach to our security arrangements. This is an approach which balances every individual's right of review and transparency with the collective security needs of Australians and of Australia. We always take a consultative approach when doing this work. I noted earlier the good work of my colleagues on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. When we were looking at it as a committee, we engaged in a consultative and consensus based way to seek to find answers and recommendations on the bill that could lead us to the best possible result for the national interest and for our national security. We did this in relation to many of the submissions to the PJCIS recommending making and supporting these changes in the bill. We're also implementing new reporting requirements for ASIO in relation to any security assessments that the agency makes which are overly delayed. Currently, individuals undergoing security assessments by ASIO have no recourse other than complaining to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, if there's an unreasonable delay in receiving their assessment. Our amendments will now require ASIO to notify the IGIS if there is a delay of more than 12 months in finalising a security assessment. A written protocol will be established to specify when ASIO is considered to have started preparing an assessment, the time frame for notifying delayed assessments and the information to be included in notifications. The protocol will also outline steps for ASIO to take after notifying the IGIS about delays. Again, we as a government are proud of the work in furthering the accountability of our highly competent but powerful agencies and making sure that they can do their work most efficiently and effectively. Each of the agencies that would be impacted by these changes supports this change, emphasising the importance of notifying the IGIS about these delays. Through this legislation, we're also giving ASIO increased powers to introduce new classifications of prescribed administrative action. We know that the security landscape is fast-moving and complex. We know it's moving at such a clip that it's often hard for regulatory and legislative frameworks to keep up the pace. We think that these changes will allow ASIO to become more agile in the way it conducts its security assessments. At the same time, the regulations would grant greater transparency and rights of review to those individuals affected by the assessments. We're trying to get that balance right. Given our robust parliamentary processes via many different parliamentary committees in the House and the Senate, and joint committees like the PJCIS, we think these powers of regulation balance the interests of ASIO to be an agile and strong security agency able to undertake the very important and critical work it does with giving this place, the parliament, sufficient checks and balances over its activities, all while enhancing the agency's accountability and making its processes more transparent for any of its decisions which affect individuals. Security threats are becoming more and more asymmetric, as I noted earlier. They're becoming more and more complex. They're becoming more and more difficult to combat and to defend against. Last year alone, a cybersecurity incident was reported every six minutes. That's a remarkable statistic. Hostile cyberactivities are driving disinformation, which has destabilising effects on our social cohesion. This is not just at the Commonwealth level but at the state level, where such threats affect state infrastructure and social services. This includes cyberthreats to hospitals that are operated by states. Our healthcare system, our education system, our academia, our democratic institutions and our corporations and their systems and are all subject to significant targeting, cyberthreats and cyberattacks. Attempts to enhance that cybersecurity are critically important. This bill is just one part of a much bigger piece of legislative work necessary to ensure that we give the tools and the resources particularly to our agencies to ensure that we can defend against these threats that are emanating not just from state actors but also from criminal syndicates and non-state actors. These cyberattacks no longer just compromise military capabilities; they have real whole-of-government and whole-of-population effects—implications for the entire population—so it's essential that state governments are also able to act based on urgent advice provided by ASIO, which is what this act does. We are continuing to provide all the tools our agencies need to get on with the job. ASIO will now be able to make preliminary communications to state governments or other state based agencies. State based agencies can now act on security advice that is not necessarily a formal security assessment if the agency is satisfied that the action is necessary for security reasons, and that's a significant step. We need to break down those barriers between our different levels of government. We are all seeking to protect our democracy and our democratic institutions, whether they be at the state, local or federal level of government. That requires a much more agile approach, which I'm pleased to say is part of this bill. Obviously the work we do in the PJCIS—and I note that my deputy chair is here—is critically important. We take it very seriously, because we have a critical and I think sacrosanct obligation to the people we represent across this great country to protect their way of life, to protect our way of life, to protect the democratic institutions, to protect our democracy and to defend against those who would seek to sow discord and division and disrupt those institutions and our society. In the work that we do we don't always agree, but that's part of the democratic process, and I know from all my colleagues on the committee that we always strive to reach consensus on what we think is the best possible result for the national interest and the national security of Australia. That is where, in good faith, everyone steps into those PJCIS meetings and the work that we do. I want to thank the deputy chair and my colleagues on the other side for their contributions. I will reiterate that the changes that were made in this bill based on the advice provided to us by the comprehensive review are quite an important part of that process. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for being able to articulate the important work that we've undertaken. 12:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I thank the chair of the PJCIS for his warm and generous remarks about the bipartisan nature we try to strive for on the PJCIS, because he's right. On this I agree with him—that we really do try to leave our political guns at the door when we walk into those meeting rooms, because there is no greater responsibility that anybody has in this place, whether in opposition or in government, than to protect the Australian people and our homeland. I've had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the PJCIS for two years, and in that time we've undertaken 22 inquiries. I believe we still have nine inquiries underway, although that seems a somewhat small list compared with what we've had in recent times. I chaired many committees when we were in government, and by far this committee has the highest-tempo work rate of any committee I have worked on. That is an indication of the nature of the fast pace at which our intelligence agencies continuously have to operate. That very fast pace means that the committee that oversees our intelligence agencies therefore also has to work at that pace. In those two years that I've been on the intelligence and security committee I've come to appreciate more than ever the vital role that our intelligence agencies and our intelligence personnel play in protecting Australians and securing their future. On 25 April we as a nation rightly stop to recognise and commemorate our ADF veterans, more than 103,000 of whom paid the ultimate sacrifice. But rarely do we hear about our intelligence agencies and their personnel and the work they do both domestically and internationally to keep us safe. I think it behoves us all to stop, pause and reflect on the sacrifices our intelligence agencies make, as well as our DFAT staff. I've had the privilege of visiting quite a number of our missions overseas. Let me tell you, they're not all like what you might see in Washington DC or in the movies. Some of the conditions in which our DFAT staff operate are very, very austere and, dare I say, very, very dangerous. We cannot thank those personnel—our foreign intelligence services and our domestic intelligence services—enough. I think it really is important that we don't just recognise our veterans who pull on our military uniforms, but we should be recognising them as well. This National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 goes some way to supporting our intelligence agencies and their personnel in response to some of the recommendations from the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community report—which was an absolutely huge body of work that was done by Dennis Richardson. It aims to protect the identities of staff of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It further strengthens Australia's security assessment framework. It addresses issues related to security vetting and security clearance related activities, particularly around the protection of intelligence information and documents, and it delineates clear authorisation processes for certain intelligence activities. Our intelligence and law enforcement personnel are among the bravest and most patriotic Australians. They put themselves in harm's way to protect Australians and our interests. As I remarked earlier, they apply themselves to challenging and critical work, often in the most dangerous and high-tempo environments. They're linguists, they're translators, they're cryptographers, they're cybersecurity professionals, they'reoperatives, they're operational staff, they're analysts and they're accountants. They're ordinary men and women who love their country and want to safeguard it long into the future. They are people like James Arnold, whose 34 years in the intelligence field saw him become a subject matter expert in counterterrorism intelligence; like Ellen Grace, Ailsa Hale and Coral Hinds—members of the 'Garage Girls'—who worked with the Australian Women's Army Service and the Central Bureau in Brisbane deciphering and communicating vital intelligence signals in support of Allied forces across the Pacific; and like Dr John Moss, whose three decades of service in financial and criminal intelligence has allowed Commonwealth law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent and disrupt the financing of terror, money laundering and serious crime. These five courageous and talented Australians are recent recipients of Australian Intelligence Medals and have been honoured for their distinguished service to the national intelligence community and to the security of our country. The work of so many of our intelligence personnel goes unnoticed, unrecognised and unreported, and the fact is that the vast bulk of our intelligence agency personnel wouldn't have it any other way. Every day their work goes unreported is another day that Australians have been kept safe from the threats beyond our waters and within our borders. Every day that we enjoy our freedom, democracy and security is a testament to their hard work and their bravery. When you walk along the beach of Buddina, you can thank our intelligence defence personnel and our first responders. When you swim at the Currimundi Lake, you can thank our intelligence and defence personnel and our first responders. When you bike through Beerwah, meander through Maleny and Montville, and play with the kids at the playground in Palm View, you can thank our intelligence and defence personnel and our first responders. We would not be the safe, strong and secure nation that we are without them. On behalf of the people of Fisher, I want to thank the men and women of the national intelligence community for their continued service to the Commonwealth of Australia. We can never say thank you enough. This bill aims to improve employment arrangements and associated protections for current and former employees of ASIO, ASIO affiliates, ASIS and the Australian Signals Directorate. The bill will also consolidate several existing secrecy offences as they relate to ASIO, ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. Importantly, records which identify ASIO or ASIS agents, employees, affiliates and other operatives will be made exempt under the Archives Act. It also aims to respond to the rapidly advancing digital and media landscape by modernising the publication offence under the ASIO Act which criminalises the publication of the identity of any current or former ASIO employee or affiliate. At present, the legislation explicitly identifies newspaper, print publications, radio broadcast and television as methods which are outlawed. This amendment will remove those listed publication methods to accommodate shifting digital media and social media platforms. This would make section 92 of the ASIO Act reflective of the changes made to section 41 of the Intelligence Services Act, consistent with the other publication offences related to intelligence offences. By imposing a blanket ban rather than designated methods of publication, the amendment avoids any potential gap arising in the law which could see digital publication or some future method of publication exempted from prosecution. The legislation will also enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence to authorise ASIS, ASD and AGO, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, to undertake activities relating to an Australian person who is likely to be involved in activities that are likely to be a threat to security before the Attorney-General gives his or her agreement to the authorisation. The authorisation will not take effect until the Attorney-General's agreement has been obtained, however. This comes after recommendation 2 of the comprehensive review, which recommended that the sequencing of steps required in the Intelligence Services Act's ministerial authorisation process be adjusted to enable the responsible minister to authorise a certain intelligence activity. The aim is to streamline ministerial processes to respond to the security threats more quickly. Intelligence must be accountable and agile. A more efficient process, which still meets the requisite checks and balances, is crucial as Australia combats growing threats to our national security and sovereignty, as we saw on Four Corners just last night. The legislation will remove the ability for a junior minister to exercise a power under the ASIO Act or the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, reflecting the standard practice in authorising intelligence activities. The legislation also aims to support quicker processing of non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments by permitting the Director-General of Security to delegate their power or function to furnish non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments. This amendment would maintain that the Director-General of Security could delegate a power or function under section 82D(1) to an ASIO employee or affiliate serving at an executive level or in a more senior role, so long as the application was for a prejudicial security clearance suitability assessment. The bill then allows the director-general to delegate the power or function for non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments to an ASIO employee or affiliate who isn't necessarily in an executive level 1 position. This should allow ASIO to expeditiously complete those non-prejudicial security clearance assessments which have contributed to the significant backlog and delays that we've seen over the last several years. In 2022-23 alone, ASIO finalised 35,055 personnel security assessment referrals. Requiring an executive level officer or someone more senior to approve all of those inquiries only makes that process more complex and time-consuming. For accountability purposes, the legislation requires that ASIO notify the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where certain security clearance decisions and security clearance suitability assessments are not made or furnished within 12 months. This is not just a matter of meeting KPIs; it's about ensuring that our workforce across defence, intelligence, security, government and various areas of public administration is not unnecessarily delayed. All in all, this third tranche of measures in response to the comprehensive review aims to modernise and streamline Australia's national intelligence capabilities. The reality is, of course, that our country has not been in a more challenging and precarious position since the end of World War II. The geopolitical pressures are significant, and they are complex. The aggressive and deep rooted nature of foreign interference, influence and espionage is becoming increasingly apparent, and Australia's ability to respond with defence, security and technological capabilities is simply not where it needs to be. To that end, I want to acknowledge the remarks of the chair when he talked about the importance of this bill and our whole national intelligence community legislative architecture working in concert with each other to protect and keep safe Australia and our homeland. This is where the government, when it recently announced the National Defence Strategy a couple of weeks ago, is missing the point. I want to send a big shout-out to Senator Jim Molan, who led the charge for a national security strategy, because a national defence strategy is only one aspect of what should be a national security strategy. It's all well and good to have a defence strategy. It's all well and good to have some of the best kit for our ADF personnel. But what we need in this country is an all-encompassing, whole-of-government and, in fact, whole-of-society approach to the security of this nation, and Jim Molan led the charge for that when he was a senator in this place. The late great Senator Molan was an exponent of the importance of a national security strategy, one that encompassed not just government of all three tiers but industry, our critical infrastructure. Every element—communications, defence industry, all elements of our community—needs to be brought together to operate as one under a national security strategy to keep our country safe, and I implore the government to investigate it and implement it. 13:12 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon From the outset, I just want to acknowledge previous speakers—the member for Wills, the chair of the PJCIS; and also the member for Fisher, the deputy chair—for their hard work, as well as fellow members of that committee. I confirm my ongoing admiration for those that are on the front line of our security and intelligence, the members of the national intelligence community, and all others that are working diligently to keep Australia safe and free. The Albanese government is committed to the continual improvement of our national security laws to ensure our agencies are best equipped to continue their work to do exactly that—to keep Australia safe and to protect our way of life. To ensure these laws are keeping pace with an evolving security landscape, our government is introducing the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. This bill is the latest in a series of targeted reforms to ensure intelligence agencies remain able to undertake their important work and undertake their functions efficiently, effectively and with appropriate oversight. This bill also addresses 12 of the recommendations of the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the NIC, the national intelligence community. The bill supports Australia's national security agencies by: strengthening identity protections for their employees; improving operational flexibility and the ability of ASIO, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to communicate information; providing greater certainty as to who can provide authorisations for various activities; and supporting quicker processing of security clearance suitability assessments. The bill also promotes increased oversight, through supporting the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS, with the oversight of ASIO, by requiring ASIO to provide notifications to IGIS in certain circumstances relating to their security assessment and security clearance activities and making it clear that only the Attorney-General can exercise certain powers. The bill amends a number of pieces of legislation to address operational challenges facing the NIC, the National Intelligence Community, by refining the framework for ASIO security assessments; amending the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to ensure the efficient and effective operation of ASIO security vetting and clearance related functions; enhancing protections for the identities of ASIO employees, affiliates and agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, and the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD; and amending authorisation frameworks for certain intelligence activities. The Australian government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the 2019 comprehensive review, led by Dennis Richardson AC, as quickly as possible, with the bill addressing 12 of these recommendations. The comprehensive review found that the legislative framework governing our intelligence agencies has been well maintained and is largely fit for purpose but that targeted reforms are required to ensure that our laws continue to keep pace with the ever-changing technological and security landscape of the times in which we live. The comprehensive review made a total of 203 recommendations. Given the total number of legislative measures arising out of the government response to that comprehensive review, implementation is being pursued progressively and seriously by our government. I'm proud to be playing an ongoing role as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I take my hat off, again, to the chair and deputy chair in regard to the way in which they're pursuing that important work. Again, I say thank you to all those who are working so diligently, putting their lives on the line, and doing so with at times great sacrifice for their families, in order to keep us a safe and free people under the Southern Cross. 13:17 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, every day and often in the dark of night there are people working to protect Australians. Their work is often secret, unseen and, by a large part of the community, unacknowledged. The first and most important responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe, and I want to start this address by acknowledging those men and women in the intelligence services who serve the interests of our nation and the safety of all Australians. Your work is appreciated and you are appreciated. As, I think, the member for Fisher was saying, on Anzac Day we think about those men and women in uniform and the decisive battles that have been won in the name of freedom in the past and the kit, as he put it. We can think of the Spitfire, the frigate, the submarine and all of those sorts of things and of some of the big battles that we talk about. Also, in the history of conflicts such as World War II, we can look back at some of the intelligence victories that weren't acknowledged at the time, because they couldn't be, but were decisive in turning the nature of that conflict towards righteousness and freedom. An example of that is Operation Mincemeat, which I recommend people read about. It's a fascinating story. There was also the cracking of the Enigma code. In recent times there's also been some incredible work by our intelligence services which has resulted in the protection of Australians and the saving of Australian lives, and I want to acknowledge that. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 contains a number of provisions to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the ASIO Act; the Intelligence Services Act 2001; the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; and the Archives Act 1983. Those changes support our intelligence agencies by strengthening the protections around the identity of employees, improving the ability of ASIO to communicate information and providing additional protections for individuals by making the communication of certain information a prescribed administrative action. It increases the operational flexibility through updated approval processes for certain activities, and it clarifies the provisions relating to certain intelligence activities and can allow for quicker processing of non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments. A lot of these changes come from the recommendations of the Richardson review. The Richardson review was a comprehensive review of the legal framework of our national intelligence community, commissioned by the former coalition government. Former Secretary of the Department of Defence Dennis Richardson AC released the unclassified version of his report in 2020. In its response, the coalition government agreed with the 12 recommendations that are addressed in this bill, but this bill, I acknowledge, goes further. It includes issues that were not addressed in the Richardson review, and these are clarifying amendments that support the review recommendations. On the face of it they are sensible measures that align with the broad intent of the bill. Any legislation relating to our intelligence services tries to balance the necessary transparency that we have in a democratic system of government with security operations that, by their very nature, are not always transparent. I think this bill does a good job, as previous speakers have said, of trying to ensure that balance. I'd also like to thank the PJCIS for their work in making some recommendations in relation to this legislation. I think it's very heartening to see that, on an issue such as this, we come into this place and debate issues, as we need to—that's the nature of democracy. When it comes to the security of Australia and how we structure our intelligence arrangements, it is essential that the parties of government in particular work together in the common interest, and I think we saw that with the chair and deputy chair—the member for Wills and the member for Fisher—and the other members of that committee. I'd just emphasise that, whilst crossbench members can make positive contributions to the debate in this country, these critical activities need to be agreed on and worked on by parties of government, because those are the people who are going to be responsible for this at some point. I just make that point. There are actors in the world who would do us harm. I think it's critically important that we work together as a parliament to make sure that we have arrangements, particularly in relation to intelligence gathering, counterterrorism and all the other important work that goes on within the intelligence communities and the intelligence agencies, that are supported by this place. If we support those who work in those industries, we are supporting our fellow Australian citizens to feel and be safe in a world that is increasingly not safe. On that note, I commend this bill to the House and, again, thank the PJCIS for their work. 13:23 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Nicholls and the other members who have participated in a really constructive debate about the legislation that's before the parliament this afternoon. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 is the latest tranche of legislative amendments implementing recommendations from the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. Additionally, the bill contains other targeted amendments identified as necessary by the intelligence community. The bill introduces amendments that will clarify and enhance the scope of the security assessment framework in part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, strengthen protection for the identities and records containing identity information of certain intelligence personnel, clarify and enhance the authorisation processes for certain intelligence activities, and refine ASIO's functions regarding the security vetting and security clearance related activities. I want to note that we're having a debate about this bill, which principally relates to the roles and responsibilities of and laws governing ASIO, in the context of what has been a really difficult time for national security in our country, with some recent events that have shocked the community. I want to briefly speak about the role that ASIO in particular has played in protecting the community so well over previous years. Probably not many Australians are aware of the work of this organisation, but ASIO and security organisations within the Commonwealth have assisted in thwarting 22 terrorist attacks that would otherwise have occurred in our country in the last decade. They do that because we've got a really mature system here, a system where state and federal authorities work really well together. The people who work in these amazing organisations are deep, thoughtful people who think a lot about the problems that they face and the manner in which they undertake their work. Our organisations are excellent, in part because of their ability to change consistently according to the shape and the scope of the threat that they face. This is particularly relevant, because some of the attacks that we've seen over the last little period have actually been quite different to the type of terrorist incident that ASIO and other organisations were focused on, if we roll back, perhaps, for a decade. One of the things that has changed quite dramatically about the shape of our terrorist threat in this country is the way in which people are targeting terrorist attacks today. If we think back to the 9/11 tragedy and the extent of elaborate planning, financing and work that went into setting up that attack, we see something quite different today—for example, in a recent incident in Australia where a teenager used a knife at very short notice allegedly to attack someone violently. Something else that we see that's very challenging for our national security agencies is a much faster time of what they call 'from clash to bang'. What that means is the process that someone goes through from radicalisation, to thinking about violence and then to actually committing an act of violence is getting narrower and narrower. This, of course, creates really significant challenges for our law enforcement officials. The third thing that I want to mention is the very obvious presentation of young people as part of the issue here. This is a very significant transformation in the way that this problem has presented itself to our country. When I talk to the ASIO staff about some of what they've seen over previous years, they talk about seeing a very significant uptick of young people in the alleged and potential terrorist cohort when we came out of COVID. They say to me that this is about young people who are being removed from their community, who are not doing things like going to school and playing sport but who are, instead, spending inordinate amounts of time on the internet and looking at materials that are a negative influence on those young people. I make this point because I know a lot of parents around the country are looking at this. It's not the only instance which is making parents really worried about the way in which young people in this country are being influenced, the way in which they are being raised and the way that we, as a parliament and as a community, can make sure there are strong, positive influences in the lives of young people around our country. This is something I talk to ASIO staff about a lot. These are security and intelligence professionals, but they will be the first to tell you that by the time a matter lands in the lap of ASIO it's already gone too far. We've got to think much more, as a community and as a parliament, about how we're going to make sure that we intervene as early as possible to make sure that we keep our community safe. There aren't many countries in the world where the intelligence organisations are respected to the degree that they are here in Australia. I want to use this opportunity to thank ASIO and to thank our other security and intelligence agencies, on behalf of the federal parliament. Returning to the bill: the government accepts recommendation 1 made by the PJCIS. I note that reporting will remain consistent with ASIO's approach to releasing information about its activities through its annual report. This approach balances the need for transparency against the risk of compromising national security through the inclusion of classified appendices which are provided to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the PJCIS, the IGIS and the INSLM. These are acronyms which govern the protection of the community and the management of intelligence organisations. The government also accepts recommendation 2, and will ensure that applicants are made aware of their right to make a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in relevant documentation and advice about security assessments and security clearance processes. The government accepts recommendation 3, and has amended the explanatory memorandum accordingly. The Australian Signals Directorate will also report to the committee on its development, implementation and use of cover arrangements. The government notes recommendation 4, and will consider any recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review of the secrecy offences in part 5.6 of the Criminal Code, when that review is completed. Finally, the government welcomes recommendation 5, noting that it is a matter for the parliament. I thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for the work they have done here. The publishing of ASIO identities has a very real prospect of resulting in harm to ASIO staff and affiliates. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance withstanding order 43 and may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 70 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Barounis, Mr John 70 13:30 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay John Barounis is a Maryborough champion and, like me, is committed to making our homes, streets and public spaces safer; improving health services; building safer roads; and supporting real action to combat Queensland's youth crime crisis. Both in business and through his work in the community, John has a proven track record of working to advance the Maryborough community. When John and his wife Tricia's son, Yanni, died by suicide in 2019, they channelled their grief into action, honouring Yanni's legacy by championing youth mental health awareness and by working with me to establish Maryborough's headspace service. John is now offering his talent, skills and experience to the community by putting his hand up to represent Maryborough in the Queensland parliament as part of David Crisafulli's LNP team. We've all seen the multiple failures of the Miles Labor government on youth crime, integrity, health and the Olympics, cost-of-living pressures and their abysmal failure to get going on the four-lane Tiaro bypass. Maryborough needs a strong and passionate voice in the Queensland parliament to turn our state around. John Barounis will be that voice and will continue to do great things for the Maryborough community. Assyrian National Council Australia 71 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Last Saturday, I was pleased to join colleagues, especially the member for McMahon and state members, at the opening of the new office of the Assyrian National Council Australia in Fairfield. The association was formed in 1972, over 50 years ago, and has been providing outreach and support to the community ever since. The organisation has gone from strength to strength over that time because of so many volunteers who have taken time away from their families to make significant differences and donations so the charitable works of the organisation can continue. In fact, one of those members generously ensured the fit-out of the office was possible. I acknowledge the work of the president, Mr Hermiz Shahen, and the deputy president, David David, for their guidance of the council over many years. A blessing was also provided by the Reverend Father Ramen Youkhanis. It has been a difficult time for the Assyrian community in my part of the world, and events such as this, I hope, will provide hope for their community. The space now provides meeting rooms and more opportunities for engagement. It was a wonderful event, and I was pleased to be invited and talk to many in the community. Barker Electorate: Community Radio 71 13:32 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak about community radio in Millicent. Community radio stations across the country play an important role, providing a voice for communities, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas where access to commercial radio stations and genuinely local news may be sparse. One such radio station is 5THE FM in Millicent, which broadcasts to the surrounding areas, including Beachport, Southend, Furner and Hatherleigh, just to name a few. From humble beginnings in the mid-1980s, when $25,000 was raised from cake stalls over a four-year period to purchase the equipment needed to broadcast, the first test transmission was conducted in May 1987. The old Millicent railway station was transformed into a different sort of station and now broadcasts contemporary and specialist music, multicultural programs and community information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Unfortunately, the station has recently experienced some difficult times. Those difficult times led to the transmitter being turned off in late 2022 due to a loss of its broadcasting licence. With a brand-new skill based board, chaired by Mr David Walshaw, a temporary 12-month licence was granted in July last year. I visited the station over the weekend to congratulate the committee and volunteers for being recently awarded a five-year community radio broadcasting licence by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. This is a testament to the new board and presenters—their dedication, their professionalism—and I wish them all the very best for the future. Aitken, Mr Robert James 71 13:34 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie From Parkes to Penrith and across the Blue Mountains and the Rotary District 9685, we have been mourning the loss, the sudden death, of Bob Aitken, a man known to us in the Blue Mountains for many things but particularly as Rotary's best photographer. Bob was a media man—he had his own media company—but he was also chairman of the Rotary District 9685 polio committee, the Rotary International End Polio coordinator for the zone and chairman of the history and archives committee that put together the centenary of Rotary in Australia book alongside the late Paul Henningham. I was very pleased to provide a copy of that book to the Parliamentary Library in this place. At Bob's funeral at St Finbar's in Glenbrook, we heard of his early life in Parkes and his sporting achievements. We also heard about his love for his local community, no matter where he lived, first in Parkes and then for many decades in Lapstone in the lower mountains. He was a cadet journalist at the Parkes Champion Post, becoming the editor and then going on to be managing editor before moving towards Sydney and taking up the role at the Rotary Down Under magazine. He was an extraordinary man, and we will all miss him very much. The community is really going to feel his loss. Stars of Orange 2024 71 13:36 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Recently, Orange was transformed into a boogie wonderland thanks to the 2024 Stars of Orange fundraiser. The event pairs local business and community leaders with a local dance school. Over 10 weeks participants raise money for Cancer Council New South Wales before raising the roof at a gala evening as they jive like Ginger Rogers or nae nae like Napoleon Dynamite. This year more than 630 people gathered to watch this year's stars shimmy, shake and cha-cha slide their way towards a record $315,000. Congratulations to this year's movers and shakers and the talented dance studios that help the stars shine. There were Will Miller and Maggie Morris with United Dance; Peita and Rob Mages with Colour City Dance; Dannielle Ford with Dance HQ; Johanna Scott with United Dance; Jack Churchill with EmDance; and Dr Andrew Parry and a team of teachers from Kinross Wolaroi School, taught by students, including Tilly Quigley, Niamh Webster, Emily Clunas and Georgia Williams. There were also Kylie Duncan with Revolution Aerial; Jessica Hickman with New Generation Dance; Sally Darling, Julia Homard and Parlour O hairdressers with Dance HQ; and Danica Bunch with Millthorpe Balle and Performance Studio. Great work, Danica. A big thank you to Cancer Council fundraising coordinator Cassandra Sullivan and volunteers Sharon Ryan, Erin Quarmby, Tasha Pedrson, and Janice and Sandro Tranfaglia, who all made the night possible. Well done and thank you to all of the Stars of Orange. Bennelong Electorate: Riding for the Disabled Association 72 13:37 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Recently I had the great pleasure of hosting the Minister for Social Services in my electorate of Bennelong for a visit to one of our great local volunteer-run organisations. The minister and I headed over to the Riding for the Disabled Association in Ryde, one of the 26 organisations that received over $66,000 in funding through the latest round of federal government volunteer grants. Riding for the Disabled is an extraordinary organisation run by extraordinary volunteers. It helps kids and adults through therapeutic horse-related activities. Each week, they run 10 therapy classes, serving approximately five to six riders per session. This includes individual riders and groups from our four local special-needs units in our public primary schools. They've used these grants for a new computer system, a more efficient fridge and now the acquisition of some battery powered garden tools to help manage their property and, of course, to help lower their emissions. The minister and I also got to meet the horses, who do plenty of the work at Ryde RDA. They've got seven horses on site. Maybe one was called Gertrude! But their newest horse was in training. It's called 'Bendigo' and is sponsored by the local Bendigo Bank in Epping. Congratulations to all volunteer organisations that received these important grants. From power tools to defibrillators, fuel vouchers and laptops to break down the digital divide, these grants recognise the importance of volunteering in our community. Armenia 72 13:39 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Anzac Day rightfully honours those who have fought and given their lives for our nation since World War I, and this anniversary has always been important to me, but, as a member of the North Sydney community, I've also learned to honour the day before Anzac Day, 24 April, as a day that marks a horrendous unanswered crime against humanity. Many of the Anzacs who returned to Australia in 1915 brought with them harrowing tales of the attempted annihilation of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire. Those diggers spoke of Armenian men being rounded up and killed, and of Armenian women and children being displaced from their homes and deported, enslaved or forcibly integrated into Turkish households. And yet, 109 years since the world witnessed the mass murder of more than 1½ million Armenians, and over a million Assyrians and Greeks, at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, our government—regardless of which major political party was running it—is yet to recognise these events as an act of genocide. As painful as it is, the world must acknowledge the horrors that were committed under the guise of World War I as genocide so that we can unite against such atrocities ever happening again. I'm standing with the Armenian community in North Sydney and once again call on the Australian government to recognise the Armenian genocide so we can move forward towards reconciliation and healing. Murphy, Ms Caroline 72 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge a tremendous community champion in my electorate of Robertson, Caroline Murphy. I recently had the privilege of meeting Caroline upon a visit to the Ettalong Baptist Church, where I was meeting with the church pastor, David Gilchrist, and office manager, Lynette Tilden. During my visit I was informed about the 'Ministry of Leftovers'. The Ministry of Leftovers supports people in my community with affordable second-hand items. It is also a place for the community to drop in for friendship, care and a listening ear. There is also a free cafe for the community to enjoy, as well as a range of activities to get involved in. Caroline started the Ministry of Leftovers seven years ago. At first, it only operated for a few days every month. Fast forward to today, and it operates four times a week and is supported by up to 20 volunteers—an absolutely mammoth effort. Caroline began the initiative because of her deep faith in Jesus Christ and his love for all in our community. She demonstrates this love through the Ministry of Leftovers. Caroline is also passionate about reducing waste, and she's also passionate about reusing otherwise good items again for use in our community. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Caroline Murphy on establishing the Ministry of Leftovers and for all of her contributions to the Central Coast community. Braddon Electorate: Tertiary Education 73 13:42 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I'm pleased to inform the House that King Island has now secured a regional study hub. In my maiden speech to this parliament in 2019, I said that where you live should not be a barrier to the education that you receive. But for our region, which covers the north-west and west coasts of Tasmania, and King Island, access to education past high school has been difficult. It was a priority of mine and was a priority of the former Liberal-National government to close that gap. During my first term, and thanks to the federal government's investment, the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania's Cradle Coast campus in Burnie became a reality. It has given local kids the opportunity to gain a university education without leaving our region. Again, it was the Liberal-National government which began to invest in remote higher education through our Regional Study Hub program. Firstly, we had the study hub at the West Coast, followed by the University of Tasmania's Burnie campus. Next was the study centre at Circular Head and now we have the last piece in the puzzle: the study hub on King Island. These are four facilities that signal a new era in higher education across the north-west, West Coast and King Island. For local people, accessing tertiary education locally is exactly the way it should be no matter where you live. Spence Electorate: Australia Post 73 13:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Many of us spend a great deal of time with our constituents, discussing what we can deliver for them as their members of parliament. This Sunday, I will be out doorknocking in Virginia and speaking to residents about what others can deliver instead: convincing Australia Post to deliver mail to their homes, after many unsuccessful attempts over the years. Close to 150 concerned locals in Virginia have approached my office, expressing frustration with Australia Post placing the street-side delivery of their mail in the too-hard basket. This changed after raising their concerns with the CEO of Australia Post. As a result, many in Virginia may have noticed a letter being delivered directly to their homes earlier this month. But, unless they act, it may be the last. That letter contained their household's voting form as part of a mail delivery poll of the local area by Australia Post. At 5 pm on 31 May, if more than half the area polled have stamped their approval, this proposal will no longer need to push the envelope but instead be signed, sealed and delivered. Over the remaining fortnight, I encourage everyone in Virginia who received a ballot to think outside of the PO Box so Australia Post receives the message loud and clear. Cast your vote together as a community and win together as one, too. And here's just a reminder that if you don't vote that's classified as a 'no' vote. We need to get this over the line. Please vote yes, and get your vote in ASAP. Australian Bureau of Statistics 73 13:45 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Why has the Bureau of Statistics been so coy about its new official method of estimating excess deaths? In July 2023, the ABS released a new model to calculate excess deaths, created retrospectively and reporting six monthly, not monthly. How can timely action be taken on excess deaths with such infrequent reporting? This change is very disturbing, given we had excess deaths in the range of 6.9 to 15.9 per cent above the historical average during 2021, 2022 and 2023. The ABS twice changed the way it calculates excess deaths during the pandemic years, and both times it made changes which show fewer excess deaths are estimated. Interestingly, the new method for excess deaths shows 24,351 excess deaths between January 2020 and 27 August 2023. This is in stark contrast to the previous method, which would have shown 56,058 excess deaths to the end of 2023. This is more than twice the number being reported under the new model. The new model is a complicated mathematical equation, and the ABS have not been transparent about how they chose this new model, which rewrites the history of the pandemic. Is it possible that the model was chosen to minimise excess deaths or to make it appear that all excess deaths were due to COVID? Australians can handle the truth and they deserve to know. Budget, Australian Public Service 73 13:46 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Tonight the Treasurer will hand down the 2024 budget—a budget focused on supporting Australians and laying the future of economic growth. A Commonwealth budget is the culmination of many months of hard work by many people. I know that the Treasurer will thank and acknowledge the incredible work of the public servants who have worked to deliver the budget. But, as one of the local members who represents many of them, I also want to personally acknowledge and thank them. The budget is an enormous task which began many months ago, as the departments support the decision-making processes of cabinet, right through to finalising the budget papers and other documents and delivering them to the printers—probably in the small hours of a recent morning. The task involves all departments, but particularly those in Treasury and Finance. As a former Treasury official, I'm well accustomed to the late nights and weekends; the development, costing and consideration of many options; and the seemingly endless drafting and proofreading and sometimes last-minute tweaking and changing that is involved in delivering a budget. It is a task requiring extreme rigour, patience, attention to detail, collaboration across teams and endurance. From my time at Treasury, I remember some of the most inspiring examples of expertise and professionalism I've ever witnessed. Tonight is the culmination of your efforts. Tonight, as the Treasurer gives his speech, you should know that you have made a difference to the lives of millions of Australians, and we thank the public servants for your contribution to our country. Budget, Cost of Living 74 13:49 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Australians are hurting. They are hurting under the cost-of-living pressures that have been made worse by the mismanagement of this government. The Reserve Bank sent a strong message last week that action is needed on inflation. But, from its commentary so far, it seems that this Labor government is deaf to the concerns of the RBA, just as it's deaf to the concerns of everyday Australians. Over recent weeks, I've had many locals share with me the impact that Labor's cost-of-living crisis is having on their daily lives. David is a pensioner in Alex Hills. He has been forced to cut fruit out of his grocery shop. Yvonne from Thornlands has seen her rent increase by $225 a week. Margaret from Victoria Point has seen her mortgage repayments soar by $1,300 in the last 18 months. Champion Support Services in Thornlands have seen a threefold increase in demand for their food bank services over the last year, and Ken from Cleveland has sent me his power bill, which is now triple what it was when this government came to office. Tonight's budget should be focused on reining in spending, tackling inflation and helping Australians who are struggling. It should be about taking the action that should have been taken over the last two years. Can I suggest to the Treasurer that tonight's budget should start with an apology to these Australians who've been let down by this government. Australian Institute of Sport 74 13:49 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Since its establishment in 1981, the AIS in Bruce has supported and inspired generations of Australian athletes, and it has been a centre of sporting excellence. Born out of a disappointing performance at the Montreal Olympics, the AIS quickly became a centre of cutting-edge sports training, coaching and science, bringing together expertise and athletes across disciplines at a modern campus. While the AIS has been the envy of the world in the past, it's clear that underinvestment in the facilities and programs led to uncertainty about its ongoing future. The NBA understood its value, locating one of its few global academies at the Bruce campus—with almost immediate success. It's taken a Labor government to get the AIS back on track. After a decade of neglect from those opposite, we are investing in the AIS to ensure that our athletes have world-class training and sports science facilities ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Albanese government will provide $249.7 million for the Australian Sports Commission to revitalise the AIS—the largest investment in the AIS since its establishment. It will allow our world-class athletes, coaches and sports scientists to be the best they can, while inspiring generations of Australians to follow in their footsteps. We're getting on with delivering a better future for all Australians—one that's made in Australia and builds opportunity and thriving communities. Budget 74 13:51 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Finally, here is the big night for the Treasurer. It's time to shine a spotlight on the Treasurer. I'm told that this morning the Treasurer almost quoted the Little River Band—'Hang on, help is on its way,' apparently—but, unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. When the Treasurer strides up to the dispatch box, the music that leads him in should be Kenny Rogers's 'The Gambler': You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Unfortunately for the Australian people, this Labor Treasurer will roll them. He's going to roll the dice on the Australian people's wealth. He's going to roll the dice on their income. He's going to roll the dice on the Australian balance sheet. And I think that is a disgrace, because it will drive inflation. I say this to the Treasurer: this is not a game of Monopoly. You are not playing with Monopoly money; you are playing with the wealth of the nation. And the nation deserves better than putting fuel on the inflation fire that is homemade, and is homemade by this Labor government. This Labor government has increased spending by $209 billion in the last two years. Real wages have gone backwards by 7½ per cent; that is a direct impact on the individuals who need help and assistance. As we know from Kenny Rogers and his song 'The Gambler', the gambler broke even, and what a tragedy it is for the Australian people that that's the best they can hope for from this Treasurer and this Labor government. Holt Electorate: Community Language Schools 75 13:52 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt 'Ayubovan' translates to 'may you be blessed with a long life' and is a traditional greeting in Sinhala. Like 45 per cent of my electorate of Holt, English is not my first language. Over 165 languages are spoken across Holt, from Punjabi and Hazaraghi to Serbian and Samoan. Languages are vital for people to engage in their culture, traditions and community. Community language schools, often run by volunteers, are essential in teaching children these languages. This is why I am proud to be part of a government committed to supporting these vital community assets. The Albanese Labor government has committed to providing $165,000 to support language schools across Holt. This includes Al Mustaqbel Arabic Community School, Al-Hussein Arabic School, Payam Dari School, Sikh Community Gurmat Centre, Cranbourne Gyanjyoti Pathsala Nepalese school, KC Korean Language & Culture School, and Sankalp-Ek Nishchay Marathi Community school. The work they do in the community is invaluable. Thank you to the parents and volunteers at these schools for the time you spend volunteering and for continuing to promote your traditions and cultures. Durack Electorate: Health Care 75 13:54 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The WA Cook Labor government has failed to fulfil its promise to Tom Price. In 2021, the Pilbara community was promised $12.8 million for a new hospital. Three years on, this hardworking community has been let down. Unbelievably, the recent WA state budget has allocated a mere $77,000 for the new hospital for the next financial year. The current hospital is 57 years old and should be condemned. Even the mice and frogs have now taken up residency. Patients confined to their beds tell me that they've seen the rodents scurrying above their heads as they lie waiting for medical assistance. Staff and patients are subjected to out-of-date and dangerous equipment. But all credit is due to the amazing staff, who continue to deliver under these conditions. Let's not forget that the Pilbara is the powerhouse of our nation and drives our Australian economy, contributing $11.2 billion in iron ore royalties in this year alone, and that the federal government provided WA Labor some $3 billion this year for state health. Clearly, it's not about money; it's all about priorities. With thestate government's $2.6 billion surplus, there is no excuse for ignoring Tom Price's critical need for adequate health care. So to the health minister, Amber-Jade Sanderson: please, Minister, do your job and stop attacking hardworking shire president Audra Smith, who is doing nothing but supporting her community. Together, Audra and I will continue to fight for this community. Economy 75 13:55 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck It's time to put to bed forever the coalition's most successful propaganda. The coalition, whose economic and legislative mess we are still cleaning up, are continually trying to tell Australians that they are somehow the better economic managers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Treasury figures show that the Abbott government added $48 billion to government debt, the Turnbull government added $31 billion to debt and the Morrison government added $50 billion to debt. Meanwhile, the Albanese government has paid down debt, having back-to-back surpluses. What about taxation? Do Labor governments tax more, as Senator Hume was excitedly claiming today? No. Statistics show that the two highest governments for tax over the last 30 years were the Howard and Turnbull governments. The three lowest were Labor governments. What about international recognition? Did a Liberal Treasurer ever get a 'world's greatest Treasurer' award from Euromoney magazine? No. But Paul Keating did, followed by Wayne Swan in 2011 in recognition of Labor's excellent handling of the economy during the global financial crisis. Today, we will see a budget, delivered by the Treasurer, where all Australians will share in $107 billion worth of tax cuts, where we will have turned a $78 billion deficit into a $22 billion surplus and where we will have halved inflation since 2022. Australians can trust Labor with the economy. The facts speak for themselves. Housing 75 13:57 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin One thing we know about tonight's budget is that there's absolutely no new money for housing. There's nothing to address Labor's housing crisis: no new money, no new homes, no new ideas, no new thinking—just the same old Labor housing crisis. We saw the Labor Party try to rebadge and rehash funding that has been ongoing for 15 years now and somehow claim that it as new. The truth is that under this government we've seen the number of first home buyers go down and we've seen the number of homes go down. Most worryingly, if Australians think there's a housing crisis now, it is just going to get worse, because the number of approvals has gone down even further. That means that over the next 12 months, 18 months or two years fewer homes will be built. In the time when fewer homes were being built and fewer Australians were able to afford to own their own home, this government ramped up migration and brought in four times as many migrants as the number of houses being built. Where on earth does the government think they will live? What this is doing is putting pressure on our rental market. It's putting pressure on every single Australian family. And, sadly, tonight we see no recognition from this government that it has created a housing crisis and that it has an obligation to address it. Tertiary Education 76 13:58 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I've heard from so many in my community—students, parents and grandparents—about how student loan debt is too high and how change is needed. Our government has listened to these concerns and has changed the way these debts are indexed. As well, it has wiped the costs of last year's spike in the CPI indexation rate. Three million people across our country, including 22,264 people in Jagajaga, will receive a cut in their student debt. A person with an average debt of $26,500 can expect $1,200 to be wiped from their outstanding loans this year. We know times are tough and these changes will provide significant relief for all Australians with a student debt.Last Monday, I met with La Trobe University students in my electorate who are going to benefit from this change. They told me about how these changes will reduce their fears about what taking on a university debt might mean for their future; how it will make them feel more stable about getting a foot in the door in homeownership, establishing themselves with a secure footing. Labor is supporting young people to get the better future they deserve. This is good for them and it's good for our whole community. Thank you to all in my community who advocated for this important change. We have listened to you. We are making lives easier for Australian students, putting them on the best pathway to the future. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 76 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Members Sworn 76 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received the return to the writ which I issued on 11 March 2024 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Cook, in the state of New South Wales, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Scott John Morrison. By the endorsement of the writ, it is certified that Simon Peter Kennedy has been elected. Mr Simon Peter Kennedy made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to congratulate Simon Kennedy, the member for Cook. It is a great privilege to serve in the House of Representatives. The list of those who want to and have sought to serve in the House of Representatives is very much longer than of those who have the privilege that we share. The electorate of Cook is a beautiful part of Sydney and now enjoys, with its rather strange boundary decision by the Electoral Commission, two great rivers as well as some extraordinary beaches and a very vibrant and dynamic local community. I congratulate you. I wish you well in serving the people of Cook and I look forward to your contributions in this House. 