2024-05-15 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 15 May 2024

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Digital ID Bill 2024, Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 1

Digital ID Bill 2024

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 09:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that unless otherwise ordered the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:02 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 11, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 1

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Explanatory Memorandum 1 09:02 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I present a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee 1 Appointment 1 09:03 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Hodgins-May has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. BILLS 1 BILLS Digital ID Bill 2024 1

Digital ID Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:03 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I present the revised explanatory memorandum to the Digital ID Bill 2024, and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Digital ID Bill will put in place the legislative framework to create an economy-wide digital ID system for Australia. Digital ID is a secure, convenient, voluntary and inclusive way to verify who you are online against existing government held identity documents without having to hand over any physical information. Digital ID is not a card. It's not a unique number, nor a new form of ID. Data breaches, such as Optus, Medibank and others, impacting millions of Australians show the need to protect people and their identities. This bill will help to address the challenge. The digital IDs enabled by this bill will avoid the need for Australians to repeatedly share their ID documents, and reduce the need for government or business to retain documents that could then be at risk. This bill does four things to ensure that Australians are in control of their digital IDs and that their digital IDs are safeguarded: First, the bill will legislate and strengthen an existing voluntary accreditation scheme for digital ID providers Second, the bill will legislate and enable the expansion of the Australian Government Digital ID System so protections for digital IDs are in place across the economy Third, the bill will embed privacy and consumer protections additional to those in the Privacy Act, and Fourth, the bill will strengthen the governance for an economy-wide digital ID system by establishing a Digital ID Regulator, System Administrator and Data Standards Chair to ensure that privacy and consumer protections in this bill will be met. The voluntary a ccreditation s cheme The voluntary accreditation scheme in the bill will enable more digital ID providers to demonstrate that they meet strong privacy protections, security safeguards, and accessibility requirements. The bill will replace an existing unlegislated policy framework for accreditation—the Trusted Digital Identity Framework—with a legislated accreditation scheme for public and private sector digital ID providers. The bill will ensure that only trustworthy and reliable private and public sector entities are accredited to provide digital ID services to Australians. Accreditation rules made under the bill will set out a range of requirements for each type of service an entity can be accredited for by the Digital ID Regulator. The bill will ensure that there are real consequences for accredited providers if they do not meet the high standards of their accreditation. The powers of the regulator in the bill to suspend, revoke or cancel accreditations and to seek civil penalties will ensure the accreditation rules and the safeguards and privacy protections in the bill are adhered to. The bill will provide for a trust mark for accredited providers to build consumer trust and awareness of digital IDs, imposing civil penalties on entities who falsely promote their services as meeting the strict requirements of accreditation. The accreditation scheme will give Australians who choose to create, use or reuse a digital ID issued by an accredited provider greater confidence that their personal information is being protected. The Australian Government Digital ID System The existing, unlegislated Australian Government Digital ID System is well established with more than 12 million myGovIDs which can be used to access more than 140 government services. However, the current system has limitations. It's not national—myGovID can only be used to access government services, and private sector services can't currently use myGovID to verify their customers. This falls short of the vision for a national, economy-wide system. The Digital ID Bill provides a legislative basis for broader use of digital IDs via a phased expansion the Australian Government Digital ID System. Initially, it's expected that states and territories will be able to apply to participate in the Australian Government Digital ID System as users or providers of accredited digital ID services. Then, within two years, all state, territory and private sector entities will be able to apply to the Digital ID Regulator to participate within the Australian Government Digital ID System as providers or users of accredited digital ID services, or both. Consistent with the phased approach to expansion, the bill provides for the Digital ID Regulator to manage arrangements for other matters, including statutory contracts between participants, liability and charging for providers and connected services, in the future. Rules to be made within 12 months of the act commencing must set out redress mechanisms to support individuals in the event of a digital ID fraud or cybersecurity incident within the Australian Government Digital ID System. Importantly, the Australian Government Digital ID System is based on the principle that people can choose which digital ID provider they use to access any website, app or other service that is connected to the system. In the legislation this is called the interoperability obligation. The minister will however have discretion to exempt some government services from this obligation and only allow a single digital ID provider, such as myGovID. Exemptions will only be granted in limited circumstances, such as for government services where there is potential for identity fraud to have a significant impact on the financial circumstances of individuals or businesses in Australia. For example, services within Australia's tax and transfer system, which currently enable about $154 billion per year in tax refunds, and our social security system, which supports about $220 billion in payments per year, present prominent fraud targets where it is critical to carefully manage risk. Additional privacy and consumer safeguards Privacy protections in the bill are designed to ensure that digital IDs meet community expectations. The bill contains a comprehensive range of privacy protections applying to the accreditation scheme that will operate in addition to existing protections in the Commonwealth's Privacy Act. If the Commonwealth Privacy Act does not apply, including providers that are small business operators, the bill will ensure that accredited providers are subject to equivalent privacy protections. The bill includes measures that will protect Australians' sensitive information, such as their passports, birth certificates, drivers licences, Medicare cards and biometric information that they may use to verify their identity by: requiring express consent to create a digital ID and before information about them can be collected, used or disclosed to a service they wish to access; requiring accredited providers to deactivate a person's digital ID if they withdraw their express consent at any time and prohibiting it to be used or reactivated without the individual's express consent; and prohibiting accredited entities from collecting particularly sensitive types of personal information, such as a person's political opinions or sexual orientation. The bill addresses the risk of commercialisation and misuse of digital IDs in the economy by: preventing data profiling or tracking of a person's activities using a digital ID; and preventing personal information from being disclosed for marketing purposes. The bill contains safeguards over law enforcement access to digital ID information held by accredited entities. Access to this information at the request of law enforcement is only permitted in very limited circumstances—where there is a warrant, where court proceedings have begun, or where a person consents to their digital ID information being disclosed to verify their identity or investigate or prosecute an offence. In addition, information on requests to access digital ID information made by law enforcement agencies and enforcement bodies will be reported to parliament on an annual basis. The bill includes measures to ensure the Digital ID Regulator will be notified of any data breaches of accredited providers under Commonwealth, state or territory data breach schemes to facilitate quick mitigation of the risk, or remediation of the breach. If there is no state based scheme, the Digital ID Bill requires the entity to report breaches under the Commonwealth scheme. To ensure these protections are meaningfully regulated and enforced, the bill will give the Information Commissioner a full suite of investigative and compliance powers. If an accredited entity breaches any of the privacy protections, they can be liable for a civil penalty. Those less able, or willing, to get a digital ID will not be left behind. An essential safeguard in the bill is that digital ID will continue to be voluntary for individuals accessing government services through the Australian Government Digital ID System. The bill will require Australian government agencies to continue to provide alternate channels for people to access services. I will repeat that: the bill will require Australian government agencies to continue to provide alternate channels for people to access services. There is an ongoing obligation that such alternative channels must be reasonably accessible and do not result in services a substantially less favourable service for Australians. To ensure that digital IDs are inclusive by design, providers of digital ID services must take reasonable steps to ensure the services are accessible, including to individuals who may experience barriers to creating or using a digital ID. Consultation with groups that represent individuals experiencing barriers to creating or using a digital ID must be undertaken before rules are made about digital IDs. Accredited providers of digital ID services must comply with usability and accessibility guidelines. Furthermore, any testing of biometric information must manage the risk of biometric matching disadvantaging or discriminating against any group. Where an individual is accessing Australian government services on behalf of a business (or in another professional capacity) a digital ID may be required because digital IDs help address the increased fraud risk associated with some business services. The regulator will monitor and regulate the compliance of entities participating in the Australian Government Digital ID System and may impose civil penalties for any breaches. These safeguards will help ensure people who choose to create and reuse digital IDs can be confident that their information is safe and secure, and that their privacy will be protected. S trengthened g overnance a rrangements The bill will establish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as an independent digital ID regulator with responsibility for overseeing the accreditation scheme and the Australian Government Digital ID System. The bill will also provide for the system administrator to perform day-to-day operational matters to ensure the performance and integrity of the Australian Government Digital ID System. Finally, the bill establishes a Data Standards Chair, to consult with industry and issue data standards. The bill will make sure the regulatory watchdog has the teeth to enforce the safeguards with a broad suite of monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers, including civil penalty provisions, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will advise on and enforce privacy protections, provide complaint handling for breaches of the privacy safeguards, report on privacy aspects of, and the exercise of its powers and functions as well as regulate data retention, under the legislation. Further transparency will be provided through public registers for accredited entities—including whether they have ever had their accreditation revoked or suspended—and services within the Australian Government Digital ID System. The regulator will be required to report annually to the minister, for presentation to parliament, on applications and approvals for accreditation or participation, and fraud or cyber security incidents and responses. Further, a statutory review of the bill will be required within two years of commencement. The scope of the review would include any supporting rules and standards made after commencement of the bill. Conclusion In conclusion, there have been several stages of consultation over a number of years, including an inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, eliciting feedback from all areas of the community to ensure the bill reflects community expectations. I would like to thank the active and ongoing engagement by industry, consumer and privacy groups—as well as the contribution made by the Senate in making amendments to the bill—to the development of this important legislation. The bill will provide Australians with the choice to use a secure, inclusive, convenient and voluntary way to verify themselves when interacting with government and businesses online. Digital ID will allow Australians to harness the advances of new technology and its benefits across the economy, if they so choose. 09:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Digital ID Bill 2024. Digital identity has the potential to deliver significant productivity efficiency and safety benefits across the Australian economy. But that potential will only be realised if the Australian people trust the digital identity system and the legislative safeguards and guarantees which form part of the system. Unfortunately, this issue has been very poorly handled by the Albanese Labor government, with the result that instead of trust being increased it has been eroded. For example, many Australians would be extremely suspicious of the way the government rammed this bill through the Senate using a guillotine motion, meaning there was no second reading debate or Committee of the Whole process in that chamber. The coalition believes that digital identity holds real promise for Australia, but it has to be done right. Labor has made multiple grave misjudgements in its approach to digital identity and to this bill, and it is for this reason that the coalition opposed Labor's legislation in the Senate and we will oppose it in the House. In my remarks on this bill today, I want to speak first about the coalition's careful and methodical work on digital identity when in government, thus establishing a strong platform which Labor could have used to progress this issue. Next, I want to speak about the serious flaws in Labor's design of this legislation, and, finally, I want to speak about the work we did in good faith to seek to address these flaws—work which, regrettably, the government completely failed to engage with. I want to start by reminding the House that the reason Australia has a digital identity system today with over 11 million Australians using it under the name myGovID is because of detailed work done under the previous coalition government. The coalition established the Australian Government Digital ID System (AGDIS) in the wake of the Murray inquiry commissioned by the Abbott government. The inquiry recommended in 2014 that the Commonwealth: … develop a national strategy for a federated-style model of trusted digital identities. During our time in government the coalition delivered on that recommendation. We established the Trusted Digital Identity Framework. We created myGovID and drove a steady take-up of this digital identity product by more and more Australians. We invested over $600 million in developing myGovID and the Trusted Digital Identity Framework. We made sure the framework allowed for private sector participants, and we secured private sector entities to become participants. The first private sector identity exchange to join the Australian Government Digital ID System was ConnectID, which is backed by Australia's major banks. Importantly, we recognised that there needed to be a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework within which the Australian Government Digital ID System could work, particularly given the continuing and, indeed, expanded role we saw for private sector participants. We sought to allow governments and the private sector to participate in a legislated Australian government digital identity system from the outset—there was to be no phasing. We saw a simultaneous public-private design solution as key to realising a truly national whole-of-economy solution. We envisaged the system being overseen by an independent statutory officer, the oversight authority, to protect those Australians who wanted to use digital identity. We also sought to establish in law bespoke, best-practice privacy and