14:03 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his very kind and gracious words to the member for Cook, and I congratulate the member for Cook for his success. It was a hard-fought preselection, as is often the case. I was down there during the course of the by-election. He is a vibrant and passionate member on behalf of a local constituency that has a number of needs, particularly around housing and support for small business. Simon has done an exceptional job in bringing together the local community, and I congratulate him on his success. Starting out in humble beginnings, he went on to complete a law and commerce degree and worked at McKinsey. He has worked on a number of major projects and been a major contributor to our country, and that work will now continue in this House. Prime Minister, I did say to my colleagues earlier that if they wanted to feel good about being a Liberal they should go down to Cronulla during the by-election. There was a lot of love at the booth there. There were six people in blue Liberal shirts. There was one Greens lady in a green shirt. She wanted a selfie with me; she said I was doing a good job. I want to thank her very much as well! Fortunately for all of us, no Labor people were in sight— An honourable member interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI And I'm sorry for that kiss of death—if you could pass on my apologies. I wish the member for Cook many productive years in this place. He will spend a lot of time away from his young family, which is a sacrifice that many in this place make, but I wish him every success in his chosen career. CONDOLENCES 77 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Xixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ash, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 77 Reference to Federation Chamber 80 14:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the deaths of Yixuan Chen, Pikri Darchia, Ashlee Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young is referred to the Federation Chamber. Hand, Hon. Gerard 'Gerry' Leslie 80 Report from Federation Chamber 80 14:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the matter immediately. The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. Fitzgibbon, Lance Corporal Jack Patrick 80 14:31 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. Hoare, Mrs Kelly Joy, Mildren, Mr John Barry, OAM 81 14:31 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the deaths of Kelly Joy Hoare and John Barry Mildren OAM, former members of this House. Kelly Joy died on 21 March 2024. She represented the division of Charlton from 1988 to 2007. John Barry Mildren died on 25 April 2024. He represented the division of Ballarat from 1980 to 1990. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. MINISTRY 81 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 81 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. I will take questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 81 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East 81 14:32 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, 130 hostages still remain in tunnels after the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel last year in which 1,200 people were massacred. Violent antisemitism is on the rise here in Australia and indeed around the world. Why did the Prime Minister make a captain's call to Palestine's bid for United nations membership, breaching faith with our Jewish community and decades of bipartisanship and putting us at odds with allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada? 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Of course, this House, with the support of the Labor Party—the government members—as well as the members of the coalition passed a resolution expressing our unequivocal outrage at the events and horror at the terrorist act on October 7. We continue to call for Hamas to release hostages. We continue to express our concern at the loss of life—every life—that is innocent, whether that be an innocent Israeli life or an innocent Palestinian life. Contrary to the Leader of the Opposition's depiction, the Australian government has had a long-term position of support for a two-state solution, and, in this, I accept responsibility for government decisions as Prime Minister. We had a proper process to make that decision through all of our appropriate channels. The resolution that was carried by the United Nations called for a two-state solution based upon the 1967 boundaries. That is something that is supported by the Australian Labor Party and has historically been supported by those opposite as well. The people who do not support a two-state solution include Hamas and has included, at times, some members of the current Israeli government, who make clear their opposition to that as well. We, in supporting that resolution, when we saw the wording, believe that it's consistent with providing a pathway to peace that is so necessary as we go forward. The people who are vehemently opposed to that resolution include Hamas and include people who have a view that there should be just a single state 'from the river to the sea', as the chant goes. That is not my position, that is not the government's position and it also wasn't the position of Japan, Korea, the New Zealand conservative government led by Christopher Luxon— Mr Dutton 00AKI The United States, Joe Biden, where was he? Mr ALBANESE R36 ASEAN—of all of those countries who all overwhelmingly voted for that motion. (Time expired) Budget 81 14:36 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to ease cost-of-living pressures, including in the budget? How does this reflect the priorities of the Albanese Labor government, and what are some of the ways that all Australians will feel the benefits? 14:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Dunkley for asking a question about the economy on budget day. And, indeed, tonight there will be two big themes of the budget that will be brought down by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. The first is helping people with their cost of living, and doing it in a way that doesn't put pressure on inflation. Mr Pasin 240756 Aussies have never had it better. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker! Mr ALBANESE R36 The second is how we build a better future by investing in a future made right here in Australia. So tonight's budget will deliver for all Australians, not just some. It will deliver a tax cut for all 13.6 million Australians. It will deliver stronger Medicare in every community, including an increased rollout of our urgent care clinics. It will deliver more homes in every part of the community. We now have $32 billion of support for housing in this country—unlike what those opposite did, which was to sit back and think that it could all be done if they just forgot about it— Mr Sukkar 242515 Business as usual. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 and that's in spite of them holding up measures, including the Help to Buy scheme that remains in the Senate. It will deliver a better deal for every working parent and more help for households doing it tough. What we are seeing—unlike those opposite, who had wage reductions in real terms as a key feature of their economic architecture—are real wage increases in this country. We have seen productivity increase for three quarters in a row. We are seeing more jobs created under this government than any new government in Australia's history. We are seeing the gender pay gap at record lows. We are seeing a government that is moderating inflation, bringing it down to a lower figure than what was predicted in MYEFO just in December last year—half of what we inherited from those opposite. At the same time as we're dealing with those immediate pressures, we are shaping the future, creating new secure, well-paid jobs by working to facilitate private sector investment in the future economy. Those opposite denied the future and thought they could just occupy the space. We are shaping the future in order to make sure that we create jobs and look after prosperity. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister's time has concluded. The members for Barker, Casey and Deakin interjected continually during that answer. They will cease interjecting or they will be warned. International Relations: Australia and China 82 14:39 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Prime Minister. In November 2023 Royal Australian Navy divers were injured by sonar pulses fired at them by a Chinese navy destroyer. Ten days ago a Chinese fighter jet fired flares in the flight path of an RAN Seahawk, risking the lives of our people. Why hasn't the Prime Minister called President Xi about these clear acts of intimidation? 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Why doesn't the opposition back up Australia? Why do they look for political differentiation when this is about our national interests? This mob never had a phone call, let alone a meeting, during their entire last term in office—nothing. This mob were happy to have President Xi speak in this parliament but had no conversations with them the entire time. We have made it very clear that the actions of the PLA are unprofessional and unacceptable. And I would have thought that it was not a hard ask— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 for you to say, 'Yes, we agree; we are at one in defending the Australian Defence Force,' rather than trying to send confusing messages to the People's Republic of China. I would have thought it wasn't a hard ask. We have made all of the appropriate representations. We continue to say we will agree and cooperate with China where we can and we will disagree where we must. On this we must and on this we have. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Blair will— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Blair will resume his seat. The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting and refer to members by their correct titles. The Prime Minister in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. I note the anger on behalf of China. What we are doing— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister hasn't concluded his answer, so he shall just pause. The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order. We'll hear that. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance. The question was: why hasn't the Prime Minister shown strength of character to call the Chinese president? Why can't you stand up for our country? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom. The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order, which he's entitled to do. The Leader of the House is also able to respond to the point of order. Mr Burke DYW On the point of order, at the end of it we had a complete abuse. The anger gets the better of the Leader of the Opposition and he abuses it every time. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! First day, new session—the same rules apply: everyone can make a point of order on relevance; they shall not add extra material or extra comments or extra grabs at the end of the points of order. The Prime Minister is talking about the issue. He is giving information to the House about the incident. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition has raised the point of order. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant under the standing orders. He has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The senior members of the government received briefings through all of the appropriate bodies. We made clear our position, both privately and publicly, unequivocally: our opposition to what occurred. I would have thought that there are times when an opposition leader has the strength to say: I'm with the Australian government on this. What is weak is trying to look for political differentiation— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Groom is now warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 where this is an issue, where you are either on the Australian government's side, and on the side of the Australia Defence Force and its personnel, or you are questioning that and therefore undermining the government's position in relation to the representations we have made to China. The ADF were in international waters and international air, providing support for an international action against North Korea. I would have thought that it wouldn't be beyond the opposition to say, 'We agree with the government.' (Time expired) Manufacturing Industry 83 14:45 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister of Industry and Science. What steps are the Albanese Labor government taking to rebuild Australian manufacturing? What are the barriers to the government's Future Made in Australia plan? 14:45 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Blair, not just for the question but for being a big backer of Australian manufacturing. Creating secure, well-paid jobs doesn't just happen by accident. It requires learning the lessons of history and having absolute, unequivocal ambition for the future. It takes strong leadership, with a vision for what the country can look like, and governments that work for all Australians. We have a big job to do in making the transition to net zero. We're playing catch-up after 10 wasted years under the coalition. We need to urgently mobilise manufacturing, to make things here, to get us to net zero. In doing so we can cut emissions and grow blue-collar jobs. That's what a future made in Australia is all about, and it's at the heart of tonight's budget. Instead of shipping off our ideas to another country and importing their products, we can seize new ideas and create great jobs: groundbreaking new solar technology not made anywhere else on the planet, like what SunDrive reckons it can do in the Hunter; hydrogen electrolyser manufacturing by Fortescue in Gladstone; Hysata's work in the Illawarra, producing hydrogen that is crucial in manufacturing green metals and keeping steel manufacturing here in the country; and processing critical minerals and turning them into Aussie made batteries, like those made by Gelion in Sydney's west. Solar, hydrogen, green metals, critical minerals and batteries: we have the people, the know-how and the manufacturing muscle to get it done in Australia. As I said earlier, time and again we've seen world-leading Australian know-how go offshore. We have know-how that's created jobs and opportunities and competitive edge for other countries. But this government said, 'Enough is enough.' Enough of the failed policies of the coalition, who sent our car makers packing. After the nasty negativity that poured scorn on manufacturers and cold water on their job creation, for all those years, all we've had from those opposite is constant negativity and no plan. At every opportunity they oppose the chance to back Australian manufacturing. They said no to tax cuts that would have helped manufacturing workers. They said no to the National Reconstruction Fund. They said no to energy price relief that would have helped Australian manufacturing. Tonight's budget will be a budget for every Australian. It will show the difference between a government with a plan, and those in opposition, who oppose everything. We will invest responsibly in Australia's manufacturing future, as opposed to an opposition that mocks manufacturing and calls it a graveyard. Domestic and Family Violence 84 14:49 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah When two young men died, the New South Wales government introduced mandatory sentences for one-punch attacks. When it was terrorism, laws were changed to jail people on the apprehended risk of crimes. But when Australian men kill Australian women the government's national plan is to take 10 years. In the gallery today are advocates here to hold a vigil for the 192 women killed by men since the 2021 March4Justice. We have a crisis of male violence and women's safety. Will you be tough on this domestic terrorism by leading an overhaul of national sentencing laws, including AVOs? The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question and for raising these issues with me when I visited her electorate of Warringah recently as well. Violence against women is indeed a national crisis. We know that, on average, once every four days a woman is murdered by someone they know, by an intimate partner or a former partner. That is a national crisis. It's a scourge and a stain on our nation, and we need to do better. Governments need to do better, but we as a community need to do better as well, because this is about more than just government action. This is about our whole society and how it functions and about respect for women. We can change it, and we must change it. Our record investment in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children from 2022—I do disagree with her depiction of the national plan—is a recognition that, tragically, you can't solve this overnight. You need to change behaviour across a whole range of ways. We need to change the way the education system works. One of the things that the royal commission in Victoria in 2016 found was that they needed to get that education about respectful relationships in school, and that has happened. One of the things about the national cabinet meeting I convened was that people talked about replicating best practice, and that included the issue of sentencing. I note that New South Wales has made a significant announcement, and I support the stronger action for people who have AVOs—stronger action to make sure that people aren't just released into the community who are a threat to a woman. It's very strong action, indeed. I know that premiers of other states and chief ministers as well agreed at that meeting to look at all of their laws, including bail laws, and to return to the national cabinet. They are state laws; they're not national laws, but we can encourage best practice when it comes to that. We, through that national cabinet meeting, established permanently the leaving violence payment, and tonight's budget will see $925 million for that. Tonight's budget will also see a billion dollars directed towards crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children escaping domestic violence. In addition to that, the Minister for Communications is doing important work to tackle extreme online misogyny, which is a real issue and something that will be a real focus as well. I pay tribute to the survivors and people who are working so strongly on this. Of course, a focus on prevention must mean a focus on perpetrators as well. We know the work will be hard. There are no overnight solutions, but we're absolutely committed to working—including with the member for Warringah and across this parliament—on all of these issues to make sure that the scourge which is there is dealt with in the best possible way. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 84 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: New Zealand, Evans, Mr Paul 84 14:53 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Australian Political Exchange Council's 15th delegation from New Zealand. Also in gallery today is Mr Paul Evans, together with his wife, Megan. Paul Evans contributed to the construction of Parliament House. On behalf of the parliament, welcome to you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 84 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Domestic and Family Violence 84 14:53 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government leading action to address the national crisis of family domestic and sexual violence? 14:53 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Higgins for the question. Family and domestic violence destroys lives and is absolutely unacceptable in a country like Australia. The safety of women and children experiencing family domestic and sexual violence has been and is a priority for our government. That is why the Prime Minister convened a dedicated national cabinet this month, where all governments committed to build on efforts under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This plan was developed in partnership with victims-survivors and put victims-survivors at its heart. The national cabinet was clear that all governments will strengthen their efforts to address violence against women and the conditions that enable and promote it. Following national cabinet, the Albanese Labor government announced we will establish a permanent Leaving Violence Program to replace the current trials underway. Victims-survivors will now have the certainty of knowing a safety net will be there, should they need it, where they can access up to $5,000 in financial support, safety planning, risk assessment and referral pathways for support. Importantly, the payment will also be indexed annually to ensure it maintains its current value and complements other financial support, like crisis payment. The Leaving Violence Program builds on the improvements we've made to the Escaping Violence Payment Program since we came to government. It became clear in the trial that the trial had not been resourced appropriately to allow for the necessary safety planning and referral support needed by many clients who had never engaged with specialist services before. This investment that we have made complements numerous other investments we've made under the national plan, with more than $3 billion of investment now in safety, which not only responds to the needs of women and children experiencing violence but also, critically, supports the work of preventing violence, intervening before it escalates, and the recovery of victims-survivors. Our government legislated 10 days of paid family domestic violence leave for all employees. We've boosted funding to frontline services, which includes restoring the funding under the former government that was due to cease in June last year. We have delivered more safe places for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence, which will assist more than 2,800 women and children each year, and there will be an additional 720 new places available under the next round. We are putting the focus on perpetrators by developing a national risk assessment framework for service providers to manage the risk posed by perpetrators, as well as trialling new perpetrator interventions in partnership with states and territories. These are just some of the actions our government is taking. We know there's more to do, and we all need to work together—government, civil society, businesses— (Time expired) Economy 85 14:56 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are poorer than they were two years ago. The cash rate, which this dismal Prime Minister couldn't even name during the campaign, has gone from 0.35 per cent to 4.35 per cent. Real disposable incomes have fallen, soaring energy prices are hurting families and businesses are being crippled by huge cost increases. Why are Australians paying the price for the weak economic leadership of this Prime Minister? The SPEAKER 53517 Before the Prime Minister answers, I remind all members about the importance of language being used during questions and answers. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. She gets a bonus point for asking a question about the economy on budget day—I'll give that. The truth is that the member opposite raises a range of issues. One is inflation and interest rates. Now, inflation was twice what it is now when they were in office. Inflation peaked at 2.1 per cent in the March 2022 quarter—in just one quarter—whereas now inflation is at 3.6 per cent on an annual basis, which is lower than the 3.75 per cent that was predicted in MYEFO. You would think that, when inflation was peaking, what there would have been was a responsible budget. Instead, we got dollars flowing out everywhere that ended the big cash splash in the lead-up to the May 2022 election, which made things worse, not better. Mr Hamilton 291387 You wanted us to spend more! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Groom knows he's on a warning. In future, write down, 'I'm on a warning,' so you don't forget. The member for Groom can leave the chamber. The member for Groom then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 If you're on a warning, chances are that, if you interject, you're not going to be here. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The unemployment rate is lower than it was under those opposite. Employment is higher. The participation rate is higher. The gender pay gap is lower. There are more women employed full time. There are more manufacturing jobs. There are fewer long-term unemployed. Industrial disputes are down, in spite of what they said, and wages are up. Wages up, inflation moderating—that is what is occurring. Those opposite, of course, in the last budget that they handed down—the number of saves is a really round figure of zero. They provided no saves whatsoever. They just splashed money as they did with waste when they were in government. Remember the $20 billion in JobKeeper payments that went to companies that were increasing their profits. They weren't going down; they were going up. Remember the $5½ billion on the French subcontract without delivering a single vessel, and destroying our relationship with our ally there. Remember blowing out the cost of the inferior copper NBN by $29 billion. Then there's the Inland Rail project. They said they were going to build it and finish it for $4.7 billion; it cost $31 billion without going anywhere. They spent $5 billion on contractors and consultants. We're getting on with the job of good, responsible— (Time expired) Budget 86 15:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ease cost-of-living pressures on students and to make the education system fairer after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:01 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank my friend the magnificent member for Moreton for his question. The big hike in HECS indexation last year hit a lot of Australians hard—in particular, a lot of young Australians. They made their voice heard, and we've heard it. The budget tonight will wipe about $3 billion of HECS debt for more than three million Australians. As members know, I asked the Universities Accord team to look at this issue, and they recommended that we set indexation at either inflation or wages, whatever is the lowest. We're doing that and we're going further than that. We're going to backdate this to last year. In other words, we're going to wipe out what happened last year and make sure it never happens again. For someone with an average HECS debt of about 26 grand, it means their HECS debt will be cut by about $1,200. For someone with a HECS debt of 45 grand, it will mean their HECS debt is cut by about $2,000. It's an important reform to make HECS fairer. In the budget tonight, for the first time ever, the Commonwealth government will provide financial support to teaching, nursing and social work students to help them while they're doing their prac. These are people who have signed up to do some of the most important jobs in this country—people who are going to help educate our kids, look after us when we're sick or when we're old, support women in domestic violence refuges—and a big part of becoming a teacher or a nurse or a social worker is practical training. They sometimes have to give up their part-time job to do it. So this is a bit of practical help for people while they're doing their practical training. To tell you what it means, I got an email from a nursing student from the member for Bendigo's electorate last week. It said this: 'I just saw your announcement about paid placement for nurses, and I'm crying. You've given me faith that the Labor government really cares about the growth of the whole community. I cannot even explain how much this announcement has benefited me mentally, let alone financially. Thank you for listening to the community.' Paid pracs and making HECS fairer are just two parts of our response to the Universities Accord. They help with the cost of degrees and they help with the cost of living. But we've also got to do something about the cost of a lot of young people missing out on the chance to go to university altogether—in particular, young people from our outer suburbs and regional Australia. You'll see what we do there tonight. Ten years ago, the Liberals cut the guts out of education in their 2014 budget. We're building a better and fairer education system, and you'll see that in the budget tonight. (Time expired) Cost of Living 86 15:04 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Families are feeling the impact of Labor's homegrown inflation, with the cost of almost everything going up. Food is up 10 per cent, housing is up 12 per cent, insurance is up 26 per cent, and electricity and gas are up 18 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Why are Australians paying the price for the weak economic leadership of this Prime Minister? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right and left will cease interjecting. There's far too much noise. 15:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about where we are under this government two years in, which we will commemorate next week. What we inherited with energy was that energy wholesale electricity prices in the June quarter of 2022 were $264. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 In the December quarter last year, they were $76. Gas prices were $31.76 in May 2022. In the December quarter of 2023, that was down to $11.60. Of course, we will get to two years with the same Prime Minister. After they were elected, Tony Abbott didn't make it to two years. They brought in the 2014 budget. That ripped the guts out of education and health, led by the bloke who's now the Leader of the Opposition, with $50 billion of cuts in health, with a GP tax on every time someone would go and visit a doctor and with a tax every time someone would visit an emergency department. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Minister for Skills and Training will cease interjecting so I can hear the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance, the question is about costs today going up—food up 10 per cent, housing up 12 per cent and insurance up 26 per cent—not some kind of history lesson. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW I think, in saying it's about costs, the Manager of the Opposition Business has just explained why this answer is in order. The SPEAKER 53517 The question, in anyone's interpretation, was very broad, because the question was actually about the price of economic leadership over the last two years, and there was a whole range of issues in the question. So I think, on anyone's definition, this was a pretty broad question, and the Prime Minister now has been specific with his answer regarding the issues raised. So I think everyone can agree it's very relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're embarrassed by their budget of 10 years ago, when we saw the coalition unplugged. We know that the inflation figure that we inherited was 2.1 per cent in just a quarter, and today annual inflation's at 3.6 per cent. On wages, of course, the biggest drop, outside of the pandemic, in real wages this century occurred in the March quarter of 2022—again, down 1.4 per cent. Our government has seen real wages rising for three consecutive quarters. There was a sluggish labour market under them. Under us, employment growth has doubled—780,000 new jobs created. Productivity under them was the worst in 40 years. Under us, it is up in the last three quarters. Business investment declined, under them, to the lowest levels since the early 2000s. Business investment has grown in every quarter under Labor—up 13 per cent in real terms. But, of course, budget policy will be there for all to see tonight—something that would be familiar to them. They produced mugs saying that there was a surplus, but that's all it was. They treated Australians like mugs. They never produced a surplus in almost a decade in office. Tonight we will see the second surplus in a row, with a $9.3 billion projected surplus, following on from last year's $22 billion, which is better than the $78 billion deficit that we inherited from them. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 87 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Nixon, Mr Richard 87 15:09 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the member for Pearce, the member for Kooyong has brought to my attention that Richard Nixon from her electorate is also here today, and he contributed to the building of Parliament House. Welcome to all the people who built Parliament House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 87 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Defence Force 87 15:09 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in greater capability for the Australian Defence Force to keep Australians safe, and how does this compare to other approaches? 15:10 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Tonight's budget contains an increase in defence spending of $5.7 billion, which on its own terms is the single-largest increase in defence spending over a four-year cycle in decades. It far outstrips any increases that we saw over the lost decade when those opposite were in power. This is an inconvenient truth which sticks in their craw, because, from their perspective, this is just not how it's meant to be. This forms part of a $12.1 billion increase over 10 years, which is also in the budget. When you combine that with the decisions that were taken in last year's budget, over the next decade we will see an additional $50 billion spent on defence relative to what we inherited when we came to power. Those opposite have refused to commit to that increase. The shadow minister, in his desperation, is literally saying anything, but, as recently as Sunday, the shadow Treasurer could not have been clearer that the Liberals are refusing to commit to this increase. All the while, the shadow shadow minister, Senator Paterson, is left to be the one who is out there making speeches about Liberal defence policy. They are a mess. They are falling back on their pathetic, tired whimpers that they'll always be the party which spends more on defence, just as they are always the party of lower taxation. But everyone in this chamber knows that it is precisely the opposite which is the case, because, when they last presided over the Treasury bench, they ran a government which grossly underfunded defence. Whether we are talking about guided weapons, increases in Defence Force personnel or more ships, every one of those announcements that they made was underfunded by billions and billions of dollars. The truth of the matter is that it is the Albanese Labor government which is delivering a tax cut to every working Australian. It is the Albanese Labor government which has delivered two budget surpluses in a row, and it is the Albanese Labor government which is delivering historic increases in defence spending. The Liberals were big on defence marketing and defence politics, but it is the Albanese Labor government which has committed to doing what it takes to keep Australians safe. Live Animal Exports 88 15:13 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Prime Minister. Given Labor's rationale for banning live sheep exports is based on animal welfare, can the Prime Minister name one country that has higher animal welfare standards for live exports than Australia? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. Members on my left, the time to interject is not before a minister or the Prime Minister speaks. Trust me. 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question, and I thank him for his engagement up there at beef week in Rocky last week. Of course, he could have a chat to the person just sitting next to him, I reckon, to get an answer for this, because in 2018 the member for Farrer introduced a private member's bill to ban the live export of sheep: live sheep export prohibition bill 2018. If he doesn't want to trust the member for Farrer, he could wander down to the member for La Trobe, because good old Jase down there was on board—not a lot of sheep in La Trobe. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order. Mr Littleproud 265585 My point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was very tight: I asked the Prime Minister to name one country—one country—that has higher animal welfare standards than Australia. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, the Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW The first part of the question referred to the rationale for the policy, and it's completely in order to talk about those on the opposition benches who have called for that rationale and have called for that ban. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Speaker cannot direct the form that an answer must have. Standing orders do not provide for that. I understand that the Leader of the Nationals would like a specific answer—in this case, about a country. Sometimes it's a yes/no answer; I understand that—yes, I understand that. The standing orders, which he knows and which every single member is aware of—and which I have explained to many members could be changed, if they wish, and also the process for doing that; no-one has taken me up on that offer from either side of the parliament!—at the moment are that the Prime Minister has to be directly relevant, if he were talking about another topic. I'm going to allow him to give some context at the beginning. He's had less than one minute into the question. He can't make his answer all about the opposition or what they have done, but I'm going to allow him now to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I couldn't put it better than by saying that ending live sheep exports can be 'a win for both animal welfare and business'. That was the title of the member for Farrer's opinion piece back there, arguing the case. One of the things that the member knows in asking this question is that, to quote another person, Senator Henderson—and it appears you could have all of this discussion in shadow cabinet: If any person in Australia crammed sheep into a transport vehicle for 25 days— An honourable member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 For 25 days! … for 25 days in the searing heat with limited access to food and water, standing in their own excrement, that person would be charged with animal cruelty. An honourable member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 He's very angry at his fellow shadow cabinet members. The fact is that what we have done is that we went to an election and committed to this, we went to another election and committed to this, and we were elected. We then had a review with appropriate recommendations. We have provided over $100 million for transition to support the industry—to support the changes that will be required for a clear transition, with time over the next four years in which to transition. Infrastructure 89 15:17 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering infrastructure for every Australian while cleaning up the mess of the Liberals and Nationals? 15:18 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Werriwa for the question. I thank her also for her tireless advocacy, particularly for the people of Western Sydney in making sure they get the infrastructure they need to ensure that the jobs and liveability of Western Sydney are at the forefront of this government's thinking. Of course, tonight the Treasurer will deliver a budget for every Australian, including when it comes to infrastructure investment—as well as investment and training for our construction workers and retaining our important apprentices in construction. Tonight's budget delivers on the hard work we've undertaken since coming to office to clean up the mess of the decade of what those opposite left us when it came to the infrastructure investment pipeline—the Liberal and National legacy of billions and billions of dollars of underfunded projects and an infrastructure pipeline that would have seen no new infrastructure projects announced in any of their seats, any of our seats or any of the states and territories for at least a decade. That was the legacy left by those opposite when it came to the infrastructure investment pipeline. It's very similar to that left in the infrastructure investment pipeline in defence. I have been working hard with my state and territory colleagues to identify the priorities for this budget. For many states, that priority has been making sure that we are providing additional funding to actually deliver projects that are in the pipeline. That's why, in Victoria, I was proud to announce we're investing a further $3.25 billion for the North East Link, bringing our contribution up to $5 billion—a project that takes 15,000 trucks a day off suburban roads. I stood there with the Prime Minister. It's a terrific project. We've also focused on some of the biggest growth areas. Last week when we were in Western Sydney we announced our package of $1.9 billion to cement Western Sydney's future as an economic powerhouse and a place for opportunity. Mr Chester IPZ What have you built? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lindsay and the member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR The budget invests $1.9 billion—something the member for Lindsay could only ever dream of and couldn't actually deliver—towards 14 new projects and provides additional funding towards two existing projects that will help underpin significant jobs and growth in Sydney's west. Where the Liberals and Nationals frankly left this important region behind, we are delivering the money that is required to actually deliver on these road projects—not just press releases. Yesterday I was on the Sunshine Coast to announce a further $1.5 billion for stage 1 of direct Sunshine Coast rail to Caloundra, an important project not just for the Olympics but also for transport for the South-East, something that was woefully underfunded by those opposite. You can't build a rail track on a press release. We're delivering infrastructure those opposite could only dream of. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 89 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Member for Kingsley 89 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the honourable member for Indi, I'd also like to welcome Jess Stojkovski MP, a member of the Western Australian parliament and Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier. Welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 89 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 89 15:21 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Prime Minister. When the budget is handed down by the Treasurer this evening, it will include a budget line labelled 'decisions taken but not yet announced'—billions of dollars to be spent, but we won't know where or on what. As we approach the next election, can you guarantee that your government will not pork barrel these funds to win votes in marginal seats? 15:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In spite of the representations I'll receive from those in that corner and have done in the lead-up to this evening—and I'll outline them all one by one if you like, Member for Indi—what we will do is make sure that our investments are ones that are nation building. If you look at the work that the minister for infrastructure, for example, has done, it's to put integrity back in the system. That's why she did the review and that's why we're out there making positive, constructive nation-building announcements on things that actually matter. The member refers to decisions taken but not announced. Some of those are, of course, for national security reasons. That's the reason why that's included, and they're often very good reasons why that is the case. And that should always remain the case. My government is committed to transparency and committed to making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, which is why so many of the reforms that it has done are universal. They're not for some people in some seats; they are absolutely universal. An example of that is the doubling of Roads to Recovery funding. Roads to Recovery, in particular, helps councils which are in larger seats—so it tends to help people in regional seats more than urban communities. It's good policy, it makes a difference for local government and it makes a difference for road safety, and it's just one example of us getting the decision-making processes right. Medicare 90 15:23 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are the Albanese Labor government's investments to strengthen Medicare improving GP bulk-billing rates, after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:24 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. It's a timely question to ask about the decade of cuts and neglect, because yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the famous 2014 budget. I'm sure all of those opposite were out there celebrating—remembering, of course, that, once the thick plumes of smoke from Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann's famous budget cigars had finally cleared the air around Parliament House, the scale of the cuts to basic government services became clear to every Australian. At its heart was the worst health budget in Australian history, delivered by the worst health minister in the Medicare era. That same health minister had said that there were 'too many free Medicare services', so he tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He tried to make every single Australian pay a fee every single time they visited the doctor. He tried to slash public hospital funding by $50 billion and to jack up the price of medicines by up to $5 a script. Our approach to health budgets could not be more different. Our budgets have made medicines cheaper—not dearer but cheaper, saving Australians hundreds of millions of dollars already. We're going to put more funding into our crucial public hospitals, not less—not $50 billion less, like the Leader of the Opposition would have done. And, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare. That's why the centrepiece of last year's budget was a $3.5 billion investment to triple the bulk-billing incentive for GP visits. In just the first five months, that has delivered more than 950,000 additional free visits to the doctor. In the member for Bendigo's electorate, the bulk-billing rate for GP visits has climbed by almost eight per cent in just five months, delivering 25,600 additional free visits to the doctor—one of the best results in the country and a reflection of the hard work by the member for Bendigo in trumpeting the benefits of our strengthening Medicare agenda in her electorate. We promised the Australian people that we would strengthen Medicare and we would make medicines cheaper, and we are doing that. In 2013, those opposite promised there would be no cuts to health, and the Leader of the Opposition delivered the exact opposite. Live Animal Exports 90 15:26 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to or any limitations on live cattle exports from Australia? 15:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. The only people who've argued to stop or pause the live cattle trade in recent times are those opposite. When foot-and-mouth disease was an issue in Indonesia, those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, called for the trade to be stopped, and Murray Watt kept it open. I suggest, just like on live sheep, they should have a discussion in their shadow cabinet on this. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order, and he'll be heard in silence. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance. The question couldn't have been more direct. Can we just get one straight answer from this Prime Minister? The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I know where the Leader of the House—I can read his mind at this moment, but I'll see if I'm wrong. He has the call. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the comment at the end was not simply an abuse of the standing orders but also happening only minutes after you had given warning that that should not happen again. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. We're going to have serious consequences if every time someone gets up and raises a point of order, which they're entitled to do under the standing orders, to stop the flow, to stop the answer, to stop the argument, which they're entitled to do, which is disrupting the parliament, to make a legitimate point of order—it is simply not acceptable to then add a remark or add a snide comment at the end. This is the first day back, and it's not going to happen anymore. You raise the point of order. You state specifically what it is without additional remarks or additional comments. I hope everyone's clear on that. On the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your guidance. I would add, though, that the conduct of the House would be assisted if the Prime Minister were able to approach his answer to the questions in a genuine way. The question was very simple. It was put succinctly. It's without ambiguity, and the Prime Minister creates a dynamic in this parliament which is against the spirit that you're trying to enforce, through his obfuscation and his complete refusal to answer the questions as you direct, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support of me. The Prime Minister was asked about ruling out changing limitations on live cattle exports. I'm going to make sure that, for the remainder of his answer, he's being relevant and respecting the standing orders, as everyone else is. Mr ALBANESE R36 Just as the 2014 budget showed the ideological character of the coalition, every time this bloke gets to the dispatch box, it shows his personal character. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 We have made it very clear. When it comes to the live cattle export trade, that is a trade that we support. That is a trade that we have gone out of our way to support, including personal contact between me and President Widodo and the work that we did with Indonesia to provide significant support to make sure that trade could continue at a time when those opposite were calling for it to be paused. That's what the members of the Liberal Party were doing at that time. We think this is an important trade. It's important to have a big distinction between it and live sheep. When it comes to live sheep, I table the document, which is obviously still on the member for Farrer's website, 'Ending live sheep export can be a win for both animal welfare and business'. It's actually pretty good. It outlines exactly why we have taken the decision that we have, and that was something supported by senior frontbenchers across the board there. When it comes to the live cattle export industry, it goes far shorter distances and has put in place significant reforms to make sure animal welfare is looked after. That is why we support this industry and will continue to do so. I suggest those opposite should back it in next time too, instead of, at the first opportunity—as they do with every single issue, whether its national security or anything else—always looking for product differentiation, as they did when that issue came up in Indonesia. Housing 91 15:32 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How will the Albanese Labor government's Homes for Australia plan turbocharge home building, and what could be standing in its way? 15:32 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank our wonderful member for Robertson. The member for Robertson understands the housing challenges in his electorate and, indeed, around the country. He also knows that, after a wasted decade of those opposite, we haven't got enough homes in Australia, and we haven't had enough homes for quite some time. Indeed, we need to build more homes, more quickly, in more parts of the country. That's why we have an ambitious national target to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, from 1 July, through our Homes for Australia plan. We want to slash the red tape and train more tradies who want to ensure that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. That's why we're backing Homes for Australia with tens of billions of dollars. There has been $32 billion in new housing initiatives since we've come to office. They include a new $9.3 billion five-year agreement with the states and territories to help combat homelessness, provide crisis support and build and repair social housing. This includes, importantly, a doubling of Commonwealth homelessness funding every year, to be matched by the states and territories. Homes for Australia also includes a billion dollars in new funding for the states and territories for additional social housing supply and, importantly, for infrastructure needed to deliver more homes, more quickly. We're targeting another billion dollars, of course, in crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing family violence and for young people. This new funding comes on top of the announcement in the middle of last week, by the Minister for Skills and Training and me, of the $90 million to train more tradies. We need to boost the number of tradies in this country. We need more tradies to build more homes for Australia. This, of course, is part of our plan that includes our Housing Australia Future Fund, our National Housing Accord, our social housing accelerator, our new homes bonus and the Housing Support Program, all designed and targeted so that we can meet the ambitious target of 1.2 million homes right across Australia through our Homes for Australia plan. I say to those opposite: what is their plan? How many homes do they intend to build, and how are they going to fund it? That's the question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms COLLINS HWM Saying no is not the answer. Saying no to the Housing Australia Future Fund or saying no to Help to Buy is not the answer when so many Australians need support. Those opposite wasted a decade when they were in government. They made the housing situation worse. They can keep saying no to more housing. We're going to get on with the job, we're going to keep building more homes for Australians that need them, and we're going to train the tradies to build the homes. Whistleblower Protection 92 15:35 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, David McBride was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for the crime of telling the truth about war crimes. Why won't your government admit that our whistleblower laws are broken and commit to urgent reform to keep whistleblowers like Mr McBride out of jail? 15:36 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This matter, as the member has indicated, was finalised in the courts today. In the report, it also indicated that there would be an appeal to that before the courts. I'm not going to say anything here that interferes with a matter that is quite clearly going to continue to be before the courts, because we know what the consequences of that are. Budget 92 15:36 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget help to ensure the safety of people who work at Services Australia as well as the safety of Australians who rely on those services? 15:37 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Members in the House may recall that it was on 23 May last year at Airport West that Joeanne Cassar, a team leader, filled in for the one security guard at Airport West at lunchtime. She was stabbed by someone coming into the Centrelink office that day. I visited the staff the next day, and I caught up with her and her family by that Friday. Unfortunately, violence against our public servants is not as uncommon as it should be. Last financial year there were 9,000 assaults and acts of aggression. In the first six months of this year there were 6,000, 852 of them serious. There are 10 million Australian visits to Centrelink offices and Medicare offices. There are 6,000 people who work there, and governments have an obligation to keep both the users of the system and the workers safe. On the day after the attack on Joeanne Cassar, I asked Graham Ashton, a former top cop in Victoria, to cast a policeman's eye over how we can improve the safety in the system. He gave me recommendations within three months. At MYEFO last year, we announced a down payment of $46 million to keep people safe. I'm pleased to advise that in tonight's budget there will be $314 million extra over the next two years. This will lead to 606 extra security guards. There will be improved features of security at the offices that Australians visit. There will be improved liaison capacity with local police if an incident does occur. We'll be establishing, for the first time, a centralised security operations centre, with better CCTV and real-time monitoring of the 318 offices. We're also overhauling 35 of the busiest centres to improve the safety features of those which have the highest traffic. I should say, in talking about keeping people who use our social security and Medicare systems safe, that it is only a very small cohort of people from whom the most significant acts of aggression are drawn. These are people who are frequently, as we've seen in other situations in Australia, grappling with mental health and other matters. But we need to keep people safe. People have a right to go to work and come home safely. In addition, we're backing up tonight's announcement through the work of the Attorney-General and me to increase the penalties. At the moment, if you assault a judge you receive higher maximum penalties than if you assault a frontline public servant. I'm pleased to say, with the legislation that we have in the House, that if you attack a public servant, an ATO staff member or, indeed, an electorate staff member, there will not be a second-class set of penalties for these people. All people who work for the Commonwealth on the front line will be treated as equally important. This is part of our ongoing system to keep Australians safe. Asylum Seekers 93 15:40 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised the coalition's Operation Sovereign Borders would remain unchanged. Given there have been three illegal boat arrivals in the last week, has the Prime Minister lost control of our borders? How many people have drowned at sea since Labor took office? And how many women and children are in immigration detention under this government? 15:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. I can do no more than quote Rear Admiral Brett Sonter, who made it very clear in February when he said this: The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013: protect Australia's borders, combat people smuggling in our region, and importantly, prevent people from risking their lives at sea. He has gone on to make it very clear about funding, as has the ABF Commissioner, Michael Outram, and rebuking the opposition for some of their false claims. Commissioner Outram said: Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment in 2015 and in the last year the ABF has received additional funding totalling hundreds of millions of dollars, to support maritime and land based operations. Renewable Energy 93 15:41 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, why is investing in renewables important? Why is the government rejecting proposed plans for risky nuclear power stations in Australia? 15:42 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the terrific member for Newcastle for her question. Just a couple of weeks ago, she and I, along with the member for Paterson, had 600 Novocastrians calling for more renewable energy in the Hunter Valley. We do reject plans for nuclear power stations in Australia because they're too slow, too expensive and too risky. We know they're too expensive because they're the most expensive form of power, as study after study has shown. We know they're too risky for Australia because it would put more pressure on ageing coal-fired power stations, which are ageing and less reliable as they break down more and more often, and that is risky for our power system. And we know they are too slow to build. They take decades to build, and almost every nuclear power plant under construction anywhere in the world over recent decades has experienced very significant blowouts in time as well as cost. Sometimes nuclear power plants can blow out before they're even announced—they can blow out not just during construction, but in the announcement. The Leader of the Opposition was in Jamisontown on 21 March when he was asked when the opposition would announce their detailed plans for nuclear. He said, 'We'll have more to say about exact locations over the next couple of weeks.' He went on to say, 'We'll provide you with that detail over the next couple of weeks.' Now 'a couple' generally means two, but we'll give it a bit of leeway. That was nine weeks ago. The Leader of the National Party weighed in. He made a very tough statement, the Leader of the National Party. He made it very clear: 'We are not going be bullied into putting this out on any timeline.' They are not going to be bullied into a time line that they announced. The shadow minister cleared it up. He said, 'People have got to know you're not trying to cover things up; you've just got to be really open.' I'm very glad to hear that. They haven't announced their policy, but they briefed the Australian newspaper 16 times that their nuclear plan would be announced before the budget. We've got 3½ hours to go. I'll be waiting, watching the television for the alerts to come out from the Leader of the Opposition as they announce their plan. But if they don't announce the detailed plan today, they have another opportunity on Thursday night. Thursday is the Leader of the Opposition's big chance to come before the Australian people and announce detailed plans with costings, with locations, with details, with fully modelled and costed policies and tell the electorates and their communities in Australia where these nuclear power plants will be. Thursday is the chance for the Leader of the Opposition to do what he hasn't done in any other budget reply or, to be fair, any other speech, press conference or interview, which is actually announce a detailed policy. Economy 93 15:45 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Treasurer claimed inflation will be fixed by Christmas, despite the RBA having forecast that it will be higher for longer. How does the Prime Minister explain the difference between the Treasurer's forecasts and the views of the Reserve Bank and reputable economists like Chris Richardson and Warren Hogan? 15:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The quote was made up. There are two issues here. One is, of course, the budget tonight. The RBA forecast was before the budget. The budget tonight will indicate Treasury forecasts on inflation based upon the policies that we have put in place. One of the things that I have made very clear is that when the Expenditure Review Committee is sat down—unlike what those opposite did in the lead-up to the 2022 budget of former Treasurer Frydenberg, when they just splashed money everywhere, and unlike the declarations about being back in black, when a bunch of mugs held some mugs but that was all that happened—we have made sure that we've put in place the strong measures to produce a budget surplus last year of $22 billion confirmed and a projected budget surplus this year of $9.3 billion. That is what we have done. One of the other things we have done is to make sure that when we have considered cost-of-living relief we have done it in a way that provides support to people. That's why every single taxpayer will get a tax cut, not just some. That's why we've made sure that the measures that you'll see in tonight's budget are shaped in a way that will not put pressure on inflation—just as previous measures, all of them opposed by those opposite, like our energy price relief plan, have been found to put downward pressure on inflation, and like our cheaper childcare plan and our fee-free TAFE. They are some of the reasons inflation today is half of what we inherited. But the test for the Leader of the Opposition is on Thursday night to produce an alternative budget with costings, with policies and with a time frame, saying not just where the expenditure is going to occur but also how they're going to pay for it. They have made a whole lot of comments, including about restoring some tax cuts for very high-income earners back to their old levels. They said they would reverse the measures that we've put in place. The Leader of the Opposition said we should go to an election on it. So Thursday night is his chance to get out of the policy-free zone that he's been in and announce fully costed policies. Papua New Guinea 94 15:48 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Prime Minister. How is Australia building on our history with Papua New Guinea, and how did the Prime Minister's recent visit there serve to deepen our relationship? 15:48 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Solomon for his question and for his distinguished service. As an Australian, there are very few experiences that could be more humbling than to walk a part of the Kokoda Track, to be in the same place where Australians and Papua New Guineans fought desperately for the same thing at the time, which was home. Last month, in the lead-up to Anzac Day, I had the privilege of walking in the footsteps of giants. I was joined by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, James Marape, who became the first PNG prime minister to walk part of the Kokoda Track. I was joined by the governor of Oro Province, Gary Juffa. We started at Kokoda and we received welcomes at all of the villages that were just as warm as those people familiar with PNG would expect. This friendship between our two nations is about more than geographic proximity. It was cemented literally on the Kokoda Track all those decades ago—a friendship nurtured across generations. Throughout our journey, which was a relatively short one, I had the pleasure of meeting many Australians walking the Kokoda Track for the entire journey in what has become a pilgrimage in memory of and respect for those Australians who fought for our country. The landscape is beautiful, but it is challenging, as every member who's walked there knows so well. But at every step you reflect on those who were up against something unimaginably harder. In 1942, 625 Australians were killed along the track. The great artery of mud and suffering and perseverance holds such a special place of such power in Australia's shared memory and, indeed, the memory of PNG. So many Papua New Guineans helped Australians: troops, coastwatchers, shipping pilots, nurses and carers, villagers and stretcher bearers—angels, as they became known, walking tall through the hell of war. All this was certainly on my mind when we reached Isurava, the scene of the battle that claimed 99 Australian lives and wounded another 111 Australians. It was a solemn privilege to be there on Anzac Day to utter those important words: lest we forget. I want to acknowledge the ADF personnel and AFP and others who supported the trip. I want to acknowledge the porters who made the expedition possible, especially Bela. I couldn't have done it without him—that's for sure. PNG is our nearest of neighbours. It is an important relationship. We are the closest of friends, and spending that time with Prime Minister Marape was a part of demonstrating what a crucial element that relationship is in peace and stability in our region. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 95 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Budget 95 15:51 The SPEAKER 53517 I have a statement to make about proceedings for the budget and budget reply. I ask all members to note the usual arrangements in place for budget week and, importantly, the courtesies that will apply to the Treasurer's budget speech this evening and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply on Thursday evening. As with all proceedings of the House, the member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. In accordance with the precedent, should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. I ask all members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in good time to undertake the secondary security clearance and to be seated by 7.10 pm. I trust there will be cooperation from members and their invited guests in the galleries, for whom they are responsible. It should be the aim of all members that both nights proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and those Australians watching and listening to proceedings. To finish off: for the information of members, the speech clock will be on, but only as a guide. Standing order 1 provides that there is no time limit for the Treasurer or the Leader of the Opposition for this debate. I thank the House. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 95 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 21 to 26 for 2023 95 15:53 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 21 to 26 for 2023. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 95 DOCUMENTS Presentation 95 15:53 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 95 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Law Enforcement 95 15:53 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to keep our streets safe and our borders secure. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon This matter of public importance is incredibly timely because during question time the Australian Federal Police just issued a media release: A Sudanese man is expected to appear in Blacktown Local Court today (14 May, 2024) charged with allegedly failing to comply with his visa mandated curfew and maintain a monitoring device. The AFP arrested and charged the man, 35, yesterday … after locating him in western Sydney. It will be alleged the man breached the conditions of his Commonwealth visa between 9 May and 13 May … by failing to observe his residential curfew obligations and failing to keep a monitoring device in working order. The man has been charged with: One count of failing to comply with a curfew condition, contrary to section 76C(1) of the Migration Act … and One count of failing to ensure that the holder's monitoring device remains in good working order, contrary to section 76D(3) of the Migration Act … The No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the Australian people safe, and what we have seen, time and time again, is the failure of this government to do so. Last week, on Friday, we got the latest data on the government's commitment to keep the Australian community safe after the release of 153 hardened criminals, following the NZYQ case. What that data showed—and it was snuck out under the guise of another decision by the High Court, the ASF17 decision—was that, of the 153 hardened criminals that were released, fewer than half had curfew conditions placed on them and fewer than half had been required to wear an ankle monitor. Do you think we could find out why? No, we could not. We could not find out why—even though there was a commitment given in this place that we would be watching and monitoring and making sure the Australian community were kept safe after those 153 hardened criminals were released into the community—fewer than half had those conditions placed on them. Last week, I was in Perth. I went and visited Ninette Simons, and Ninette Simons wanted two questions answered. She wanted to know why one of her alleged attackers was required to wear an ankle bracelet and then that requirement was removed. She also wanted to know why, when bail was given to one of her alleged attackers, it was not opposed by the government. They are two fairly simple, straightforward questions. The one thing that she would like is a response to those questions. Sadly, as we know, there has been complete and utter radio silence when it comes to any of these questions and many, many more. As a matter of fact, as most members know on this side and as we read, to the frustration of those on the other side, the immigration minister went into hiding. Now the question is: Why did he go into hiding? Did he go into hiding because he has something to hide? I think that is another question that everyone in Australia would like answered, because it seems, whenever the going gets tough, whenever there is a requirement for ministers to front up, this minister just goes missing. There have been reports in the media that there is deep concern on the government side because this has interfered with their ability to get a clear budget message out. I understand their concerns with that, but it just shows you how misdirected their concerns are. Their concerns should be with the safety of the Australian people, not with their own budget message. It shows you once again that failure to keep the Australian community safe and to put the policies and procedures in place to do that. It's not just in relation to the release of those 153 hardened criminals that the Australian community are also getting more and more deeply concerned; there is also the issue of boat arrivals. In the last week we have seen three boat arrivals. In the last six months we have seen six boat arrivals. There are reports today that ABF are holding at sea the people who are on two of those boats while they try to work out what they will do with them. Do we know why? Do we think that the home affairs minister or the immigration minister has been out today, explaining what's taking place at sea? There has been nothing. Meanwhile, what are the people smugglers thinking? The people smugglers are thinking that we've got a weak prime minister. Had it leaked out on Sunday that the immigration minister would not be in his position come the middle of the year, the people smugglers would have seen an opportunity. We have a weak immigration minister who won't be in his job in a couple of months and a weak prime minister who won't deal front-on with this issue. The Australian people want to know when the Prime Minister and his ministers will front up and start taking these issues seriously. In question time today we asked the Prime Minister some very simple questions, one of which was: Prime Minister, have you lost control of our borders? Did we get a response? No, we didn't. We followed that with two more questions, one of which was: How many people have drowned at sea since Labor took office? We know, sadly, that the last time Labor were in office we saw people drown at sea. We saw hundreds drown at sea. No-one wants to see that happen again. We don't know whether it's happening again or not. We also do not want to see, in particular, women and children in immigration detention again, and we asked a question of the Prime Minister about that today. Did we get a response from the Prime Minister to those three very simple questions? No, we did not. This is the problem that we have at the moment: the government is not taking border security seriously. It is not taking seriously keeping the Australian community safe, and the Australian people are worried. Everyone has seen that a growing issue is the concern in the Australian community about their safety on the street. Not in all cases and not in all areas can the federal government reassure the Australian people, but in certain ways it can, and in these two important ways the government is not doing its job. I say to the Prime Minister: please, take your No. 1 priority seriously. Please, let's see in the budget a recommitment to putting back the funds that you stripped from Operation Sovereign Borders to make sure that that surveillance on the sea and in the air can take place, because the Australian people want to feel safe again. 16:04 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The opposition talk tough when it comes to border security and safety, but the reality is that they are full of hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. If you want to see that, look no further than this headline: 'Libs set free man charged with assault'. This goes to the case, which has been raised by the shadow minister, of the shocking alleged assault of a Perth grandmother in her home. It is one of the NZYQ matters that the opposition has been raving on about for months and blaming the government for. Well, the facts in this matter tell a very different story. The facts in this matter demonstrate the hypocrisy of this opposition when it comes to border security and safety. The person charged with this assault was sent to prison in 2018 for drug possession. These are the facts. In February 2019 his protection visa was cancelled. In June 2019 he was released from jail and transferred to immigration detention, but in January 2020, when the opposition leader was the Minister for Home Affairs, his visa was magically reinstated and he was released from immigration detention. Those opposite go on about the conditions of this person's release. But guess what? When the Leader of the Opposition released this person from immigration detention, do you think he put any conditions on that release? Not one. Do you think that there was any monitoring—ankle bracelets or anything like that? Not at all. Do you think there was any concern for community safety from the then home affairs minister and now Leader of the Opposition? Not at all. This person that was released by the Leader of the Opposition went on to commit further horrific crimes. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for home affairs have been banging on about this case for a number of weeks now, seeking to blame the government and to whip up hysteria and fear within the community. Here are some of the quotes that have been used by the Leader of the Opposition to whip up that hysteria: Well, under a Coalition Government, that won't happen. Under a Government I lead, as I demonstrated when I was Minister for Home Affairs, we make the decisions to kick these people out when they've caused harm against Australian citizens. I won't tolerate these people being in our local community … Well, it turns out that he did tolerate these people being in the local community and he did allow these sorts of crimes to happen. The question that the Leader of the Opposition has to answer is why he released this individual that went on to commit this horrific crime—allegedly. On 3 May 2024, the Leader of the Opposition said: It was negligent, reckless, hopeless … …   …   … If the Minister doesn't have responsibility here, I don't know who does. The question for the Leader of the Opposition is: why didn't you take responsibility when you released this person from immigration detention? On 30 April 2024—he wasn't done yet—he kept going: 'They're not Australian citizens and they should have been deported. This crime potentially could have been avoided. I don't for the life of me understand why these people are still on the street.' Well, you should know because you put them back on the street when you were the home affairs minister. On 11 May 2024, he went on: 'I don't think he should have been released without wearing an ankle bracelet. Now the minister has to take responsibility for that because they set up this process. We've said if this were us we would take responsibility for it.' It turns out that you didn't take responsibility for it, Leader of the Opposition, and you did release this person with no conditions and no monitoring. On 10 May 2024—and this takes the cake in terms of comebacks—Senator Paterson said, 'Peter Dutton hasn't released hardened criminals into the community.' It turns out that he has and that that quote was not true. So don't come in here and seek to whip up this hysteria about safety in the community and about a threat to safety of Australians due to asylum seekers being released from immigration detention. That was done under your government and it was done by the Leader of the Opposition. That is hypocrisy at its highest order. They make a big thing about protecting borders and being tough on border protection, but the reality is very far from the truth. When it comes to the integrity of Australian borders, we know that the former governments—the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments—had a shocking record and were basically asleep at the wheel. When we came to government we made sure that we did a check of the integrity of our border protection system, in particular our immigration and visa system. There were a number of independent inquiries that were commissioned by the Albanese government. We got esteemed Australians, such as Christine Nixon and Martin Parkinson, to have a look at what was actually going on when it came to border protection, and the findings were shocking. What they found was that under the previous government there was serious and systemic abuse of our migration system that led to serious crimes, including sexual slavery and human trafficking, being committed. The Nixon inquiry found there was dysfunction and poor management of the immigration system by the former government; in particular, abuse of the visa system. Much of that was occurring when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Home Affairs. It was on his watch. He was the one who was asleep at the wheel and allowing these shocking conditions to persist. We saw abuse of offshore processing, a regime that was basically being used as a slush fund by suspected criminals. There was shocking abuse of contracts—in particular, contracts awarded to allegedly dodgy individuals—under their watch. It was complete abuse of the migration system. Martin Parkinson's review of the migration system found that 'almost a decade of wilful neglect' occurred under the watch of the previous government. That is the record of the previous government when it comes to border protection and immigration. They ran a system that was dysfunctional and neglectful. They were basically asleep at the wheel. We are putting in place measures to ensure we restore integrity to our migration system and to the protection of our borders. That will take time, because it's a big job to fix the dysfunction of the previous government, but we are making those investments and making sure that we have integrity in our border system. We're also making investments to ensure that we keep Australians safe here in their communities. A big focus of this government is ensuring safer communities for all Australians. We've made some big investments in a safer future for Central Australia, in the wake of some shocking examples of crime in the Northern Territory, with a $250 million investment in programs there. That comes on the back of a $109 million investment in justice reinvestment programs to reduce crime recidivism amongst particular individuals. We're also ensuring that Australians of all faiths have the opportunity to live and practise their religion free of violence and discrimination, with $50 million for the Securing Faith-Based Places grants program. In the wake of 7 October, those shocking attacks in Israel, we acted by providing $50 million worth of funding for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Muslim community to ensure that they were supporting their communities and running programs to reduce hate, violence and discrimination. Even in the online world many Australians are now being attacked and facing harassment and intimidation. The government are acting to ensure that we keep Australians safe in the online space as well by reviewing Australia's online safety laws. We have a suite of policies aimed at restoring integrity to our migration system, protecting Australia's borders and keeping Australians safe, and ensuring that we keep Australians safe in our communities with all of these programs. We do this through policies, and many more of those will be outlined in the budget tonight. The question for the opposition is this: you talk tough, you come in here with your rhetoric, you seek to point fingers, but where are your policies? Where are the policies that will keep Australians safe in the future? You won't hear anything of that from any of their speakers today. 16:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina If Ninette Simons were able to watch this—and I don't know how her eyesight is after that terrible attack on her on 16 April—she'd be very upset. She'd be very disappointed, because what she would see is probably politics at its worst. She would see those on that side blaming us, saying, 'It was their fault.' Australians deserve better. They just deserve better, and they're not getting it at the moment, and Labor is in government. You can't explain it to a 73-year-old Perth grandmother who has cracked lips, who has a bruised forehead and whose face is purple from the bludgeoning that she took on that terrible night when three men arrived at her doorstep pretending to be police officers. They were pretending to be people who the community should be able to trust. That attack should not have been perpetrated. It's just beyond belief that, indeed, it was. People like Mrs Simons deserve better. Labor is in government, and Labor should be doing better. We all should be doing better. We all should bring about policies that protect people like this 73-year-old grandmother, who says that she doesn't feel safe in her own home. When you are in your own home and someone comes to the door and shows a badge and says they are a police officer, in Australia, in 2024, you should be able to believe them. Yet, she's been let down. She's been let down by all of us. She has. And it is simply not good enough. In November 2023, the High Court overturned a 20-year-old precedent which had underpinned the migration policy of governments on both sides. It's just simply not good enough that the High Court—I know we have to separate court and parliament, but it's simply not good enough because we make the rules that they follow, and we should have been onto this earlier. As a parliament, we should have been making sure that detainees who have violent pasts should not have been allowed out into the community. I can remember this parliament at its best when we had a case of pins in strawberries. Some maniac was going around putting sharp objects into strawberries. We came together in a bipartisan way and introduced emergency legislation to stop that. Then, we had the situation—I've been here a while—where we had the Russians wanting to build an embassy within the parliamentary triangle, which was far too close to this building. Again, we were at our best when we came together in a bipartisan way to put in legislation which stopped that process and made sure that we put Australians and Australian interests—national security—at the forefront. We've got to be better than this. We've simply got to be better than this. We hear that we've got another illegal boat arrival. The other side say: 'Well, it's Howard's fault. We put in place measures.' I've got to say that under the Howard government the boats stopped. They started again in the Gillard-Rudd years. When you've got people being washed ashore on Christmas Island—drowned victims of failed policies—we've got to be better than that. As a parliament, we should have been better. We should have pre-empted what the High Court was going to do and come together and put in policies that would have prevented what we're seeing now, and that is detainees out, causing mayhem in our communities. It's simply not good enough. The first job of government is to keep Australians safe. Labor is in power. Labor is in office. Labor is in government, and it's on Labor's watch to do better. If there are good policies, we'll support them. If it means keeping Australians safe, we'll support it. Do better! 16:19 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Words spoken in this chamber ricochet around this country, and they tear at our social fabric. A few moments ago, I saw the shadow minister for immigration stand up and discuss a detainee who had been released on an order by the High Court of Australia and how he had breached his monitoring conditions. But that's not exactly what he said. What he chose to do—and it was a choice—was to add the prefix of this man's ethnicity. This man was a Sudanese man. There was no need to introduce this man's ethnicity into the mix, and let me tell you why. I know what racism looks like. From the moment my skin started to darken, which was when I was a baby—I was born white—racism has stalked me my whole life. But it is much worse for people who do not have the privilege of being in the House of Representatives. It is much worse for marginalised groups in this country, like the Sudanese community, a group of proud Australians who have come to this country to rebuild their lives, fleeing a war which has gone on for decades, which is now classified as a genocide. These people have made significant contributions to our country—people like Nyadol. These people have given back to this country and raised it up. I want to read something out to you: THIS week, another Sudanese youth was bashed in a racially motivated attack. Kevin Andrews could have been a force for good by appealing to the generosity of spirit within Australians towards the underdog. Instead he has stirred xenophobia and racism. As the Minister for Immigration, he should be building bridges between people, not further marginalising them. A politician in a moment can irreparably damage the reputation of a people and sour any goodwill between them and the broader community, but what recourse do they have against the crushing might of the Federal Government? Many African refugees have survived unspeakable suffering that most of us can never really understand only to come to a country and have a federal minister inflict another hell upon them for political gain. Mr Andrews you caused this mess, now fix it. Who wrote that? I wrote that. I wrote that in 2007. It was published in a newspaper, the Age. I've seen this movie before. This debate demeans this House, and it demeans this nation, which was built off the back of migrants—waves and waves of migrants who have come to this country fleeing wars and conflicts and unspeakable horror, like the Holocaust and genocides in Sudan. These people live and work and walk among us. In fact, one in two Australians were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. In Higgins, that number is 32 per cent. You are weaponising this issue, which you know full well was a decision made by the High Court. This parliament scrambled to try and put guardrails around the discharge of these people into the community. We did our level best, and we thank the opposition for working with us. But now you choose—and it is a choice—to weaponise this by demonising and dehumanising asylum seekers. They are people fleeing conflicts. People in my electorate care about that stuff, and so do most Australians. Why? Because we all know immigrants. We all know refugees. We all know people who have rebuilt their lives after fleeing elsewhere and coming here. The tone of who we are as a country is very much laid out in this building and in this chamber. You can choose what complexion that should be. Is it going to be the face of racism and xenophobia? Or is it going to be one of inclusion, warmth and care? That is what I experienced as a child migrant coming to this country. It is what enabled me to thrive, and it is what I see us Australians as. 16:24 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I feel most obliged to speak on today's MPI, because my electorate of Durack is probably impacted the most by this Albanese Labor government's failure to secure our borders. Over the weekend, it was reported that four more illegal boat arrivals had reached Broome. This marks the fourth time in just six months that illegal boat arrivals have reached the Western Australian coast covering my electorate. I'm extremely proud to represent northern Western Australia, and let me tell you that I am sick and tired of this Albanese Labor government putting my constituents in harm's way. I regularly receive correspondence from constituents of mine saying that they are worried about the enormous risk these arrivals present to northern Western Australia, particularly in terms of safety, public health and biosecurity. I am concerned by the risk of serious diseases entering northern Western Australia through these unauthorised arrivals. If rabies, foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease was to reach Australia, it would have a devastating impact on our environment as well as our agricultural and pastoral industries. The Prime Minister needs to take this issue seriously before we are crippled with a serious incident, or a return to the large-scale illegal arrivals that occurred under the last Labor government. We simply cannot let that human tragedy happen again. This latest arrival, along with others across Australia last week, means that there have now been 17 attempted people-smuggling ventures to reach Australia under the Albanese government. During our time in government, we stopped the boats. We had nine years of safe and secure borders. But now it appears we are in danger of returning to the full-scale people-smuggling operations that took place under the disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. You would think those opposite would have learned their lesson from their last term in office, which saw 50,000 illegal boat arrivals in a 820 boats, and, tragically, 1,200 deaths at sea. Unfortunately, it is clear that those opposite have learned nothing. Just as Rudd dismantled the Howard government's policy, the Albanese government has undermined Operation Sovereign Borders, which cleaned up the mess they had left us when we came to office in 2013. They have abolished temporary protection visas and are planning a cut of some $400 million in border security funding over the next three years. Incredibly, just as illegal boats are arriving, patrols across north Australian waters are decreasing. Aerial patrol hours have reduced by 20.7 per cent, and maritime patrol days have decreased by 12.2 per cent. Let me tell you: I'll be paying very close attention to the Treasurer's speech tonight and to the budget papers, to see if their planned cuts will be reversed, and to see if they will be any more resources to defend and patrol northern Western Australia. That is what my constituents are crying out for. The people that I represent deserve nothing less. Of course, the government's immigration failures reach much further than reduced patrols or cuts to border security. Their response to the NZYQ ruling of the High Court has been one of the greatest examples of government incompetence on record. Late last year, the government released 152 hardened criminals into the community. This included seven murderers, 37 sex offenders, and 72 people who have committed very serious crimes. This was a mess from the start, with no plan from the government to protect the community from these criminals. There were simply plopped into hotels, right across Australia, and allowed to come and go as they pleased. The minister for immigration and the Minister for Home Affairs need stand up and both take responsibility for the numerous failures that they have overseen. Also front and centre, with regard to community safety, is a growing issue of radicalisation and antisemitism. In recent weeks we've seen two attacks motivated by religious extremism. We've seen the Minister for Education refusing to condemn the 'From the river to the sea' chant and we've seen the government reward international acts of terror at the UN. It is shameful. The foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister should both hang their heads in shame. The government has made it crystal clear that only the coalition can be trusted to keep our borders secure. 16:29 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Fact: facts matter. First, Defence officials have confirmed that Operation Sovereign Borders is operating identically to when it came into force in 2013. There's been no change. Every attack by those opposite on Operation Sovereign Borders is an attack on the men and women who are patrolling our borders, who are doing the work to keep this country safe. Fact: Border Force funding is at its highest since it was established, in 2015, and tonight's budget will confirm even more. The shadow minister started this MPI by saying that a man had been charged for not complying with his monitoring device, and the member for Higgins made the very good point that his ethnicity was unnecessarily mentioned. The fact is: if a man has been charged for not complying with his monitoring device, that shows the system is working as intended. A person has been given a monitoring device. They've allegedly broken the rules and conditions of that monitoring device. Police have charged them with an offence, and they'll now go through the justice process. That's how the system is meant to work. What alternative do those opposite think there is to this? Somebody is given a monitoring device, and then what? The High Court has determined we can't place people in indeterminate detention. The High Court struck down the law that those opposite brought into being. I must say our side defended it and also had it in operation, but it was a law that those opposite brought into being, and the High Court determined the law to be unconstitutional. So the law is working as intended. Facts do matter. The shadow minister and the member for Durack have both referred to 153 'hardened criminals'. That's simply factually wrong, but it is repeated and repeated until people forget that it's wrong. It just gets repeated as if it's fact, and it's not right. Some of those people absolutely are hardened criminals, with very serious charges and very serious convictions, but some of them are not. Not all of those 153 people are hardened criminals, and you shouldn't call a person a hardened criminal if they're not one. Facts matter. The shadow minister says he met Ninette Simons and her husband, Philip, when he went to visit Western Australia. I can tell you: the heart of every member on this side of the House is with that couple. Nobody should have to face what they had to endure—no matter their age, frankly. Clearly an assault occurred. There's an allegation as to who committed the assault, but clearly the couple were attacked. It should not have happened, and our thoughts are with them. It was an appalling attack. But when the shadow minister was in Western Australia did he tell Ninette Simons that one of the men charged with assaulting her had been released into the community—without condition and without monitoring—by the government that he was a member of? The shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been all too happy to run to every microphone they can possibly find to try to pin that appalling alleged attack onto this government because one of the men who's been charged was released as a result of the High Court decision. Almost with glee they've been running to the media to try to do this. But, now that it's been discovered that the other man charged with that alleged assault is somebody they released, there's radio silence from those opposite. It's an appalling politicisation of a terrible incident that should never have occurred. I do agree with the member for Riverina that the couple have been failed by society generally—that in the comfort of their own home this could possibly occur to them. News.com.au has reported that Labor's bid—and I'm quoting the reporter here. Actually, I'm going to run out of time. I will sit down. 16:34 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the matter of public importance that's been brought by the member for Wannon, on the government's failure to keep our streets safe and our borders secure, and I thank the honourable member for bringing it. The federal government's first priority must always be to keep its citizens, our community, safe; to keep our streets safe and our borders secure. This government, led by the Prime Minister, with home affairs minister, Minister O'Neil; and immigration minister, Minister Giles, has failed on this most important priority. They have failed Australians as a result. I turn particularly to the failure so far on Operation Sovereign Borders. This operation has been repeatedly undermined by this government since it came to power two years ago. It's all very well for members on the other side to be talking about what the coalition may or may not have done, but they have now been in power for two years, and there is the direct evidence we now have that asylum boats have started to return. We've had six boat arrivals now in as many months—six that we know of. This shows again Labor's chronic border failure. We had media reports yesterday that four unauthorised maritime arrivals were found in Broome on Friday. This represents yet another shocking failure of border protection under the Albanese Labor government. It follows recent reports of 33 illegal boat arrivals at Christmas Island and five in Far North Queensland in the last week alone. This is now the 17th—the 17th!