security protections, including restrictions on the collection of biometric information and on the retention of attributes including single identifiers. We developed such a framework and set it out in the exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill, which we released in late 2021. Unfortunately, the bills before the House are very different to the exposure draft we released in late 2021. Later in my remarks, I will speak about the serious errors Labor has made. But let me now turn to why the coalition considered that a digital identity system offered promise to deliver benefits to Australians and why, therefore, we did all of the careful work we did on this issue when in government. Done right, the widespread use of digital identity can deliver many benefits. This was a key finding of the 2019 McKinsey Global Institute paper Digital identification: a key to inclusive growth. McKinsey found that extending full digital ID coverage could unlock economic value equivalent to three to 13 per cent of GDP in 2030. It could reduce institutional customer onboarding costs and payroll fraud, saving up to US$1.6 trillion globally, and it could save approximately 100 billion hours through streamlined e-government services. Many of these benefits come through the saving of time and effort in the multiple interactions which are required today when you need to prove your identity, whether that's to a government agency, a business or another human being. Think of how much time is required to take and send photocopies of identity documents such as passports and drivers licences or to find a Justice of the Peace or somebody else who is qualified to give you a certified copy of such documents or to go physically to a bank branch or a lawyer's office or any one of the many other places where today you are frequently required to present yourself to demonstrate your identity. One country which has very successfully introduced digital identity and obtained material economic productivity benefits as a result is India. Aadhaar, the modern Hindi word for foundation, is used to describe the digital identity which all Indian citizens and residents can now have. Over 1.3 billion Indians hold a digital identity, which has made it much quicker and easier to open bank accounts, to transfer money from one person to another and to receive government benefits. Today, if you are a bank customer in India, you can satisfy a bank's know-your-customer requirement in seconds with your Aadhaar. In Australia, by contrast, this is a long, cumbersome and painful process requiring certified copies of identity documents. It is a truly dreadful customer experience, and I resist the temptation to name the bank that I use where the customer experience has been absolutely appalling. India also demonstrates the way that many private sector businesses have innovated and grown by using the national digital identity platform. For example, India's third mobile phone network Reliance Mobile launched its Jio mobile service in September 2016. It used a completely digital customer onboarding process, taking advantage of Aadhaar and achieving 160 million new customers by December 2017. It is all too typical that the Albanese Labor government has failed to grasp and to champion the way that a fully realised whole-of-economy digital identity system can boost productivity and innovation in the private sector. Its rhetoric about digital identity has been almost entirely about what it means for government and the public sector even though our national prosperity and economic growth depends overwhelmingly on the private sector, not the public sector. I want to mention one other critical public policy benefit which a well-realised digital identity system can bring by protecting Australians from having to hand over voluminous amounts of private information to companies and government agencies and in turn being vulnerable to having that information stolen when those companies or agencies are hacked. The evidence is clear about how much damage cybercrime does to Australians. According to the ASD cyber threat report 2022-23 the average cost of reported cybercrime was up 14 per cent in 2023. ASD found that it costs small businesses an average of $46,000 in total losses per reported cybercrime. A key reason that recent data hacks such as those in clubs New South Wales, Optus, Medibank Private and Latitude Financial are so prevalent and so damaging is that these companies and organisations hold lots of data on their customers. This data includes copies of original documents like passports and drivers licenses. Digital ID avoids this through a data minimisation process. It reduces the information a company holds about its customers. The company receives only that information which is strictly necessary for the transaction to take place. The key principle of digital ID is that there is a federated architecture; there is not one system which retains all the information and, in turn, becomes a honey pot to cyber criminals. The disparate system of identity providers, exchangers, relying parties and users has an added protection—the double-blind approach. Imagine if I'm about to sign a lease and I have to prove my identity to the real estate agent. I can use the ConnectID system established by the banks. I go to ConnectID and I authorise identity information held about me by my bank to be released to the real estate agent. Critically, because of the double-blind approach, my bank does not know where my data is going to and the real estate agent does not know where it has come from. Another critical benefit is that only as much information is released as is necessary. For example, to get into a pub or a nightclub today, I'm advised, you need to prove that you're over 18. Typically, you do this by showing your driver's licence. But the pub or club does not need to know your name or address, or even your age, only the fact that you're over 18. With a digital identity system, evidence of this fact is provided in the form of a digital certificate or token sent to the pub or club from your digital identity provider. The digital certificate does not disclose your address or your actual age or anything about you, only the fact that you are over 18. This system is much safer and does a much better job of safeguarding your privacy than today's approach. Having discussed the progress the coalition made on digital identity and some of the policy reasons for doing so, let me now turn to how things went badly off the rails once Labor got into government, leading to the grave flaws in the legislation before the House today. The first big problem is that there has been no political leadership exercised in developing these bills or in making the public case for digital identity. The Minister for Finance has not bothered to explain the purpose or operation of these bills in any systematic or persuasive way. And, of course, in any rationally organised government the Minister for Government Services would have had responsibility for digital ID and carriage of this legislation. That minister should have been making the case to Australians for the last two years about the way that digital identity could enhance the level of service they receive from government. Sadly, this portfolio is held by the member for Maribyrnong, who has very little interest in or understanding of how to deliver good customer service and the role of digital tools in doing just that, and he has been missing in action in the policy debate on this issue. This lack of political leadership is reflected very clearly in the bills and in the many weaknesses in them. The governance structure set out in this bill is highly fragmented. The bill establishes a system administrator, which will be in the social services portfolio but would report to the Minister for Finance. The to-be-established data standards chair is in the finance portfolio. The regulator sits within Treasury. The Information Commissioner sits within the Attorney-General's Department. And the many other auxiliary agencies with responsibilities in the Australian Government Digital Identity System, such as ASIO, sit within Home Affairs. No board in the private sector would sign off on such an incoherent and unsustainable structure. There has been no serious effort by the Minister for Finance to explain how this mishmash will work, very likely because no plausible or credible explanation can be given. The opposition's concerns are shared by industry. Submissions from both the Australian Banking Association and Australian Payments Plus argue that the proposed governance arrangements are too complex with too many entities spread across too many portfolios. The effect of Labor's confused governance structures will be to dampen citizens trust and confidence in the Australian government digital ID system. Basic private sector sales and marketing principles tell us that, if consumers do not trust a service, they are far less likely to use it. In turn, if the number of Australians who use digital identity is suppressed because of this lack of trust, we will not get the network effect, which has been seen, for example, in India, where digital identity is widely used. In turn, that encourages the growth of new government and private sector services which use digital identity, and this then reinforces the value and benefit to citizens of having and using a digital identity. For this virtuous cycle to develop, there must be a high take-up of digital identity, and unfortunately Labor's mishandling of these bills makes a high take-up considerably less likely. The Australian public will only embrace the Australian Government Digital ID System if they can be confident that these bills provide them with adequate safeguards to protect their privacy. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. The Digital ID Bill 2024 partly relies on provisions contained within the Privacy Act. It was reckless of this government to introduce this Digital ID Bill and its accompanying bill without first reforming the Privacy Act. The government has had since February 2023, when the Attorney-General's Department released the review of the Privacy Act, to progress the legislative response to that review. Instead, the Albanese government has dithered and delayed, as many observers have pointed out. In its submission to the Senate's inquiry into this bill, the University of Technology Sydney's Human Technology Institute said: … it is essential that Privacy Act reforms be passed as soon as possible to prevent further fragmentation, inconsistencies, gaps in protections, and unnecessary compliance burdens. There is a very real potential for competing or contradictory sets of arrangements to be established between this Digital ID Bill and the Privacy Act. Indeed, such a circumstance is contemplated within the bill's accompanying statement of compatibility with human rights, which states: If the definition of personal information changes in the Privacy Act, consequential legislative amendments will be introduced to ensure the Bill remains consistent with any amended definition and additional requirements in the Privacy Act. Moreover, the explanatory memorandum notes the following: It is intended that the definition of 'personal information' (and other relevant terms) in the Bill will be reviewed against changes to that term in the Privacy Act … The possibility for misalignment on such fundamental protections as the definition of 'personal information' is very serious. Multiple stakeholders gave evidence to the Senate's inquiry into this bill that they too are concerned about the absence of reforms to the Privacy Act. For example, Woolworths submitted: We also seek clarity whether a new definition of 'personal information' as is being considered as part of the Privacy Act reforms will capture tokens provided through Digital ID processes. The Business Council of Australia argued in its submission: The review of all legal provisions requiring retention of personal information (as agreed-in-principle in the Privacy Act Review) be undertaken as a matter of urgency … Let me turn to one of the central weaknesses of these bills: that they seek to delay and minimise the role of the private sector. The coalition believes that there should be simultaneous public and private sector participation in the Australian Government Digital ID System from the outset. The first version of these bills proposed a so-called phased approach, which would have delayed indefinitely any meaningful role for private sector participants. The opposition moved amendments in the Senate to remove these phasing provisions. The government did not accept our amendments, but it agreed to other amendments, which now means that private sector participation will commence after the legislated Australian Government Digital ID System has been in operation for two years. While this is an improvement, there remains considerable uncertainty about how the government intends to work with the states and territories. Notwithstanding the two-year provision, the bill retains the original phasing-in clauses, which would mean that private sector expansion in the Australian Government Digital Identity System only occurs in phase 3, but, to get to phase 3, certain requirements must be met in phase 2. What are these requirements? The government requires that a state or territory government must integrate its own digital ID within the Australian Government Digital Identity System. Each state and territory has approached establishing its own native digital ID in a different way. For example, Western Australia uses the Commonwealth government's myGov ID. The Northern Territory does not. Currently, Queensland is the only jurisdiction to have a fully operational digital ID system. Other states are still preparing theirs. This includes New South Wales's, which remains in closed public beta. In February it was reported by the Australian Financial Review that the Minister for Finance intended to obtain from the states and territories agreement to a roadmap for expansion of the Australian Government Digital Identity System and she was to do this at the data and digital ministers meeting, which took place on 23 February 2024. But what happened at that meeting fell a long way short of what the minister was promising. At that meeting, it was agreed only that ministers would 'work together towards a national digital identity and verifiable credential strategy to inform an update of the national digital ID service transformation road map'. From this statement it is clear the states and territories did not sign up to the finance minister's so-called national digital identity and verifiable credential strategy, merely stating that they would work together toward such a strategy. When will the states and territories sign up to this so-called national strategy? The government hasn't said, and there is no mention of the so-called national strategy in the bill or the explanatory memorandum. If the states and territories are unable to sign up to so much as a national strategy, what confidence can this parliament and the Australian people have in this government's ability to manage the Australian Government Digital Identity System? A real issue with the legislated two-year requirement before the private sector can participate in the Australian Government Digital Identity System is that separate private sector digital-identity providers are already gaining traction and delivering results. Australian Payments Plus's ConnectID system, which achieved accreditation under the coalition government, is already operational, with two of the big four banks participating and the others expected to join shortly. There is a risk that, within two years, many will be using ConnectID or another provider for their digital identity, rendering the digital identity landscape fragmented and the Australian Government Digital Identity System a poorer cousin of private sector solutions. These flaws in the bill which I have mentioned were raised by many stakeholders, including through the Senate inquiry process. In the Senate the government had an opportunity to address the concerns raised by stakeholders. The coalition's sensible amendments, which were developed in close consultation with industry stakeholders, would have enhanced the privacy protections in the bill. Our amendments sought to establish a stronger guarantee that having a digital identity would be voluntary. Under our amendments it would have been clear that no Australian would be required to have a digital identity. It would have been clear that no Australian would face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional, paper based identity documents. In addition, we moved an amendment which sought to impose a clear requirement that changes to the Privacy Act must be made before these laws come into force. We sought to work in good faith with the government on these amendments, but, regrettably, the government chose not to support them. Accordingly, this House has been left in a very unsatisfactory position because of how the government has proceeded with this bill. I conclude by reiterating that the coalition believes that digital identity has the potential to deliver significant productivity, efficiency and safety benefits across the Australian economy, but this bill before the House today is deeply flawed. The government has failed to engage with the opposition in our good-faith efforts to resolve those flaws by proposing amendments. For this reason, the coalition will not be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 8

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 09:45 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I present the explanatory memorandum to the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 operates in conjunction with the Digital ID Bill 2024 (the principal bill) and supports the principal bill in two ways. Transitional arrangements First, the bill provides for a smooth transition from the unlegislated Trusted Digital Identity Framework for accreditation of digital ID services to the Digital ID Accreditation Rules under the principal bill. Second, the bill clarifies the arrangements for transitioning participants in the unlegislated Australian government digital ID system to the legislated Australian Government Digital ID System set out in the principal bill. In addition, certain Commonwealth entities which are currently participating in the unlegislated Australian government digital ID system will be taken to be participating in the Australian Government Digital ID System regulated by the principal bill. This avoids those entities needing to reapply to the new regulator to participate in the Australian Government Digital ID System under the bill. This will help ensure these entities can continue providing uninterrupted services to the Australian community upon the commencement of the principal bill, which will apply additional privacy and other safeguards. To further support these transitional arrangements, the bill also provides that the minister may make certain rules by legislative instrument allowing prescription of matters of a transitional nature for up to 12 months to address any unforeseen circumstances arising after the commencement of the principal bill. However, rules cannot be made that accredit an entity under the bill or approve an entity to participate in the Australian Government Digital ID System once the bill has commenced. Rules can be made to provide for entities that are accredited under the current unlegislated arrangements, or achieve accreditation under those arrangements before the bill commences, to be taken to be accredited under the principal bill. These rules can also provide for entities participating in the unlegislated AGDIS to be taken to be participating in the AGDIS under the principal bill. This rule-making power is provided to manage the transition to the accreditation rules to be made under the principal bill, and complex information technology infrastructure changes that are not known at the time of this bill's introduction. Consequential amendments The second key function of this bill is to amend relevant Commonwealth legislation to ensure that the principal bill operates as intended. This bill amends six acts. First, the bill makes a consequential amendment to schedule 1 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to exclude from judicial review under that act decisions made by the Digital ID Regulator under the principal bill on the basis of security assessment of foreign entities provided by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). This will mean that decisions made to protect Australia's national security cannot be challenged by foreign entities under the act. Second, the bill makes a consequential amendment to schedule 2 of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 to exclude from the operation of part 4 of that act anything done by a person in direct compliance with the minimum-age requirements of the accreditation rules to be made under the principal bill. This will mean that obligations on accredited entities about the minimum age at which they can facilitate a child to create a digital ID will be lawful. Third, this bill makes consequential amendments to part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to allow ASIO to provide security assessments to the minister in relation to decisions the minister may make under the principal bill, and to limit the notice and review processes for foreign entities in relation to security assessments. Again, these amendments protect Australia's national interest. Fourth, this bill makes consequential amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to establish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as the Digital ID Regulator. Fifth, this bill makes a consequential amendment to the Privacy Act 1988 to give the Information Commissioner, as regulator of the additional privacy safeguards in the principal bill, power to conduct certain assessments. These are assessments as to whether personal information is being maintained and handled by accredited entities in accordance with privacy protections and the Australian Privacy Principles. Sixth, this bill makes consequential amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to give the Taxation Commissioner functions that allow the commissioner to offer accredited identity provider services and accredited attribute provider services to non-Commonwealth participants in the AGDIS. Conclusion The bill that the government is introducing today sets out transitional and consequential arrangements that, together, ensure an orderly, efficient and fair transition to the new statutory framework under the Digital ID Bill 2024. I commend the bill to the House. 09:51 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak briefly on the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. I simply wish to advise the House that the coalition will be opposing this bill, for the reasons given in the longer speech that I gave in relation to the Digital ID Bill 2024. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 9