—attempted people-smuggling venture to make the journey to Australia under the Albanese government. Again, this is the 17th that we know about. This latest attempt comes after the Labor government have demonstrably and repeatedly weakened Operation Sovereign Borders. This has happened in three ways: they've abolished temporary protection visas, they've cut funding to border security by over $400 million and they have reduced aerial monitoring and on-sea surveillance by 20 per cent and 12 per cent respectively. How can this be anything but a weakening of what was a solid Operation Sovereign Borders? It's the latest in a cascading set of failures under the current government that have left Australians feeling less safe, less secure and less certain. If we turn to the immediate boat arrivals and those that have happened in the past, Labor has a history of weakness on border security. We just have to remember 2007 when, under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the government lost control of Australia's borders. Let us really hope that this Prime Minister is not following the example set by Prime Minister Rudd, because, back then, the Labor government was responsible for, arguably, the greatest humanitarian tragedy and policy failure in modern Australian history. We know that at least 1,200 people, including children, died at sea during that period and that 8,000 children were forcibly placed in detention. This is not something that we want to be returning to, but the asylum seekers are now seeing a weaker government—a government that's weaker on border security and two ministers that are weaker. That is a pull factor. We also have three previous immigration ministers who were part of that weakening: Chris Bowen, Tony Burke and Brendan O'Connor oversaw that humanitarian tragedy, and they're still sitting in cabinet—presumably with influence over the weakening of Operation Sovereign Borders. Let's now turn to NZYQ. Of course Minister Giles has no control over a decision of the High Court. What Minister Giles does have control over is meeting with his department and receiving legal advice about important court cases that are coming up. That would have been far more important than running off to Labor conferences in the UK when the High Court back in June had given an indication that it was likely to find the way that it did. So the minister was on notice, but the minister wasn't responsible; he didn't meet with his bureaucrats and didn't take proper legal advice. A lot of these criminals that have now escaped should have been locked up. 16:39 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Let's just call out this shameful episode for what it is: this is an opposition that is, quite frankly, devoid of ideas, devoid of any kind of policy and devoid of direction. What they are doing is making a pitiful attempt to claw and draw attention to what is an incredibly serious situation. We know that no Australian should ever live in fear in their own home, whether it be from someone who is pretending to be an officer of the law or whether it be someone that they're in an intimate relationship with. It is awful to see a woman on the television with a face blackened and bruised. The only thing that is worse than that is watching an opposition make hay from it in the media. It is truly despicable. The fact that it is again being brought up in parliament as a matter of public importance today, to try and make political points, really is the nub of this matter today. I only have to look across the chamber and see barely a handful of people here. If this opposition were so hell-bent on drawing attention to this matter of public importance they would all be here, but they aren't. The issue is this: they love nothing more than to light a flame under a pool of fear and watch the flames rise, because they know that when Australians are worried and nervous it somehow draws power to them. Let me say that the contributions of people like the member for Higgins, who spoke today, are in complete contrast to that argument. She gave calming words and said, 'Australia can be better and bigger than the xenophobic, paltry debate that we've heard from those opposite today.' It truly belittles us as a country when people try to score politically from things that aren't good but should be treated with so much more strength and dignity. For the members newly elected on the other side: when they speak about our government and what we've done, know that we have been in government for two years and we have not abolished any of the Border Force protections they proclaim that we have. In their term of government, when boats arrived—and they did—we didn't hear about them; they were conveniently described as 'on-water matters' and never spoken of. Those opposite weren't transparent, and somehow, by the cover of darkness and deceit, they thought they were getting away with it. Well, they weren't. Australians need to remember that when we came to government we had to deal with a backlog of one million immigration applications. There was so much work that had just been left undone or ignored. Quite frankly, they don't really care about keeping our borders secure. What they care about is their own positions of power. By setting off fear in the Australian public, they perceive that they can keep that power. Well, we're not fearmongering. We're over here responsibly and diligently setting the policy, doing the work and working within the parameters of the law. Incidentally, some of the laws those opposite put in place have been found wanting by the High Court. What we are doing here is providing sensible, stable government. We know there are challenges. We know there is difficulty. Many parts of the world are in a perilous state. People do seek asylum, and it is challenging and difficult. But, rather than just trying to create this smog of fear, we are diligently and responsibly working through the challenges that we face. We are doing our best, and our best is so much better than anything those opposite could ever offer. I say to the Australian people: it isn't easy, but we are working hard for you and we are keeping you safe. We want Australia to be a safe and secure nation. 16:44 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's a great privilege to be able to stand and speak this afternoon on the MPI about the government's failure to keep our streets safe and our borders secure, moved by the member for Wannon. And I want to acknowledge the fine contributions made by members of the coalition on this matter today. It has been a long-held tradition that the MPI is a topic that the opposition brings to the House for debate and consideration. At the fundamental core of this debate is trust. It's the same trust a child has when looking for safety—that trust they have in their parent. It's the same trust that should exist with the Australian public in their government—that trust that exists when it comes to keeping their streets and borders safe. But on too many unfortunate occasions we have seen this government, time and time and time again, erode that trust of the Australian public—that trust that should be lock fast, that trust that should allow them to sleep of a night without fear of their home being invaded. That trust is paramount to this debate. That trust was eroded on 200 occasions when this government indicated that they would give a $275 electricity cut. That's when the trust started to be chipped away. Mr Perrett HVP You promised me $500. Tony Abbott never delivered it. Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Can I just take that interjection? Those on the other side, since I've been in the chamber, were not interrupted once by a member of this coalition. And I'm talking about trust that the Australian public should have in those on the other side. I can understand why they take umbrage, the member who interrupted, that person on the other side—they are who they should least trust. We had a cost-of-living crisis whereby on 13 occasions the Australian public could not trust this government. Then we saw that we couldn't trust this government when there was a $450 million spend on a referendum where not one state responded positively to what the government were asking the public to put their faith in. But, closer to this debate: trust was betrayed when the 300 detainees were let out. Rightly, there was a comment from those on the other side about not all of those detainees being hard-core criminals. But there were seven murderers, and there were 37 sex offenders, and there were 72 violent offenders, of the 149 that were released on that charter. Not all were hardened criminals, but we don't put our best and brightest into detention centres. That's the fact. We heard those on the other side talk about—or feign indignation at—racism. This is not a debate about racism. This is a debate about whether the Australian public should feel safe, and they don't; they do not feel safe. There have been 17 boat arrivals since this government came into office. Each time one of those boats arrives the Australian public's trust in this government is eroded—and it should, rightly, be eroded. That's because this government has signalled to the people smugglers that the Australian Labor Party is open for business for them. The Australian public will have their opportunity to square it up on border security at the next election in terms of whose policies worked and whose failed. There was a comment from the other side, from the last speaker, that we are 'devoid of ideas'. Well, let me paint a policy position in the mindset of the Australian Labor Party—an idea that worked extremely well for us when we were in government, and that was a campaign to stop the boats. 16:49 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Well, we find those opposite doing what they do best, especially when it comes to their nine long years in government. We're seeing another attempt by those opposite at lulling themselves into a false sense of security when it comes to their record. Leading those opposite into this trance-like state of cognitive dissonance was, of course, the member for Wannon. Their constant demonstrations of historical revisionism in this place are effectively an ironclad guarantee that they are doomed to repeat each and every mistake—and I say the word 'mistake' quite charitably as an exercise in restraint. It is curious that the member is leading the MPI for those opposite today. You would think the member for Dickson would use every opportunity to cosplay as a strongman. In the same way, his love of secrecy as a minister allowed him to spend many years at the cabinet table flying under the radar, cosplaying as competent during the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Liberal governments—the grand architect of many small and large mistakes. Many of those have already been disinfected by the sunlight of a government that believes in transparency and accountability. I'm sure the best is yet to come! Watch this space! The moment he showed the Australian people he could smile when those pearly whites were out on display after he resigned from the final Turnbull cabinet must have all been an act. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't be continuing to uncover and correct the litany of mistakes made under the Dutton regime, particularly through his time as Minister for Home Affairs. I'm sure he will brush aside any and all kinds of criticism like this, but I know that deep down that glistening smile he has in his wheelhouse turns upside down. The time limits placed on MPI debate speeches make it quite hard to provide granular detail on the worst of the worst or even to have enough time to put the member for Dickson's legacy into a BuzzFeed style list. But I will name just a few examples of the member for Dickson's direct contributions to national security and a safe and cohesive society. We will start with some of the more recent examples and, time permitting, move on to dessert. The first example was the review handed down by former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Christine Nixon AO, into the abuses of Australia's visa system. Another review was conducted by former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson, whose assessment of his and his government's job of protecting our borders is 'almost a decade of wilful neglect'. We also had the review conducted by former director-general of ASIO Dennis Richardson, whom those opposite probably describe as a big lefty as a result of the report. What the review found to have occurred on our borders under the Leader of the Opposition's watch borders on horrifying: giving contracts to companies whose leadership were involved in everything under the sun, from bribery to drug smuggling, arms trafficking, money laundering and even attempting to avoid US sanctions in place against the Iranian government. I can certainly sympathise with the latter. I'm sure all of us here try to avoid US sanctions on Iran, although this is mostly accomplished by not having any personal or business dealings with high-ranking Iranian officials. I'm sure those opposite believe that all these things make up the secret sauce of keeping Australia safe and secure. They believe that to defeat a criminal you have to think like one. The Department of Home Affairs under the Leader of the Opposition's watch certainly assembled the Avengers, paying them handsomely. I'm sure they all appreciated getting something close to, by their standards, an honest day's work. The Leader of the Opposition's record on border security is a lot like the TV show Scandal: you can expect at least a scandal every episode. Sadly, that show ended years ago, but, thankfully, the opposition leader's time as a minister and a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet did as well. The reality is that the Albanese Labor government has invested millions more into national security and protecting our borders compared to the time in government of those opposite, not that long ago. Those opposite will pretend to hear the Treasurer deliver his budget address later tonight, but they will still thump their chests and deny these self-evident facts. No wonder those opposite want to see a nuclear Australia. They need something to distract geiger counters stuck in the same room as the opposition leader. MOTIONS 103 MOTIONS Climate Change 103 16:54 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today for the suspension of standing and sessional orders by the honourable member for Melbourne, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 97 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Belyea, J. A. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Burnell, M. P. Byrnes, A. J. Caldwell, C. M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Kennedy, S. P. Keogh, M. J. 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. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. 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'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Tehan, D. T. Templeman, S. R. Thompson, P. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 105 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 105

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

Second Reading 105 17:06 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham In continuation from my previous remarks, I'd like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for drawing attention to the reversed burden of proof in the proposed amendments to subsection 92(1) of the ASIO Act. The amended subsection 92(1) provides a defence where the ASIO identities were published with the written consent of the minister or of the Director-General of Security. The burden of proof for this defence is considered to be reversed in the existing section and is now explicitly reversed in the proposed amendment. The publishing of ASIO identities has a very real prospect of resulting in harm to ASIO staff and affiliates, and it should only be done with the absolute greatest of care. In the 75-year history of ASIO it's only been done a handful of times. My view is that if an individual who has published ASIO identities has received the written required consent it is entirely reasonable to expect them to be able to produce that consent when required. I've provided to the scrutiny of bills committee my response, which contains additional information. The bill reflects the government's commitment to the security of our society and our country and to ensuring the legislation that underpins the actions of the national intelligence community is robust. I commend the bill to the chamber. I would like to provide to the parliament an addendum to the explanatory memorandum which I referred to in my second reading speech. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 105 17:08 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 105

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

Second Reading 105 17:09 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney The fabric of our society fundamentally shifted the day TCN9 in Sydney began testing their broadcast television transmissions, on 16 September 1956. It would take them just six weeks to begin officially broadcasting, on 27 October that same year. HSV7 in Melbourne followed quickly, broadcasting to viewers on 4 November 1956. That was followed by ABV2, and then GTV9 on 19 January 1957. For many years, however, ownership of a television set was rare, with a 23-inch black-and-white TV expected to cost around 6,000 pounds in the 1960s, or half of the then average income of 12,400 pounds. Regardless, by the time commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle on the moon's surface on 20 July 1969, the world had become accustomed to gathering around the box both to be entertained and to see the news for themselves. It is not an understatement to say that, since then, many of the most important events of our times have been witnessed directly thanks to these free broadcasting services. I have very personal memories of the transition from radio to television, with some of my earliest recollections being of hearing the show Dad and Dave on the radio as my parents listened to it in the morning. Whilst the radio stayed on over breakfast, our family routine quickly expanded to include a gathering around the old black-and-white TV to watch the rugby league on a Saturday afternoon. The quality of broadcast was not always universal, and I remember the time we spent with my Aunty Sis in Broken Hill and watching her television screen, which was covered in red cellophane in the hope that it would somehow make the grainy grey snowstorm image behind it decipherable. In 1975 something extraordinary happened. Those images, which had previously only been seen in black and white, exploded in colour. Many kids, including myself and my siblings, were hooked. In the 50-odd years since, the quality and style of broadcast has become unrecognisable from those early days, with my kids rarely sitting down in front of an actual television set to watch anything. Rather, their laptops, their phones, their iPads and other personal devices have become their key point of consumption, and that brings us to the legislation in front of the House today. The channels through which broadcasts are delivered have evolved, as have the players in the field of content provision. Where once geographical distances restricted what could be viewed and where, images and content now stream around our planet on a constant basis. In this context, I believe the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 is an important piece of legislation as it protects the public interest and ensures Australians can continue to access free programming on their TVs. However, I would argue that it could be strengthened in a number of ways, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. These include retrospectively applying the prominence framework to existing TV sets; extending the prominence requirements to search functions; extending the protections afforded by the antisiphoning scheme to prevent not only subscription broadcast services but also subscription streaming services from acquiring rights ahead of free-to-air broadcasters; and reducing the time frame for this legislation to take effect to 12 months from the passing of the bill. To date, the interests, laws and players that govern what people see on their TVs and when they see it have not really drawn a lot of public attention. Rather, people have continued to consume their programming in a way that fits their lives with little regard to how that content is being dished up to them or who is responsible not only for its production but for putting it within their line of sight. Again, my experience here is personal. For me as a child, my time in front of the television was limited and it was dominated by Australian created content, which was mainly educational in purpose. It was Play School, Romper Room, Mr Squiggle and Skippy, with cartoons such as Scooby-Doo and Looney Tunes providing the animated content. Fast-forward to my own children, and kids' content had expanded to a deafening roar, streamed 24/7 and available on a multitude of devices. It was iCarly, Teletubbies, In the Night Garden, Thomas the Tank Engine, Brum, and the difference was brought into stark contrast for me when I observed my beautiful four-year-old daughter making videos on my iPhone in which she spoke with an American accent. It seemed her consumption of Nickelodeon had taught her that the drawl that comes with being American was standard when it came to entertainment. As anyone who knows me will tell you, I'm a fierce defender of human rights. By respecting everyone's human rights, I believe we create a society that is fairer, where all are treated equally and all have a responsibility for their own actions. So it may seem at odds with who I am to be standing here and speaking in support of this legislation today, as some have criticised it as a veiled attempt by the government to control what the population consumes by way of broadcast content. But I see this legislation differently. I see it as a protection mechanism to ensure that, as the content-streaming world explodes globally, our Australian culture and our right to free-to-air content are not lost. Free-to-air TV broadcasters provide services in the public interest, from news programs to local stories and children's shows which reflect Australia's evolving national personality. Why should an entertainment organisation not based in our country, nor committed to our values, be able to position itself ahead of our free-to-air channels? Why should people who purchase a new television made overseas be offered content that is only available behind a paywall as the first option when they start their new television? Surely it's only fair that the content already produced here and available free of charge should be front and centre, and easy to find. This bill seeks to implement a public policy of ensuring that Australians can access coverage of culturally significant news and events on television for free. It seeks to ensure widespread access to information regarding local issues and events, and thus enables Australians to participate in public debate and democratic decision-making. It introduces a prominence framework which sets minimum requirements that manufacturers of internet-connected televisions and television-like devices must meet regarding the accessibility of free-to-air television content, ensuring Australian television channels are prominently displayed on new devices. It also amends and modernises the existing antisiphoning scheme to address the risk of significant sporting events migrating behind paywalls on online streaming platforms. In an era dominated by the rapid spread of mis- and disinformation, and at a time when the cost-of-living pressure on all Australians is evident, this is exactly the type of legislation our government should be introducing. In reviewing the legislation, I concur with others that the fact it increases the likelihood of events being broadcast for free is a really good thing. I understand the arguments that this benefit is at the cost of other media content providers—and, potentially, sporting organisations themselves—but I'm comfortable that the public benefit and public need outweigh these concerns. Even as an event is broadcast through free-to-air, the availability of that broadcast confers a financial benefit to the free-to-air channel which, in turn, can be sold by them to commercial partners. The circle of investment therefore should continue to flow. Giving free-to-air broadcasters the first shot does not give them the right to lowball a potential partner. I also do not shy away from saying that which is produced locally and costs nothing to consume should be given priority on all home screens for all viewing devices, both new and existing. I understand that the real estate on those devices is valuable to those who manufacture them, and I understand that these manufacturers want to reap these potential commercial benefits. But, from my perspective, the establishment of that market should not be the result of the incursion of ongoing and unnecessary expenses for Australian consumers, so I wholeheartedly support the prominence framework suggested in this bill. I also support calls for the onus of carrying local contents apps to be placed on the manufacturers, rather than on the free-to-air broadcast providers as, ultimately, if you wish to bring it to Australia then I believe you should meet our standards and our nation's needs. This bill is a step in the right direction for Australia's prominence and antisiphoning framework, but I do believe it could be strengthened significantly to protect the public interest and to ensure that Australians can continue to access free programming on their televisions. Firstly, the government could consider expanding the prominence provisions of this legislation to cover existing sets. Sets are updated regularly over the air by the TV platforms and set manufacturers, making retrospective applications of these provisions technically possible. Without applying the prominence rules to existing sets retrospectively, it will take an excessively long time for these changes to have any real impact. In that time, literally thousands of Australians could end up paying for content that is in fact free elsewhere. As such, both existing devices and newly supplied devices that fall within the definition of 'regulated television device' should be subject to the new prominence regime. Secondly, I believe the scheme should also regulate prominence within search results. Right now, if you search for a program that is available on free-to-air TV by using your smart TV search function, the free version won't necessarily be the first search result you see. In fact, you might not even know the program is available for free because there is no requirement to feature free-to-air content prominently in the search function. This could be fixed by extending the prominence requirements to search functions, and I urge the government to consider this change. Thirdly, to ensure smart TV apps can access free Aussie sport, the antisiphoning provisions should be extended to cover both terrestrial broadcasts and free streaming rights. Anyone who has moved into an apartment built in the last five years in North Sydney will not have access to an aerial and so will need to watch free-to-air sport services via streaming, yet the bill currently only protects aerial-delivered broadcast rights. Changes in technology mean the antisiphoning scheme, which is long past due, should be expanded to ensure Australians are not required to pay for a plethora of subscriptions and services to watch iconic sporting events. To achieve this, free-to-air broadcasters should be afforded priority in acquiring not only the rights to broadcast listed sporting events on TV but also the rights to retransmit that content on their free on-demand broadcast services. Finally, I would make one last appeal of the government, which I will be moving an amendment on—that is, to shorten the time for these provisions to come into effect. As it stands, manufacturers will have 18 months to implement this transition, after which they will be required to ensure the prominence obligations have been met. However, manufacturers have been aware this change was coming for some time now, and experts have suggested the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months. This is not a hardware issue, with much of the prominence cases controlled by software—and, as we all know, software updates happen frequently and seamlessly. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts may declare many of the changes required could be made effectively within days through a server update, and it should be possible for manufacturers to manage the software switch within six months and certainly within the 12-month time frame recommended by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Given this, I then asked, 'Why delay?' To leave it for 18 months is to see thousands of Australians potentially subscribe to a service they do not need, as the content they are searching for is already available for free on an existing Australian free-to-air network. In the next 18 months, there will be elections in the United States, in Canada and at home, and Australians should expect to have easy access to impartial, localised news coverage. To those that argue against this legislation, saying it is anticompetitive or an attempt by our government to control what our population views, I say, 'Tell them they're dreaming.' Australians would be the first to yell, 'Not happy, Jan', if they realised they had been led to pay for something they could otherwise have seen for free. So let's get this legislation right and let's get it done now. 17:22 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank honourable members who contributed to the debate on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-Siphoning) Bill 2023. This important legislation was introduced by the Albanese government because we want all Australians, regardless of where they live or what they earn, to be able to access free, high-quality and diverse media services and programs, including sports, that reflect our unique perspectives and identity as a nation, and we want our homegrown media entities to be able to compete on a level playing field. The measures contained in this bill support those outcomes. I particularly acknowledge and thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee members for their consideration of the bill, and the stakeholders that contributed to the process. The committee inquiry was comprehensive and provided the opportunity for all interested parties to outline their views on the bill along with the draft prominence regulations and the draft antisiphoning list, which were released to assist the inquiry. The Albanese government has carefully considered the views raised through the inquiry and the recommendations made by the committee. I will now provide the government's response to the recommendations and proposals raised through this process. The committee recommended that the antisiphoning provisions be passed and that the prominence provisions be passed subject to five specific recommendations. Its first recommendation was that the minister for communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the prominence framework and/or a reduction to a 12-month time frame. The government supports this recommendation and has carefully considered options for the phased introduction of the prominence framework and the potential to reduce the application time frame to 12 months but has not adopted this approach for a number of important reasons. The prominence framework is novel in Australia and remains a relatively novel intervention in overseas markets. This dictates a relatively prudent approach to the commencement of any new regulations. The television device market is global and involves long lead times for the design, development, manufacture and distribution of devices. In the interests of Australian consumers, elected representatives should avoid passing laws that may result in manufacturers withdrawing from the Australian market or offering a more limited range of devices. There also needs to be a period of time for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to establish the operative and detailed elements of the framework, including in relation to the devices to be regulated and the description and requirements of the primary user interface used on these devices. The 18-month application period specified in the bill seeks to accommodate these factors and to strike a balance, delivering a meaningful prominence outcome without unduly impacting on manufacturers or giving rise to unwanted outcomes. The government does not intend to make any amendments to this timing. In its second recommendation, the committee recommended that the Minister for Communications and the department prioritise the implementation of radio prominence on devices such smart speakers. The government supports the committee's recommendation in principle. The principle that Australians should be able to easily access local services holds equally true for radio as it does for television. Radio services play a crucial and unique role in keeping Australians informed and entertained, particularly in remote and regional areas of the country. However, although there are some parallels between radio and television in relation to prominence, there are also a number of important differences in terms of technology interfaces and consumers' needs and expectations. It is important that we consult fully on any potential regulation for radio prominence and seek views from consumers and the sectors that may be affected. The government is preparing a consultation paper on radio prominence that will be released shortly. The third recommendation of the committee's inquiry report focused on the regulation of online services provided by free-to-air broadcasters. The committee recommended that the Minister for Communications amend the bill to extend free-to-air codes of practice to online services. The government notes this recommendation but will not need to amend the bill as envisaged by the committee. However, the government recognises the need for reform in this area. There are clear gaps and imbalances in the regulatory framework applying to media content services in Australia. Traditional broadcasting services—television and radio—remain heavily regulated, while streaming video-on-demand services, including those provided by the broadcasters themselves, are subject to little if any regulation. This imbalance is something that the government intends to address as part of its broader media reform program, but this is not something that can be done easily or quickly through an amendment to this bill. Doing so would significantly delay the passage of the bill and withhold the benefits that the prominence and antisiphoning measures will deliver for Australian consumers and industry. The committee's fourth recommendation was that the Minister for Communications, on advice from the department, amend the bill to allow the review of the prominence framework to be conducted within two years of implementation, as necessitated by rapid technological change. The government supports this recommendation in principle. The Senate committee inquiry highlighted the rapid and accelerating rate of change in media markets. While we need to allow time for these new regulatory arrangements to be bedded down, it is also vital to assess their impacts and effectiveness when feasible. The fifth recommendation of the committee was that the Minister for Communications consider, either before or as part of the prominence framework review, other related reforms in the industry to reflect the growing role of the internet, online service provision and consumer behaviour. The government supports this recommendation in principle. As I outlined earlier, the government is committed to a program of work to modernise media regulations and fulfil the legitimate expectations of consumers and industry for consistency, transparency and equity in our regulatory environment. A key focus of our media reform program will be to calibrate our regulatory and policy settings to harness the benefits of online media, while ensuring that consumers are adequately protected from potential harms and that key policy outcomes continue to be delivered. The government will be progressing various streams of work to support this outcome over the coming months. Other notable issues were raised in the inquiry process and have been carefully considered by government. One such issue is the question of whether the prominence framework should explicitly exclude gaming consoles. The government is supportive of including a reference to gaming consoles in the revised explanatory memorandum as a type of device that is unlikely to be designed for the primary purpose of facilitating the viewing of audiovisual content. However, this shouldn't be codified in the bill, as the framework needs to retain the flexibility to accommodate changes in the role and intended purposes of devices over time. Another significant issue is the question of whether to extend the antisiphoning scheme to prevent the acquisition of any right until a free-to-air broadcaster has both a broadcast and a BVOD right. The government does not support extension in this manner and acknowledges the concern around this issue as well as the need to balance other considerations, such as the interests of other media services and the financial sustainability of Australia's sporting codes. The government is mindful that evidence of recent rights deals shows that where a free-to-air broadcaster has acquired a broadcast right, they have also successfully secured online rights for their BVOD service in many instances. The bill is a key component in the government's overall media reform program. These reforms will support a media sector that keeps us informed, reflects our diverse cultures and perspectives, upholds and respects community standards and provides equitable access to services for all Australians, irrespective of where they live or what they earn. I call on members to support the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 109 17:31 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 13 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months". (2) Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (line 7), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months". The amendments I'm moving today would shorten the timeframe for the prominence provisions to come into effect to 12 months after the bill passes. As the bill currently stands, manufacturers would have an 18-month transition period, after which they would be required to ensure that their prominence obligations have been met. Having reviewed the views of many stakeholders, the submissions made to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the recommendations of that committee, I believe it is both appropriate and feasible to fast-track the prominence provisions. Specifically, the Senate committee, after thoroughly examining this legislation, recommended: … that the Minister for Communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe. Manufacturers have been aware of the proposed prominence obligations for some time now, giving them time to consider necessary preparations. Additionally, many of the changes necessary to meet the prominence provisions are controlled by software rather than hardware. So, while many of the manufacturers will be meeting the needs of the global marketplace, the truth is that the software is tailored to where the device is landing. As we all know, software updates happen at a sometimes frightening and frequent pace. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts made it clear that many of the changes required could be made, effectively, overnight through a server update. In fact, some experts have suggested that the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months—six months sooner than the amendment that I am moving actually proposes. But, given the Senate committee's recommendation and given everything that I have heard, my amendments propose that the timeframe be shortened from 18 months to 12 months, because the truth is this: for every month that we delay, we risk Australians paying for content that is actually otherwise available to them free of charge because we simply don't have the prominence framework right in this nation. 17:33 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for her interest and engagement in these matters. I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee recommended that the government consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and/or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe. I have given this recommendation close consideration. I remain of the view that the 18-month period in the bill strikes a balance between a range of factors. Firstly, the prominence framework is novel, and an 18-month implementation timeframe is a prudent approach to the commencement of any new regulations. Secondly, the bill interacts with global manufacturing and distribution supply chains, with long lead times involved in the design, development, manufacture and distribution of devices. Manufacturers need a reasonable timeframe to adjust to the new framework. Thirdly, there needs to be a realistic period of time for the regulator, the ACMA, to establish the operative and detailed elements of the framework. This market is evolving rapidly, and connected TV devices are not homogenous. For these reasons, the government will oppose this amendment. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 13 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Watson-Brown, E. 61 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hill, J. C. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Pearce, G. B. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:43 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (5), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Ms ROWLAND 159771 I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 5 to 9), omit subsection 130ZZJ(5), substitute: Broadcasting video on demand service applications (5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), an application is covered by this subsection if: (a) the application is designed for the purpose of providing access to a particular broadcasting video on demand service; and (b) the application is provided by: (i) an entity mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv); or (ii) an entity that provides a specified service that the Minister determines under subsection (2) is a regulated television service. (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit subparagraph 130ZZL(1)(a)(ii), substitute: (ii) the main interface most commonly used to provide access to applications that make audiovisual content available on demand using a listed carriage service; and (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "3 year period", substitute "2 year period". (4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (line 12), omit "8,760 hours", substitute "4,368 hours". (5) Schedule 2, item 4, page 33 (line 8), omit "5 year period", substitute "2 year period". As I noted during the second reading debate, this is an important piece of legislation, and it's important that we get it right. The inquiry conducted by the Senate committee has enabled the bill to be carefully considered. The government's amendments will address a number of issues raised through the inquiry process, clarify the operation of certain provisions, tighten definitions and bring forward the statutory reviews of the two regimes. The first three amendments relate to the prominence framework. Amendment (1) will clarify the definition of a regulated television service to make it clear that broadcasting video on demand, or BVOD, applications that are afforded prominence under the framework are those that are provided by the free-to-air broadcasters or other entities specified by the minister. This amendment will ensure that prominence is not inadvertently given to applications that happen to provide access to a regulated BVOD service but are provided by another party. Amendment (2) will tighten the definition of the primary user interface, which is the part of a regulated television device on which free-to-air broadcasting services need to be made available. The bill as introduced provides a flexible definition of 'primary user interface' to accommodate the fact that these interfaces are not homogeneous and vary between devices. However, the current reference to BVOD services in the definition means that a manufacturer of a regulated television device would not be prevented from placing free-to-air BVOD services on a separate and lower tier of the primary user interface, compared to other audiovisual services such as paid subscription based streaming services. The proposed amendment would address this risk and ensure that free-to-air broadcasting services are treated no less favourably than comparable services. Amendment (3) will bring forward the timing of the review of the prominence framework to commence as soon as practicable after the end of two years from commencement and application of the new arrangements, rather than three years as in the bill as introduced. The committee inquiry process highlighted the rapid technological and consumer changes that are occurring in the television market, and this amendment will enable these developments and the operation of the new framework to be assessed at an earlier point. The final two amendments relate to antisiphoning. Amendment (4) will reduce the time before events are automatically removed or delisted from the antisiphoning list from 12 to six months. The increase in this period from six to 12 months in the bill as introduced was intended to bring the delisting period in line with the commercial reality of media rights acquisition, where media rights deals are typically settled more than a year in advance of the event taking place. However, through the committee inquiry process, the concern was raised that extending the delisting period may lead to protracted rights negotiations and put at risk the ability of Australians to see sport for free. The amendment will address this risk and retain the current six-month delisting period as it is under the current scheme. Amendment (5) will bring forward the timing of the review of the antisiphoning regime to as soon as practicable after the end of two years from the commencement of the new arrangements, down from a five-year period in the bill as introduced. Expediting the time frame for the review will enable these developments to be considered at an earlier point, while affording sufficient time to assess the operation of the new arrangements and the impacts on industry and consumers. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 111 17:47 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 112 COMMITTEES Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee 112 Report 112 17:47 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Strengthening Australia's approach to trade negotiations. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GEORGANAS DZY by leave—Australia is a leading participant in international trade. Continuing to trade with the world will be essential to generate new and diversified trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses. An open approach to trade is fundamental to the success of many Australian industries, including supporting one in four Australian jobs. Our network of trade agreements breaks down the barriers, fostering secure and well-paying job. Trade contributes to 31 per cent of our economy, enhancing resilience and raising living standards. In undertaking this inquiry, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth observed that the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements has largely served Australians well over many decades. However, it was evident that we must continue to adapt and improve our approach so that we can ensure that our participation in international trade is of the greatest benefit to all Australians. The inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements was adopted on 9 August 2023, following a referral from Minister Don Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, and the final report was completed on 29 April 2024. We had 54 written submissions, which were received from businesses, industry groups, unions, associations, government agencies, community groups and academics. Eight public hearings were held across the nation, in Canberra and Melbourne and virtually as well. Throughout the inquiry, the committee was particularly drawn to evidence emphasising the need to better ensure that trade agreements are genuinely within the national interest—that is, providing an overall net benefit to Australia rather than benefits only to certain interests or particular sectors. While trade brings substantial benefits to many Australians, it has the potential to have widespread impacts, with some experiencing costs and being disadvantaged. Investor-state dispute settlement clauses are some of those things which were contained within our trade agreements, and we'll actively engage in processes to reform existing ISDS mechanisms. Our approach has been to include rules in trade agreements that maintain Australia's high labour standards and give Australian workers a fair go. We understand the importance of ensuring that trade commitments do not unduly weaken domestic policy objectives or the ability of the Australian government to make decisions in the interests of its citizens. The committee is of the view that more robust processes to identify the potential impacts of trade agreements would be highly valuable. To this end, there should be comprehensive, in-depth and independent modelling and analysis as well as wider assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts to determine whether trade agreements are in the national interest overall. Such impact assessments should consider the implications of Australia's trade commitments in areas such as health, gender, labour and human rights, as well as for regional communities and First Nations people. Further, to facilitate enduring benefits of trade for Australia, it is also imperative that the national interest is not a one-off assessment. Rather, it must be re-examined using real-world experience as part of the practice for regular review or agreements. Robust processes for determining the national interest are vital to ensuring that public confidence is maintained. We want to work in Australia's best interests when following through our commitment to open international trade. This remains more important than ever in the face of significant challenges arising in the global trade environment over recent years. The committee's report makes eight recommendations to strengthen Australia's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements, including by undertaking independent modelling and analysis of each proposed or under-review agreement; establishing a consistent approach to evaluating agreements, including conducting broader assessments of economic, social and environmental impacts; seeking to include human rights, labour and environmental chapters in agreements that, where appropriate, contain specific references to relevant international standards; seeking to not include provisions in agreements that waive labour-market and skills-testing requirements or investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, provisions; pursuing the inclusion of provisions in agreements that protect and promote First Nations intellectual property; and establishing a legislative framework to guide some elements of the negotiation of trade and investment agreements. The committee's final report builds on its interim report, which was published earlier this year and made five recommendations, including transparency, accountability and oversight in the process for negotiating Australia's trade and investment agreements. I'd like to thank all the businesses, union groups, industry bodies, government agencies including DFAT, community groups and academics that provided the written submissions and appeared at our public hearings throughout the inquiry. I'd also like to thank the secretariat for their hard work on this inquiry, and, of course, I'd like to thank my fellow committee members: the deputy chair, the member for Wright; the member for Lyne, who's here as well; and other members who participated. I'd also like to thank all the witnesses that appeared before the committee. I commend the report to the House. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 113 17:54 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2024-25. I thank the member for Solomon for being so deeply interested in this topic that he has promised to stay for the entire statement, which is a credit to the House! On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, and the Parliamentary Budget Office, or the PBO. The committee is required under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and the PBO, respectively, and to make recommendations to both houses of parliament regarding these estimates. This required statement on behalf of the committee is in advance of the budget being handed down and is an important transparency measure that informs the parliament and the public on the adequacy of the ANAO's and the PBO's resourcing. The committee considers both offices vital in supporting the work of this parliament and in strengthening integrity and transparency in public administration. I was counting today: this is actually the ninth time I've delivered this statement, which is a testament to how well my parliamentary career is going! We'll aim for 10! The committee has carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and the PBO's draft budget estimates and has resolved to endorse them subject to further review of the costings and final estimates, which may be agreed with the Department of Finance. The ANAO received supplementations in both the 2021-22 and 2023-24 budgets to deal with acute cost pressures, but it is not requesting any additional funding in this budget. As outlined in its budget submission to the committee, however, the ANAO will require funding in future years if it is to meet both its legislative requirements and its other outputs under the present framework. This is due primarily to the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend which currently applies to the ANAO. I would just say that the committee has resolved—and this will take a few minutes, but we have a few minutes—to fulfil our legislative requirement and make some detailed comments on this for the record. For many years, over successive parliamentary terms, the committee has been grappling with the sustainability of the ANAO's long-term financial position and the risk arising to its operational independence and ability to perform its vital statutory roles at an appropriate level of output. In plain English: I'm a Victorian and I lived through the 1990s. I saw what happened when the then Kennett government effectively tried to nobble their then auditor-general by slashing the budget. That's what these mechanisms in the Commonwealth legislation aim to avoid. For the coming financial year, though, the ANAO can draw on accumulated reserves to meet its resourcing requirements. However, it has become clear to the committee, in discussions over many months regarding the ANAO's funding models and protections, that its current financing model is not sustainable over the long term. The ANAO is a relatively small agency and has a legislative mandate to undertake financial statement auditing—that's mandatory—alongside a set of other agreed outputs. Notable of those are performance audits, which are the things which attract the most public attention, and, more recently, a new third limb, if you like, in auditing the performance statement auditing. Financial statement auditing has to meet very strict Australian Accounting Standards and can involve unavoidable unforeseen costs. When the auditor finds something, they're obliged to go and spend money to dig into it. There is no discretion there and there is no discretion about the quality standards they have to meet. Mr Gosling 245392 Uh-huh. Mr HILL 86256 Thank you for the noises there, member for Solomon—I feel validated! Although the ANAO has invested in technology and in-house capability to improve efficiency and to reduce costs, it has been demonstrated over multiple terms of parliament that it is simply not possible for the ANAO to bear the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend without reducing outputs which can only occur in the performance audit program. Indeed, the impact of the efficiency dividend has been the key driver of prior supplementary funding requests. Conceptually, the committee considers that the efficiency dividend need not, and should not, apply to the ANAO. The efficiency dividend is a reasonable tool of executive government, both to free up resources in departments of state and similar entities for new priorities of the government of the day and also to send the management signal of fiscal discipline. Fair enough. But evidence gleaned over multiple terms of parliament demonstrates that it is simply not possible for the ANAO to accommodate the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend without reducing its performance audit program below the number agreed to be optimal on a broadly bipartisan basis, which is 48 performance audits per annum. Late in the last term we conducted the 10-year review of the Auditor-General Act. We went up hill and down dale and pulled apart that number, and it came back to 48. Everyone agrees that 48 is the right number, but, if the efficiency dividend keeps eroding the base, the Audit Office has no choice but to start reducing that number. Hence, for some decades now, an inevitable ritual dance has developed where every few years—we're getting there now—the ANAO moves into a budget deficit and then properly indicates that it has no choice but to start cutting the performance audit program. In response, as part of the dance, the government of the day eventually provide supplementary funding, sometimes with, and sometimes without, political drama. The application of the efficiency dividend is predicted by the ANAO to have a cumulative budgetary impact of $10.9 million between 2024-25 and 2027-28. This is not a new issue. Back in 2008 the JCPAA commented in report No. 413 entitled The efficiency dividend and small agencies: size does matter: The ANAO saves the Australian taxpayer significant sums of money each year through reduced opportunity for fraud, better accountability and improved agency performance. Saving small sums on the ANAO's budget only costs the Government larger sums later on. I'll note that, for the record and to be clear, I was not on the committee at that time and had nothing to do with the title of the report! The value to the Australian government of a robust audit function is significant, as it fosters and drives efficiency, effectiveness and accountability throughout the public sector. The committee notes with interest, and relays to the parliament here, that the New South Wales government permanently excluded integrity agencies from an efficiency dividend, from 2022-23, to safeguard their future independence. It did so in response to recommendations by the Public Accountability and Works Committee of the New South Wales parliament. It has been the presumption in different quarters for many years that an efficiency dividend drives efficiency in a sustainable manner, as applies to the ANAO, but this is simply not borne out by the detailed analysis and the facts. The strong and considered recommendation of the committee—and I'm embodying this statement to the parliament—is that the ANAO should simply be excluded from future efficiency dividends. Doing so will maintain the performance audit program at the level broadly agreed to be necessary and thereby enhance efficiency and effectiveness in Commonwealth entities. This approach will also avoid the periodic circus that I referred to and political drama about cutting the audit program—and, believe me, in opposition I dined out on that, and it was a terrific 12 months—before additional funding is inevitably provided by the government of the day. In addition to enabling the ANAO to better absorb market-based cost increases in the conduct of its mandatory financial statement auditing functions, removal of the efficiency dividend will help it to reach that target of a discretionary 48 performance audits per financial year—a number that we recommended be funded, as I referred to earlier, in the Auditor-General Act. The final paragraph on this point, you'll be pleased to know, is that the JCPAA recognised that, at that time, resourcing of the ANAO was not adequate. But at that point we did not have sufficient evidence to justify a recommendation to remove the efficiency dividend. The committee now takes a different view on this. However, following the additional considerations and detailed analysis that we've conducted—fascinating and scintillating, I can assure you they were—the committee regards it as the simplest and most effective first step in ensuring the ANAO's financial sustainability. In essence, that would avoid the periodic wasted effort of justifying the obvious with analysis and business cases, and the political circus of accusations that the government is cutting the Audit Office budget, before it's inevitably restored. I'll also note that we finalised our analysis and provided that to the government too late in the budget process, so we're not setting any test for this budget. But we are putting it on the record for transparency that, in future years, that would be the simplest way to stop this goldfish-in-the-bowl circus that we seem to have created. We've also got a statutory responsibility to convey to the parliament the following information about the Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO's estimated expenses for 2024-25 amount to $10.371 million. The committee notes, from the PBO's portfolio budget statement, under the strategic direction section, that its expected resourcing for 2024-25 will make it challenging for the PBO to maintain its service levels for parliamentarian requests, as well as to meet its publication and election related responsibilities. The committee has understood for some time that the principal continuing budgetary issue facing the PBO has simply been the sustained increases in demand for its work across the parliament. It's maturing as an organisation. We have a very active parliament and we have a very active crossbench. That's also coupled with the depletion of its special appropriation fund from $6 million, allocated at its inception, to around $1.8 million now. Although the PBO should continue to meet most of its fiscal requirements from its departmental appropriation, this special appropriation has represented a crucial buffer for it to manage risks to its operational independence in meeting unexpected costs, including the heightened demand for its services in recent years. The committee has supported the replenishment of this fund in previous budgets but acknowledges and accepts the recent advice from the Department of Finance that, as it was created to assist the PBO through its establishment phase only, a new policy proposal is required to obtain additional funding. The committee therefore supports the PBO's request for additional funding of $1.1 million per year over four years from 2024-25, and ongoing thereafter, and the establishment of a $3 million special account to provide a reasonable measure of ongoing fiscal independence from executive government and resources to call upon if needed, subject to appropriate rules regarding access to the special account. The JCPAA confirms its continuing support for the PBO in its role in providing valuable information and analysis to all parliamentarians to better inform public debate. I thank the Acting Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their work in support of the parliament and the JCPAA, and committee members for their thoughtful and detailed consideration of these budget requests. The final word I'd just note is to record in the House proper—we've done this through committee hearings—the thanks of the parliament to the previous Auditor-General. He served as an officer of the parliament, a very rare designation, with distinction for 8½ years. The Auditor-General can be appointed under the legislation by the Governor-General for one 10-year term as an officer of the parliament. The work the Audit Office does is not for the executive; it's on behalf of this parliament, both houses, to scrutinise the executive. Grant Hehir, the former Auditor-General, is one of Australia's finest and most distinguished public servants, who served us with distinction. We wish him well in retirement and thank him also for his work in supporting the committee over many years. I seek leave to present a copy of my statement and executive minutes on reports Nos 495, 497, 498 and 499 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 I present a copy of my statement and executive minutes. Sitting suspended from 18:07 to 19:31 BILLS 115 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 115