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

Second Reading 9 09:52 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Following the moving and passage of government amendments, the opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, noting that the Special Minister of State has provided undertakings to the opposition on the intention of several measures in the bill and providing briefings on their operation. The bill represents significant changes to the framework for parliamentary business resources. The bill would amend the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, the PBR Act, and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, the IPEA Act, to respond to a number of recommendations of the independent review into the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 which was conducted in late 2021. The bill contains schedules that implement recommendations 8, 11 and 23 of the review. Recommendation 8 was: The Government consider amending the IPEA Act to expressly facilitate IPEA providing personal advice about staff use of travel resources to their employing parliamentarian and advice about parliamentarians' use of travel resources to their staff. This change will allow for the better access and practice of correct use of expenses—in particular, giving clarity under the legislation as to who can receive this advice. Recommendation 11 was: The Government should consider amending the PBR Act to clarify that a former parliamentarian can apply for a ruling and IPEA can make such a ruling. These changes will ensure that, as the scheme is now seeing parliamentarians leave the parliament who were using the resources under the PBR framework, these former parliamentarians can still access some of the benefits of IPEA's ability to make rulings after they have ceased being a parliamentarian. It is an important change that will provide these individuals with clarity if required. Recommendation 23 stated: The Government should consider moving the office expenses administration function to IPEA. This recommendation is a significant change. It represents the movement of a significant amount of the management of the resources for parliamentarians from the Department of Finance to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority and will mean that, for the first time since the creation of the modern resources framework, the department will no longer manage the majority of the day-to-day resourcing for parliamentarians and their offices. Such a change will require an appropriate amount of education and management to ensure staff and offices adjust to this change as smoothly as possible. The original bill proposed that this change would occur from 1 July this year, as the department advised that the most appropriate time to make the change is at the end of the financial year. The bill will also make minor and technical amendments to the conditions of our workplace, resolve administrative issues, make technical amendments and provide some measures that will modernise the systems that support parliamentarians in their work. Noting the significance of some of these changes and the short time originally proposed in the bill to introduce them, we note the government has indicated that some of these changes will take effect from 1 July 2025. This will allow for appropriate consultation and preparation to be undertaken to ensure offices and staff adjust to the new model of resource management. We thank the minister and his office for continuing to work collaboratively on this bill and for continuing the longstanding bipartisanship on these matters. 09:57 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I thank the member for Petrie for contributing to this debate, and I thank all members of this House for engaging on this bill in a constructive way so that we can continue to maintain that good bipartisanship when it comes to these matters of ensuring a strong and robust parliamentary business resources framework. The Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 builds on significant reforms already made in 2017 and 2018 to the administration of parliamentary work expenses. The bill reflects the government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017. The purpose of the parliamentary business resources framework is to ensure that parliamentarians are provided with the resources necessary to undertake their parliamentary business while ensuring that the expenditure of taxpayers' funds is appropriate, transparent and accountable. It is important that the PBR Act framework remains fit for purpose. This bill will realign and reform the provision of parliamentary business resources to ensure a more efficient and client focused delivery of services to parliamentarians and their staff. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 10 09:59 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (19) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr GORMAN 74519 I move government amendments (1) to (19) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 6 to 10), omit the note. (3) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 1), omit "Main amendments", substitute "Machinery of government amendments commencing 1 July 2025". (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 25), omit "and MOPS travel resources". (5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (lines 16 to 20), omit the item, substitute: 13 Paragraph 12(1)(m) Omit "MP travel resources", substitute "Authority-administered MP resources". (6) Schedule 1, items 15 to 17, page 7 (line 24) to page 10 (line 6), omit the items, substitute: 15 Subsections 12(1A) and (1B) Repeal the subsections, substitute: Authority-administered MP resources (1A) An Authority-administered MP resource is: (a) any resource (including an expense, allowance, goods, services, premises, equipment or other facility) that has been, or would be, paid or provided by the Commonwealth under Part 2, 3 or 5 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, other than: (i) remuneration payable under subsection 14(1), (2) or (3) of that Act; or (ii) a resource payable under the Parliamentary injury compensation scheme determined under subsection 41(1) of that Act, except if the resource is prescribed by the legislative rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (iv) a resource provided under a scheme mentioned in paragraph 42(2)(a) of that Act (legal proceedings in which a current or former Minister of State is a party); or (v) a resource that is prescribed by the legislative rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (b) a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002. Designated MP resources (1B) A designated MP resourceis: (a) any resource (including an expense, allowance, goods, services, premises, equipment or other facility) that has been paid or provided by the Commonwealth under Part 2 or 3 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, other than: (i) remuneration payable under subsection 14(1), (2) or (3) of that Act; or (ii) a resource that is prescribed by the legislative rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (b) a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement under the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002. (7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (line 12), before "provide", insert "incur expenses relating to, to pay or to". (8) Schedule 1, item 20, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit "is payable, or required to be provided,", substitute "has been, or would be, paid or provided". (9) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item. (10) Schedule 1, items 23 to 25, page 11 (line 21) to page 12 (line 11), omit the items, substitute: 23 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "IPEA may give a ruling") Omit "a travel expense or travel allowance", substitute "an IPEA-administered public resource". (11) Schedule 1, items 27 to 32, page 12 (line 16) to page 14 (line 6), omit the items. (12) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (lines 13 to 17), omit the item. (13) Schedule 1, item 38, page 14 (line 27) to page 15 (line 3), omit the item, substitute: 38 Subsections 37(1A) and (1B) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1A) IPEA-administered public resources are public resources that are Authority-administered MP resources within the meaning of subsection 12(1A) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, other than resources prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. 38A Subsection 37(2) Omit "(but subject to subsection (1A))". (14) Schedule 1, items 42 to 61, page 15 (line 17) to page 19 (line 24), omit the items. (15) Schedule 1, item 64, page 22 (line 9), after "37(1)", insert ", (1A)". (16) Schedule 1, item 64, page 22 (lines 19 to 24), omit subitem (4). (17) Schedule 1, items 65 to 67, page 22 (line 25) to page 23 (line 12), omit the items. (18) Schedule 1, item 68, page 23 (after line 17), after subitem (1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subitem (1), rules made for the purposes of that subitem before the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day this item commences may provide that provisions of this Part have effect with any modifications prescribed by the rules. Those provisions then have effect as if they were so modified. (19) Schedule 2, page 24 (line 1) to page 30 (line 38), omit the Schedule, substitute: Schedule 2 — Other amendments commencing day after Royal Assent Part 1 — Amendments Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 1 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of MP work resource ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a private plated vehicle provided to a member of parliament under paragraph 14(4)(a) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 (which includes any expenses or services associated with operating or maintaining the vehicle); or (ba) an allowance or expense paid under paragraph 14(4)(c) of that Act in relation to internet or telephone services provided to a private residence of a member of parliament; or (bb) an allowance or expense that is payable under section 15 of that Act; or 2 Subparagraph 12(1)(a)(i) After "MP travel resources", insert "and MOPS travel resources". 3 Paragraph 12(1)(m) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (m) to give rulings under section 37 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 relating to certain MP travel resources; 4 After subsection 12(1) Insert: Legislative rules may limit functions in relation to particular resources (1A) The legislative rules may provide that the functions of the Authority do not include doing a specified thing in relation to specified MP travel resources, MP work resources or MOPS travel resources. Any legislative rules made for the purposes of this subsection have effect despite subsection (1). (1B) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, legislative rules made for the purposes of subsection (1A) of this section may make different provision in relation to particular resources depending on whether a resource is payable or provided: (a) to or in relation to: (i) a member of parliament; or (ii) a former member of parliament; or (iii) without limiting subparagraph (ii), a former Prime Minister; or (iv) the estate of a person who dies while a member; or (b) in any other circumstance. Appointing persons to request and be given personal advice on behalf of members or former members of parliament (1C) A member or former member of parliament (the appointer) may, by written notice given to the Authority in accordance with subsection (1F), appoint a person covered by subsection (1D) (the appointee) to request and be given personal advice under subparagraph (1)(a)(i) on behalf of the appointer. Note: For variation and revocation of an appointment, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (1D) This subsection covers: (a) for a member of parliament—a MOPS staff member employed by the member, or a person in a class prescribed by the legislative rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) for a former member of parliament—any person, other than a person in a class prescribed by the legislative rules for the purposes of this paragraph. (1E) The following paragraphs have effect: (a) if, while the appointment is in force, the appointee requests the Authority to give the appointee personal advice about a matter mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) relating to the appointer—the request is taken for all purposes to have been made by the appointer under that subparagraph to the Authority; (b) if, while the appointment is in force, the Authority gives the appointee personal advice in response to such a request about a matter mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) relating to the appointer—the personal advice is taken for all purposes to have been given by the Authority under that subparagraph to the appointer. (1F) If the Authority has approved, in writing, the form in which a notice of an appointment under subsection (1C) must be given, the notice must be: (a) in the approved form; and (b) given in the manner (if any) specified in the form; and (c) accompanied by the information or documents (if any) required by the form. (1G) The Authority must publish on its website a form approved for the purposes of subsection (1F). 5 Subsection 12(2) (note) Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". 6 At the end of subsection 12(2) Add: Note 2: If the report is to be published on the Authority's website, see also section 60 (sensitive information not to be included in public reports). 7 Paragraph 60(1)(c) After "serious harm to", insert ", or would be likely to put at risk the safety of,". Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 8 After paragraph 3(2)(a) Insert: (aa) if a person dies while a member, the person's estate may be paid an allowance in recognition that the resources mentioned in paragraph (a) will not be provided; and 9 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "IPEA may give a ruling") Omit "A member may be protected from incurring a debt if the member relies on the ruling. A member may also be protected from incurring a debt if the member relies on incorrect personal advice given by IPEA.", substitute "A member may be protected from incurring a debt if a ruling determines that particular conduct was in accordance with this Act or if IPEA gives incorrect personal advice.". 10 Section 4 (paragraph beginning "Some resources") After "former members", insert "and the estates of persons who die while a member". 11 Section 5 (paragraph (a) of the definition of resources provider ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a Secretary of a Department; 12 Section 13 (after the paragraph beginning "A former member") Insert: The estate of a person who dies while a member may be paid an allowance, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 13 Section 13 (paragraph beginning "A former Prime Minister") Omit "goods and services", substitute "resources". 14 Section 15 (at the end of the heading) Add "and the estates of persons who die while a member". 15 Section 15 Before "A person", insert "(1)". 16 At the end of section 15 Add: (2) The estate of a person who dies while the person is a member is to be paid any allowance determined from time to time, under section 46A, by the Remuneration Tribunal in recognition that allowances are not payable to such persons under subsection (1) of this section. 17 Section 16 Repeal the section, substitute: 16 Resources for former Prime Ministers etc. (1) The Prime Minister may, by writing, determine that the Commonwealth must provide specified goods, services, premises, equipment or facilities, or pay specified allowances or expenses: (a) to a person who is a former Prime Minister; or (b) to a person who is: (i) a spouse or dependent child of a former Prime Minister; or (ii) employed by a former Prime Minister under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984; for a purpose relating to a person who is a former Prime Minister. (2) Without limiting subsection (1) or subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a determination under subsection (1) of this section may: (a) impose one or more limits or other conditions (whether on a former Prime Minister or any other person), including a requirement for the provision or payment of resources referred to in subsection (1) of this section to be dependent on a decision of a specified person; or (b) relate to: (i) particular former Prime Ministers, spouses or dependent children of former Prime Ministers, or persons employed by former Prime Ministers under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984; or (ii) classes of former Prime Ministers, spouses or dependent children of former Prime Ministers, or persons employed by former Prime Ministers under that Act; or (iii) former Prime Ministers, spouses or dependent children of former Prime Ministers, or persons employed by former Prime Ministers under that Act, generally. 18 Section 36 Omit "A ruling may be given on application by a member or on IPEA's own initiative.". 19 At the end of section 36 Add: Generally, provisions of this Part that apply to members also apply to former members in relation to conduct engaged in while they were members. 20 After subsection 37(1) Insert: (1A) However, IPEA cannot give a ruling under subsection (1) in relation to travel expenses or travel allowances specified by the Minister, by legislative instrument, for the purposes of this subsection. (1B) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, an instrument made for the purposes of subsection (1A) of this section may make different provision in relation to travel expenses or travel allowances depending on the circumstances in which a travel expense or travel allowance is incurred or claimed, or any other circumstances. 21 Subsection 37(2) After "Without limiting subsection (1)", insert "(but subject to subsection (1A))". 22 At the end of subsection 37(2) Add: Note: Personal advice IPEA gives under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 to a person appointed by a member under subsection 12(1C) of that Act is taken to have been given to the member (see subsection 12(1E) of that Act). 23 At the end of section 37 Add: Former members (9) This section applies after a person ceases to be a member in relation to conduct engaged in while the person was a member as if: (a) a reference to a member included a reference to a former member; and (b) paragraph (3)(b) were omitted. 24 At the end of subsection 38(2) Add: Note: The ruling may have been given after the member ceased to be a member (see subsection 37(9)). 25 Subsection 38(4) (note 1) Repeal the note, substitute: Note 1: Despite this section, a member is not generally liable for a debt if IPEA gives personal advice under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 that the member would not contravene section 26, 27 or 28 of this Act and the advice is incorrect (see section 58 of this Act). 26 Paragraph 42(3)(b) After "impose", insert ", or provide for a specified person by writing to impose in a particular case,". 27 Section 43 Before "The Tribunal must publish its reasons for making a determination.", insert "The Tribunal must also at least once each year inquire into the allowances to be paid to the estates of persons who die while a member, and may determine such allowances following the inquiry.". 28 After section 46 Insert: 46A Inquiries and determinations into allowances payable on death of a member (1) At least once each year, the Remuneration Tribunal must inquire into the allowances to be paid out of the public money of the Commonwealth to the estates of persons who die while a member, and may determine such allowances following the inquiry. (2) In performing its function under subsection (1), the Remuneration Tribunal must have regard to the principle that any such allowances are to be paid in recognition that allowances are not payable under subsection 15(1) to persons who die while a member. (3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters to which the Remuneration Tribunal may have regard. 29 Subparagraphs 47(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) Omit "or Ministers of State", substitute ", Ministers of State or former members". 30 At the end of paragraph 47(2)(b) Add: ; or (iv) in relation to the estates of persons who die while a member—particular estates, classes of estates or estates generally. 31 Section 48 Omit "A member does not incur a debt if the member received incorrect personal advice from IPEA.", substitute "Generally, a member does not incur a debt if IPEA gives incorrect personal advice that relates to the debt.". 32 After subsection 49(4) Insert: Cessation of remuneration — Territory senators (4A) If the person is a senator of a Territory immediately before the dissolution or expiry of the House of Representatives, remuneration is to be paid to the person until the end of the day before the polling day for the first Senate election for the Territory after the dissolution or expiry, unless subsection (4B) applies. (4B) If: (a) the person is a senator of a Territory immediately before the Senate is dissolved; and (b) the person is not a candidate at the first Senate election for the Territory after the dissolution; remuneration is to be paid to the person until the end of the day of the dissolution. 33 Subsection 49(5) (heading) Omit "Territory senators and". 34 Subsection 49(5) Omit "senator of a Territory, or a member of the House of Representatives,", substitute "member of the House of Representatives". 35 Paragraph 49(5)(a) Omit "first Senate election for the Territory, or the first election of the House of Representatives, (as the case requires)", substitute "first election of the House of Representatives". 36 Subsection 56(1) Omit "Every 3 years", substitute "As soon as practicable after each fifth anniversary of 2 August 2022". 37 Paragraphs 57(2)(a) and (b) After "fact that", insert "a person who is or was". 38 Subsection 57(3) (note 2) Repeal the note, substitute: Note 2: Despite this subsection, the recipient is not generally liable for a debt if IPEA gave personal advice under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 that the recipient would not contravene section 26, 27 or 28 of this Act and the advice is incorrect (see section 58 of this Act). 39 At the end of subsection 58(1) Add: Note: Personal advice IPEA gives under paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 to a person appointed by a member under subsection 12(1C) of that Act is taken to have been given to the member (see subsection 12(1E) of that Act). 40 At the end of section 58 Add: Former members (3) This section applies after a person ceases to be a member in relation to conduct engaged in while the person was a member as if a reference to a member included a reference to a former member. 41 Section 59 Omit "The", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), the". 42 At the end of section 59 Add: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to payments determined by the Minister, by legislative instrument, for the purposes of this subsection. 43 At the end of subsection 60(1) Add: ; or (e) the Chief Executive Officer of IPEA; or (f) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, who is a member of the staff described in section 49 of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017. 44 Subsections 60(3) and (4) Repeal the subsections, substitute: President of the Senate (3) The President of the Senate may, by written instrument, delegate any of the President's powers, functions or duties under this Act to any of the following (all within the meaning of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999): (a) the Clerk of the Senate; (b) the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee in the Department of the Senate or the Department of Parliamentary Services. Speaker of the House of Representatives (4) The Speaker of the House of Representatives may, by written instrument, delegate any of the Speaker's powers, functions or duties under this Act to any of the following (all within the meaning of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999): (a) the Clerk of the House of Representatives; (b) the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee in the Department of the House of Representatives or the Department of Parliamentary Services. Part 2 — Application, transitional and saving provisions 45 IPEA functions (1) Paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, as in force at and after the commencement of this item, applies in relation to a matter whether the matter occurs before, at or after that commencement. (2) Paragraph 12(1)(m) of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 applies at and after the commencement of this item subject to the operation of section 37 (rulings) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, as that section applies at and after that commencement in accordance with item 46 of this Schedule. 46 IPEA rulings (1) Subsection 37(1A) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies at and after the commencement of this item in relation to conduct referred to in paragraph 37(1)(a) of that Act whether the conduct is engaged in before, at or after the commencement of this item. (2) Subsection 37(9) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies at and after the commencement of this item in relation to a person whether the person ceases to be a member before, at or after that commencement, including for the purposes of subsections 37(1) and (2) of that Act as they apply as a result of subitem (1). 47 Remuneration of Territory senators Section 49 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to a dissolution of the Senate, or a dissolution or expiry of the House of Representatives, that occurs at or after the commencement of this item, whether the person becomes a senator of a Territory before, at or after that commencement. 48 Saving of former Prime Minister determinations A determination made under subsection 16(1) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this item continues in force (and may be dealt with) as if it had been made under that subsection as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule. 49 Saving of delegations by presiding officers A delegation made under subsection 60(3) or (4) of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this item continues in force (and may be dealt with) as if it had been made under subsection 60(3) or (4) (as the case requires) of that Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule. 50 Transitional rules (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule. (2) Without limiting subitem (1), rules made for the purposes of that subitem before the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day this item commences may provide that provisions of this Part have effect with any modifications prescribed by the rules. Those provisions then have effect as if they were so modified. (3) To avoid doubt, rules made for the purposes of subitem (1) may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act. (4) This Schedule (other than subitem (3)) does not limit the rules that may be made for the purposes of subitem (1). The government amendments would make a number of changes to the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to ensure consistency and allow for a seamless transition between the Department of Finance and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority and the oversight and management of office expenses. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 17 10:00 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 17 COMMITTEES Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee 17 Membership 17 10:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Hodgins-May has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. BILLS 17 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 17