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

First Reading 115 Second Reading 115 19:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On this Ngunnawal land I acknowledge all of the First Nations people of this country and the custodians, customs and cultures which guide and inspire us. This is a budget for the here and now and it's a budget for the decades to come. It's a responsible budget that helps people under pressure today—and invests in the promise and potential of the more prosperous future we can make together. Our main priorities are: Helping with the cost of living. Building more homes for Australians. Investing in a Future Made in Australia—and the skills and universities we'll need, to make it a reality. Strengthening Medicare and the care economy. And responsible economic management, which is set to produce another surplus and help fight inflation. This government and this budget delivers for every Australian: A tax cut for every taxpayer. Wages growing in every industry. A better deal for every working parent. A fairer go at every checkout. New help with energy bills for every household and for small business. Stronger Medicare in every community. More homes in every state and territory. More opportunities in every TAFE and university A dignified retirement for older Australians. Energy and industry policies that help bring the jobs of the future to every corner of our country. An economic plan where growth and opportunity go together. A government and a budget for every Australian. E conomic outlook This budget is framed in fraught and fragile global conditions. The world economy is resilient in parts but subdued overall. Inflation is lingering in North America, growth is slowing in China and tepid in Europe, tensions have escalated in the Middle East and persist in Ukraine, global supply chains are fragmenting. This uncertainty combines with cost-of-living pressures and higher interest rates to slow our economy, with growth forecast to be just 1¾ per cent this financial year and two per cent next. Slower growth means a softer labour market, with unemployment expected to rise slightly to 4½ per cent next year, even as we create tens of thousands of new jobs. I want Australians to know that despite everything coming at us, we are among the best-placed economies to manage these uncertainties and maximise our opportunities. We have an envied combination of moderating inflation, record new jobs, near-record participation, real wages growth, the lowest-ever gender pay gap, and expanding business investment. Annual inflation has more than halved from its peak in 2022 and it's now lower than anticipated in the mid-year update, but we know that people are still under the pump. That's why we designed our cost-of-living policies to ease these pressures and take another three-quarters of a percentage point off inflation this year, and half a percentage point next year. Treasury is now forecasting inflation could return to target earlier, perhaps even by the end of this year. At the same time, around 780,000 jobs have been created under this government, a record for any first term. This is stronger jobs growth than in any major advanced economy. Real wages are growing again for the first time in almost three years. Business investment is now expected to record its longest annual expansion since the mining boom. And we're addressing the pressures caused by population growth, with net overseas migration next year now expected to be half what it was last year. Easing cost - of - living pressures The No. 1 priority of this government and this budget is helping Australians with the cost of living—responsible relief that eases pressure on people and directly reduces inflation. The comprehensive cost-of-living plan in this budget: Delivers a tax cut for every taxpayer. Provides new power bill relief for people and small businesses. Freezes the cost of medicines. Makes student loans fairer. Boosts competition in our economy so families and farmers get a fairer go. And supports renters as well. Tax cuts for every taxpayer Our new tax cuts for Middle Australia are the biggest part of the cost-of-living relief in this budget. From 1 July, all 13.6 million taxpayers will get a tax cut, and for 84 per cent of taxpayers and 90 per cent of taxpaying women a bigger tax cut than they would have under the previous government. This is about rewarding the hard work of our nurses and teachers and truckies and tradies, and the 2.9 million people earning $45,000 a year or less, who would have received nothing. The average benefit is $1,888 a year, which is $36 a week. Our tax cuts are better for families, communities, women and young people; they are better for business and they are better for the economy. New power bill relief In 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine triggered the biggest shock to global energy prices since the 1970s. We know Australian families and businesses have felt this pain—and that's why we've stepped in to help. Electricity prices would have risen 15 per cent in the last year if not for our efforts—instead they rose an average of two per cent. Tonight, I assure Australians that more help is on the way. This budget delivers $3½ billion in new energy bill relief—for everyone. Just as every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut, every Australian household will get energy price relief. From 1 July, Australians will receive an energy rebate of $300—and one million small businesses will get a little bit more. The ABS has shown how cutting energy bills directly cuts inflation too, keeping the lights on for families and businesses—and keeping downward pressure on inflation. Cheaper medicines Labor governments make Medicare stronger and we make medicines cheaper. We are providing up to $3 billion for cheaper medicines and the community pharmacies that distribute them. And we are freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions—for everyone. This year and next year, no-one will pay more than $31.60. But six out of 10 PBS scripts go to pensioners and concession cardholders, and we will freeze the cost of their medicines, for five years—meaning no pensioner, no concession cardholder will pay more than $7.70 for the medicine that they need. We're also investing $3.4 billion to add life-changing and life-saving medicines to the PBS, cutting the cost of one breast cancer treatment from around $100,000 down to $31.60. Debt relief for students Going to university can be a life-changing opportunity. For 35 years now, our student loan system has supported millions of people who study hard to chase their dream. But spikes in inflation have exposed a flaw in this system—and put young people under unfair pressure. We are fixing that and we are changing that so that it won't happen again. We are capping indexation of student loans to either the consumer price index or the wage price index, whichever is lower. Backdating it to the middle of 2023 will cut indexation from last year in half. It will wipe $3 billion in student debt for over three million Australians and save the average person around $1,200. A fair go at the check - out We know that Australians are feeling the pinch at the check-out. That's why we empowered the competition watchdog to hold supermarkets accountable. That's why we're taking steps to make the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory and making our economy more competitive across the board, by strengthening the mergers regime, abolishing nuisance tariffs and reducing compliance costs for business. Because more competition means more choices, lower prices, better services and better jobs. More help for renters Rising rents are another big part of the inflation challenge, and we're supporting renters who need our help. We are providing $1.9 billion to increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent. This is on top of the 15 per cent increase delivered in our last budget. It's the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years, and more much-needed help for young people and for renters of all ages doing it tough. Building m ore h omes f or Australians We're easing the cost of living and we are building more homes for Australians. In the five years from this July, we aim to build 1.2 million of them. Our goal is ambitious, but it's achievable, if we all work together and if we all do our bit. $6.2 billion in new investments means our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan will: Clear local infrastructure bottlenecks. Provide more housing for students. Fund more social and affordable housing. And we'll also deliver better transport for better access to suburbs, cities and regions. Infrastructure that supports more homes More homes means more affordable homes and a better deal for buyers, builders and renters alike. The current housing pipeline is backed up. We've already allocated $3½ billion to address bottlenecks and slash red tape, and this budget includes another $1 billion to help states and territories build more housing sooner. And we're providing $89 million for 20,000 additional fee-free TAFE and vocational places to train more construction workers to do the work that we will need. More housing for students Australia's international education sector is a national asset. But, for too long, enrolments have grown without being matched by an increase in student housing supply. This puts pressure on prices and rents, especially in our cities and suburbs. It makes finding housing harder for everyone. We have a more substantial and more sustainable approach. If universities want to take more international students, they must build more student accommodation. We will limit how many international students can be enrolled by each university based on a formula, including how much housing they build. More social and affordable housing Tonight's budget delivers an additional $1.9 billion in loans to help build 40,000 social and affordable homes. We've also secured the national housing agreement, which would otherwise have run out. We're building more remote housing in the Northern Territory. We're doubling funding dedicated to addressing homelessness. And we're directing $1 billion towards accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for youth. Better transport for cities, regions and suburbs Building new homes will mean building new connections to community as well, so people can find good jobs and count on reliable transport close to where they want to live. We're investing in vital projects to build new transport networks across every state and territory, including a new rail link that will bring the communities of the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane together; opening Western Sydney to the world, with $2.3 billion for better infrastructure and the new international airport; and $102 million to upgrade regional airports and remote airstrips, better connecting remote communities to essential services. Investing i n a f uture m ade i n Australia We are building more homes and we are helping people now. And we're also building an economy that will position our people to benefit from the opportunities of the decades ahead. The world is committed to net zero by 2050. This will demand the biggest transformation in the global economy since the industrial revolution. Australian energy can power it. Australian resources can build it. Australia's regions can drive it. Australian researchers can shape it. And Australian workers can thrive in it. Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package will help make us an indispensable part of the global net zero economy, a crucial part of a growth agenda which is all about: Attracting investment in key industries. Making our country a renewable energy superpower. Strengthening our defence capabilities and our economic security. Supporting small business to grasp the opportunities of our transforming economy. And expanding and reforming tertiary education for a more skilled workforce. Attracting investment in key industries To realise the opportunities of a Future Made in Australia we're changing the way we attract and deploy investment in our economy. A new act and a new framework will impose the rigour, focusing investment on transformational opportunities and setting conditions to ensure that investors benefiting from our incentives are supporting their people and communities—to lift private investment in skills, in workers and workforces, and in local supply chains. We will create a front door for investors to accelerate and coordinate transformational projects; establish a domestic National Interest Account that adds discipline to investments in the national interest; and strengthen and streamline approvals—across environmental, planning, cultural heritage and foreign investment. Making Australia a renewable energy superpower We know that the global energy transformation presents a golden opportunity for Australia. The world is changing, and the pace of that change is accelerating, and our approach to growth and investment needs to change as well. If we hang back, the chance for a new generation of jobs and prosperity will pass us by—and our people will be poorer and our economy will be more vulnerable as a consequence. This budget invests in our renewable energy superpower ambitions, including: $13.7 billion in production tax incentives for green hydrogen and processed critical minerals, so industries are rewarded for scale and success; the $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, to develop new industries like green metals and low carbon fuels; and $520 million to deepen net zero trade and engagement with our region. We're also allocating $566 million to map the geological potential of our entire country, to get a comprehensive picture of our critical minerals and our groundwater. Strengthening our defence capabilities and economic security In a world of rapid economic change and heightened strategic competition, investing in modern defence industries serves our economic and national security interests. That's why we're injecting $50.3 billion over the decade to deliver the capabilities we need to keep Australians safe as part of the National Defence Strategy. We're also boosting economic resilience and strengthening our supply chains, giving Australian firms the chance to manufacture more of the next generation of solar panels; moving our nation along the critical minerals value chain through investing in battery production; and backing the Australian creators of the world's first commercial-scale quantum computer. Support for small business In defence, in energy, in resources and right around our economy we want Australian small businesses to share in the big opportunities ahead as well. That's why we're extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off until 30 June 2025, providing $290 million in cashflow support for up to four million small businesses, and investing $625 million to help farmers and rural communities reduce emissions and better prepare for climate change and drought. Expanding tertiary education To seize the transformative opportunities of a more modern economy, we will expand the opportunity and reach of tertiary education to more Australians in response to the Universities Accord, because it shouldn't matter whether you live in the suburbs or the regions, whether your parents are rich or poor, whether you were born with disability or grew up with disadvantage, or whether you're a First Nations Australian or a first-generation Australian—the chance and the choice to go to university or TAFE should not be out of reach. Tonight we are setting a national target of eight out of 10 workers achieving a tertiary qualification by 2050, and we're backing it in with new funding reforms to meet this goal. We're investing $350 million for fee-free uni-ready courses. These courses give those who would have missed out on studying a degree a foot in the door. And we're paying students in critical sectors like nursing, teaching and social work to do the practical placements which are such an important part of their studies. We're also investing $500 million in skills for priority industries like clean energy, construction and manufacturing, and supporting women to build careers in these fields. These landmark reforms will improve the quality, affordability and sustainability of the tertiary education system and drive lasting, transformative change for our students and for our economy. Strengthening Medicare a nd t he c are e conomy One of the best and one of the most important things about our country is the way that we look out for each other and look after each other. Our health system and our care economy are central to this. That's why in this budget we are: Strengthening Medicare, and mental health. Delivering better, stronger aged care. Making the NDIS fairer and more sustainable. And boosting wages in the care economy. Strengthening Medicare The purpose and promise of Medicare is world-class health care every Australian can access and afford, and the foundation of that is bulk-billing: bulk-billing GPs in family medical centres and bulk-billing consultations in our new Medicare urgent care clinics. Since June last year almost 400,000 visits have been made to our 58 clinics in suburbs and regions all over Australia. Almost one in three visits have been for kids under 15. And, because these clinics open early and close late, more than one in three visits were outside normal working hours. In this budget we're allocating $227 million for a further 29 Medicare urgent care clinics, taking pressure off emergency departments and making it easier for Australians to access free health care. Making Medicare stronger also means doing better on mental health. That's why we're investing $361 million to strengthen our mental health system, including new funding for a national digital mental health service that will provide free support to 150,000 Australians a year. Better, stronger aged care As more Australians live longer and healthier lives, demand for our aged-care services is growing, and the sort of care we need is changing. We will invest another $2.2 billion in aged care and we'll implement more of the royal commission's recommendations, including $1.2 billion to improve systems so our aged-care services remain accessible, up-to-date and reliable. Ensuring dignity and security for older Australians means allowing people to choose the care that's right for them, including staying in their own home. That's why we're investing $531 million for another 24,000 home-care packages, giving more Australians that choice. Making the NDIS fairer and more sustainable Whether it's aged care or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we will work with the community and across this parliament to fund the future services that people need and deserve. Over the last decade the NDIS has delivered life-changing support for Australians with a disability. All of us in this place take pride in it, and all of us must take responsibility for securing its future, working with National Cabinet to put participants at the centre of the scheme, and designing and funding additional foundational supports outside of it, and ensuring that every dollar invested in the NDIS goes to those who need it most—which is why we are providing $469 million to keep working with the disability community and the states and territories to crack down on fraud and exploitation. Boosting care economy wages This government is ensuring that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn, in the care economy and in every industry. We will ensure that those who look after our kids and teach our kids as they learn, and our parents as they age, have the secure, well-paid jobs that they deserve. We will fund a further increase in award wages for our aged-care workers, building on the $11.3 billion that we funded last year. And we have provisioned for a wage increase for childcare workers and early educators as well. This will help recruit and retain more early childhood educators, giving more Australian kids the best start that we can. Broadening o pportunity Women's equality and opportunity In child care, in aged care and across the care economy, the majority of workers are women. Lifting wages in these industries has helped bring the gender pay gap to a historic low. Our government is the first in history with more than 50 per cent women—and we are 100 per cent committed to women's equality and opportunity and safety. Violence against women is a national shame—and it requires our national action. We're delivering $925 million to establish the permanent Leaving Violence Program, which takes our total investment to address violence against women to $3.4 billion. But we know that there is more work for all of us to do. And we are very proud that this budget extends superannuation to parents on paid leave. When it comes to those first months of your child's life, you can't put a price on being there. And you shouldn't pay a price for being there. That's why we've provided $1.1 billion to pay super on government funded parental leave. This will make the super system fairer, it will reduce the gender gap, and it will benefit 180,000 families a year. And we're providing another $56 million to improve access to women's health services and $19 million to support carers to better choose how and when they work. Supporting the most vulnerable We know that cost-of-living pressures fall heaviest on the most vulnerable. New energy rebates and more rent assistance will help. We're also continuing the freeze on social security deeming rates until 30 June 2025, benefiting over 870,000 people, including 450,000 age pensioners. For those who face additional barriers to finding work, we're providing $41 million to further extend eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker. So people who can only work up to 14 hours a week will see their payment increase at least $54.90 a fortnight. Support for First Nations We will also make new investments in health, housing, education, and jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As well as more remote housing, we're creating the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, with 3,000 new jobs in remote Australia to build new skills and new confidence within communities. R esponsible e conomic m anagement From delivering a tax cut to every taxpayer to reducing student debt or helping renters, from new energy bill relief to the care economy to a Future Made in Australia, we are easing pressure on Australians while investing in our people, our economy and our future, at the same time as we strengthen the budget and pay down debt. Last year, our responsible economic management delivered the first surplus in 15 years. We now expect another surplus, of $9.3 billion this year. These would be the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. But pressures on the budget intensify after that, rather than ease. We are expecting a deficit of $28.3 billion in 2024-25, but a stronger fiscal outcome in every year, compared to when we came to government. On our watch, the budget is $215 billion stronger over the six years to 2027-28. Gross debt is now expected to peak at 35.2 per cent of our economy in 2026-27 before declining to 30.2 per cent by 2034-35. This year gross debt will be $904 billion instead of the more than one trillion dollars that we inherited, and that means debt is $152 billion lower. A stronger budget means we save around $80 billion in interest costs over the decade. These are the dividends of our responsible economic management. We've found $27.9 billion in savings and reprioritisations in this budget and $77.4 billion since the election. We're limiting real spending growth to an average of 1.4 per cent per year since we came to government, that's less than half the average of the last 30 years and it's around a third of the growth under our predecessors. And we're banking 96 per cent of revenue upgrades this year—keeping pressure off inflation while it's still above the band, with Treasury now expecting we could get back to the inflation target this year, not next. That means inflation is expected to be lower, sooner. We've achieved all of this despite much smaller revenue upgrades in the budget and still providing an extra $3 billion to ensure Australians, including our veterans, receive better essential services. Economic Security in a World of Churn and Change The story of Australia is more than a tale of the challenges that we have endured, and in our future we need to strive for something more than muddling through or making do. This budget shows that we're realistic about the pressures that people face right now—and we are optimistic about the future. This budget reflects our biggest ambitions and our highest aspirations—to make Australians the primary beneficiaries of a world of churn and change; tapping their confidence, their compassion and their creativity to manage their pressures and maximise our advantages to forge a new economy and a new generation of prosperity and, in that effort, to make Australians and Australia more secure in the bigger opportunities that we shape and in the future we make together. And that's why I commend this bill—and this budget—to the House. Debate adjourned. BUDGET 122 BUDGET Documents 122 20:02 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam For the information of honourable members, I present the following documents in connection with the budget of 2024-25: Budget strategy and outlook—Budget paper No. 1—2024-25. Budget measures—Budget paper No. 2—2024-25. Federal financial relations—Budget paper No. 3—2024-25. Agency resourcing—Budget paper No. 4—2024-25. Documents made parliamentary papers. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 123 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Budget 123 20:03 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I also present the following ministerial statements: Women's budget statement 2024-25, 14 May 2024. Regional ministerial budget statement 2024-25—Delivering a resilient and prosperous future for regional Australia, 14 May 2024. Documents made parliamentary papers. BILLS 123 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025 123

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025

First Reading 123 Second Reading 123 20:04 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, along with Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2024-2025 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, are the budget appropriation bills for 2024-25. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $24.6 billion, incorporating decisions from this year's budget. I now outline the most significant items provided for in this bill. The Department of Defence will receive close to $10.6 billion to support the implementation of the 2024 National Defence Strategy, including through major investments in military capabilities as well as enabling ICT capabilities and infrastructure. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts will receive approximately $4.6 billion, including funding for government business enterprises to continue to deliver projects, including the Australian Rail Track Corporation for the Inland Rail program; WSA Co for the Western Sydney International Airport; NBN Co for the election commitment to boost fibre and to fast track the NBN Repair Job; and funding for Roads to Recovery. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will receive $2.5 billion, including $1.6 billion for Snowy Hydro Limited to support continued construction of Snowy 2.0. And close to $650 million will be provided for Rewiring the Nation to continue expanding and modernising Australia's electricity grids at lowest cost, unlocking renewables and storage capacity, and driving down power prices. The Department of Finance will receive over $1.5 billion, including additional equity for Comcover and Australian Naval Infrastructure, and a Snowy Hydro Limited construction loan. The Department of the Treasury will receive over $1.5 billion to provide funding for concessional loans to support social and affordable housing. The Australian Signals Directorate will receive over $1 billion to deliver major capital investments for foreign signals, intelligence and cyber capabilities. Consistent with the 2023-24 appropriation bill, this No. 2 also contains an advance to the finance minister for provision of $600 million to provide the government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. This bill also seeks debit limits for payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act that will apply in 2024-25. They are as follows: $5 billion for general purpose financial assistance and $37 billion for national partnership payments. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in schedules to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the portfolio budget statements. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 123

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

First Reading 123 Second Reading 124 20:08 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 provides appropriations for decisions taken by government in the 2024-25 budget for the operations of parliamentary departments. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $326.7 million. Funding provided through this bill will support the following significant items for parliamentary departments. The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive over $257 million to support the work of the Australian parliament through services to parliamentarians and as custodians of Parliament House. This includes additional funding to modernise ICT systems, including broadcasting, and to undertake building upgrades at Parliament House. The bill also includes an advance to the responsible presiding officer of $1.9 million. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the portfolio budget statements. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 124

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024

First Reading 124 Second Reading 124 20:10 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, the government introduces the 2023-24 supplementary additional estimates appropriations bills. They are Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions made since the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that relate to the 2023-24 financial year. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 seeks approval for appropriations from a consolidated revenue fund of $2.1 billion. This would ensure that there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimate variations relating to existing programs—for instance, changes in the costs for demand driven programs. These bills also pave the first-year costs of measures that were announced in the 2024-25 budget. The bill provides funding to support the following significant items. The Department of Social Services will receive over $1 billion, with the majority of the funding for the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide reasonable and necessary supports for the National Disability Insurance Scheme participants. Services Australia will also receive over $93 million to support the delivery of government payments to Australians. The Department of the Treasury will receive $525 million to facilitate the increase in the grants composition of the $1 billion provided for social housing under the National Housing Infrastructure Facility in 2023-24, with the funding to be targeted towards crisis and transitional accommodation for youth and for women and children fleeing domestic violence. The Department of Defence will receive over $92 million, and this is primarily reflecting the funding required to support defence capabilities prioritised in the 2024 National Defence Strategy and major defence operations that have been undertaken in 2023-24. The Department of Health and Aged Care will receive over $77 million, including over $37 million to support access to opioid dependence treatment and $20 million to support older Australians in receiving appropriate care. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024 124

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024

First Reading 124 Second Reading 125 20:14 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $453.5 million for the 2023-24 financial year. These appropriations will support the following significant items. The Department of Defence will receive close to $453 million, reflecting a reclassification from operating to capital, to support the delivery of capabilities prioritised in the 2024 National Defence Strategy. Full details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 20:16 NOTICES 125 NOTICES Presentation 125