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 17 10:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 is uncontroversial. It responds to recommendation 18 of the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review undertaken by Mr Graham Ashton AM APM, and the coalition expresses our thanks to Mr Ashton for his work. The review was commissioned following a deeply regrettable event in which a Services Australia employee, Ms Joeanne Cassar, allegedly was stabbed with a bladed weapon at the Services Australia Airport West service centre in May 2023. This matter is still subject to judicial proceedings. On behalf of the coalition I again express my sympathy to Ms Cassar and her family, who, understandably, continue to be impacted by this shocking and unacceptable incident. I also extend my appreciation to the staff at Airport West, who continue to support each other following this disturbing incident. It's an unfortunate fact that Services Australia employees were subject to almost 9,000 face-to-face customer aggression incidents across financial year 2022-23. There are similar levels of violence and aggression in other frontline Public Service roles. Certainly the cost-of-living crisis is putting an immense strain on family budgets, and the wait times to receive government payments have increased dramatically. But there can be no excuse for violence and aggression towards any Australian Public Service employee. This bill amends existing offences for causing or threatening to cause harm to a Commonwealth public official in the Criminal Code. Currently there are two tiers for that offence. The base-level offence applies to Commonwealth officials generally. There are more serious penalties that apply for harming or threatening judicial officers or law enforcement officials. This bill would create a new category of Commonwealth official called a Commonwealth frontline worker—that's to say, a Commonwealth worker whose primary function involves dealing with the public. The bill would make the penalty for assaulting a frontline worker the same as for assaulting a police officer or a judge. The coalition strongly believes that every Australian has a right to be safe in his or her workplace, regardless of his or her field of work or the work they are doing. As with similar legislation which has sensibly sought to keep Australians safe, the coalition will support this bill. Debate adjourned. Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 18

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

Second Reading 18 10:04 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I move: That debate on this bill be adjourned to a later hour of this day. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 18

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

Second Reading 18 10:05 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is one of the biggest changes to company reporting in a generation. This bill is going to change our way of life. It's going to cost more money to live. In the middle of a difficult cost-of-living crisis, the government has brought in this bill which will only worsen the cost of living. Any business above $50 million will have to provide an annual report around scope 3 emissions. Farmers will have to disclose all emissions to the bank. If they get this wrong they could be sued by ASIC and by the Environmental Defenders Office. All of these costs will be passed onto small- and medium-sized businesses. Guess what? They pass them all on to consumers and customers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, if they get it right. If they don't get it right they get fined. This is a big risk. The coalition will be moving amendments later in this debate on this bill. If those amendments are not accepted by the House, we will oppose this bill. This is not about being pro or anti-climate; it's about being pro small and family business, the backbone of this country that employs so many people. This bill puts an unacceptable compliance burden on the Australian economy at a time when government is claiming it will actually reduce it. What we're actually seeing is that compliance is going up. Red tape is going up. Costs are going up. That's what businesses are telling us right around the country. The bill is at odds with our peers—the United States of America, the UK and Canada—who aren't going to the extremes of this bill. This bill is a risk to small businesses and to those who contract with them. The bill risks accelerating the trend of debanking. We are seeing among our farmers, miners and resources industry that this is happening. What is debanking? It is also known within the banking industry as derisking. It is the closure of people's or organisation's bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory or reputational risk to the bank. This is a big issue. We believe that this will have an impact—higher costs—on the Australian economy when we can least afford it. We believe that this bill is basically a green tape bomb; it's going to add costs. Treasury's own figures say that this measure will cost $1.3 million per year for businesses to comply with. These are higher compliance costs than similar schemes, as I said, in other comparative countries like the US or our friends in New Zealand or the UK. The inclusion of scope 3 emissions and the enforcement regime mean that big companies have to report. They will have to pass the risk down their supply chain to small business customers and that means, if you're a farmer or a big company, you would have to disclose what you're doing. A cafe owner selling coffee in the lobby of a big company in the middle of the city would have to disclose what they're doing. A building supplier providing office fit outs to a big company would have to disclose. A manufacturer buying ingredients or components from a big company would have to disclose. And we have already seen manufacturing jobs fall by about 10 per cent under this government. The minister here at the table said in question time just a few weeks ago that we have about 900,000 jobs in manufacturing. Guess what? During COVID there were a million jobs in manufacturing, so there has been a 10 per cent fall and this will only make it worse. Labor is funding the environmental activists, like the Environmental Defenders Office, to ensure that this happens—to make sure, through these costs, that they are held accountable. ASIC has made it clear in its evidence to the Senate Economics Committee that these compliant costs will be passed onto small businesses. ASIC has confirmed that these concerns are so extensive that they have been raised with ASIC by the Australian small business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Labor needs to see sense here. Taxing business, even if they're big business worth over $50 million—guess what? It's all passed on to the small businesses, and then it's passed on to the mum-and-dads, the people in the gallery and the people that we represent here. At a time when almost 16,000 businesses have gone into insolvency since Labor came to office—just two years—this is the wrong law at the wrong time. There is a better way. I would just note that the compliance cost is particularly onerous and that 75 per cent of ASX listed companies already voluntarily disclose climate related information to investors because they see a commercial benefit in doing so. The coalition will make it easier. If we're given the opportunity to govern in 12 months time, the coalition will make it easier to do business, partly because we have a leader—the Leader of the Opposition—who has run small and family business. His father runs small and family business. He understands what it is to employ someone and how to make sure that the economy grows. The coalition wants to boost productivity. We have seen productivity fall through the floor in the last two years under this government, and this government says very, very little about it. You don't hear the Treasurer talking about how productivity has fallen. When productivity falls, guess what? It all adds to inflation. All the costs are going up at the moment. People know it, whether it's food, electricity, rent or mortgages. Since the coalition left office, everyone's mortgage has gone through the roof. If you're renting, guess what? Your rents have gone through the roof as well. In last night's budget, the Commonwealth rent assistance has gone up $25 or something—from $90 to $125. Meanwhile, their rents have gone up 100 bucks a week. That's the reality, and this mob aren't listening. Independent researchers put the cost of red tape to the economy at more than $176 billion a year. We're completely overregulated in some areas, and this government is making it worse and worse and worse. Small businesses, as I said, bear the brunt of this. They don't have the human resource departments that big companies have. Often, in a small business, it's the owner of the business, the husband or wife, the kids maybe, the uncle—you might have two or three people in the business that actually are doing the lot. They're actually selling, they're chasing up finances, they're employing, and they're doing payroll, accounts payable or accounts receivable. They don't have human resources to pass on scope 3 emissions to bigger companies. And the instant asset write-off? One thing we'll do there is make sure the instant asset write-off is decent. In the budget last night, they put the instant asset write-off at $20,000. What a joke! You can't buy any sort of vehicle for under 20 grand. It used to be unlimited under the coalition. Mr Husic 91219 What are you talking about? Mr HOWARTH 247742 It was unlimited under the coalition, Minister. That's what it was. Mr Husic 91219 'Uncapped'. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Uncapped. You could buy it—and guess what? Employment went through the roof. In last night's budget, we're going to see unemployment rise, with 178,000 more people unemployed this time next year as unemployment rises to 4½ per cent. That was in the budget last night. So we will repeal the worst elements of Labor's industrial relations laws that are making it harder to hire Australians. We're not going to govern for our donors and legislate for our donors like Labor do. Whatever the union donors want, let's just do that. Seriously, we're meant to support all Australians and have low costs and high productivity. This government is just making it harder and harder for people. Under the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dickson, a Dutton coalition government will stand up for small business through a deregulation agenda that will level the playing field between small and big businesses, ease cost pressures and support lower inflation and economic growth that benefits all Australians, everyone—people that are doing it tough, people that are working and people that are retired and using super. All Australians—we won't be picking winners and losers like the Albanese Labor government. Debate adjourned. Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 19

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 19 10:15 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I rise to speak on the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill is about tightening security arrangements and streamlining processes relating to the handling of incoming mail. Basically, it is to help not just Australia Post, but our Border Force, customs and various police and other agencies to be able to do their jobs better and essentially to protect Australians in the face of dangerous, suspect or illegal items coming in through the mail. There are three key areas of change being proposed in the bill. The bill would seek to provide greater operational flexibility and certainty around the opening and inspection of mail. It would expand the list of authorised people who may share information and documents to support those officers carrying out official tasks or investigations. And it would strengthen rules around Australia Post, enabling Australia Post officials to deal with dangerous items. According to the government, in recent years Australia Post and border agencies have pointed to issues associated with increasing parcel and declining letter volumes, increased use of automation, the increased availability of electronic advanced data for intelligence led and risk based screening. There are a lot more items going through the mail. We have seen that especially since we all increased our online shopping during the COVID period. Technology has improved in identifying suspect items which should be investigated. We need to do all we can to prevent bad actors from attempting to bring dangerous or unwanted items into Australia through our mail system. So as circumstances and technology have changed it is appropriate that the laws change, too. The bill would seek to provide greater flexibility and certainty around the opening and inspection of incoming mail. Under existing laws the opening and examination of postal articles is prohibited except in specified circumstances. These circumstances include articles being examined by x-ray machines or if they are undeliverable or in need of repair to enable safe delivery. Approved officers may also inspect mail suspected of having drugs, chemicals, banned quarantined material or items requiring payment of customs duty. Currently, these inspections must be undertaken by either an approved Australia Post official or a person who is authorised by Australia Post, such as customs or biosecurity officers. The bill would allow other approved agency officers to open and examine mail. The bill specifies those officers as an Australian Federal Police appointee, a member of the police force or police service of a state or territory, or a person or persons determined in an instrument by the minister. Importantly, the act says that the minister may by a legislative instrument determine a class of persons who could be added to this list, and as that is by a reviewable legislative instrument it could come before the parliament. The explanatory memorandum says this provision will be subject to that scrutiny. That means it's a disallowable decision, should a vote of a parliament seek to overturn it. Current laws also prohibit the disclosure of information and documents about a mail item, except in specified circumstances. These exceptions include that, among other things, the disclosure is required under a law of the Commonwealth or certain laws establishing commissions to conduct investigations and inquiries, or for the specific purpose of administering a scheme under the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020. The bill would introduce a new exception to permit the disclosure of information or a document to a list of prescribed persons to assist them to exercise their powers or perform any of their functions or duties. These would include the secretary of a department; the secretary or relevant employee administering acts such as the Migration Act, the Biosecurity Act and the Imported Food Control Act; an AFP appointee; a member of the police force or police service of a state or territory; the Director of Public Prosecutions or a member of the DPP; and the CEO of the Australian Crime Commission or another member of the ACC staff. The bill would also allow disclosure to authorise customs and ASIO officers if they suspected that information or documents may be relevant to their official duties. It would expand the secondary disclosure rules to allow sharing of information and documents with those on the prescribed persons list and to use this material more broadly when exercising any of their powers or duties. These changes appear reasonable, given the changing world in which Australia Post and our border, law enforcement and other agencies now operate. The other provision that I want to highlight relates to how officials deal with what is termed 'explosive, dangerous and injurious goods'. Under existing arrangements, Australia Post employees can take action if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that mail articles contain such items, and do so in accordance with Australia Post's service terms and conditions. The bill incorporates those existing Australia Post terms and conditions into the act to strengthen the system. It also provides the power for those suspect items to be delivered to the AFP or to state or territory police officers. The bill also sets out the consumer protections related to the seizure and destruction of suspect mail, including notifications to the sender and intended recipient. It provides for reasonable compensation on just terms as required. One of the key concerns that may arise in the context of this bill relates to privacy issues. After all, this bill makes it easier for officials to open mail and to share information and documents. The government says that the measures in the bill have been designed with appropriate privacy safeguards. It says that the department undertook a privacy impact threshold assessment in consultation with Australia Post and border agencies, and it says the amendments are consistent with Australia's privacy principles under the Privacy Act 1998. The government of course must ensure that the changes in the bill are implemented in a way that protects people's privacy, and it must ensure that the new provisions are not abused. The coalition supports the bill as it seeks to strengthen security and streamline processes related to mail delivery. The coalition will always stand up for border security, and this legislation gives our officials more tools for their task of keeping Australians safe. Debate adjourned. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 21

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 21 10:26 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 (the bill) amends the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 (the FFSP Act) to remove certain limiting words from section 32B and section 39B. Section 32B of the FFSP Act confers power on the Commonwealth to make, vary or administer an arrangement or grant, where relevantly specified in the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations 1997 (FFSP regulations), in circumstances where 'apart from this subsection, the Commonwealth does not have power to make, vary or administer' the arrangement or grant (paragraph 32B(1)(a)). Section 39B of the FFSP Act contains similar words in relation to the specified activities in respect of a company. The FFSP framework was established in response to the Williams decision by the High Court. The High Court determined that the Commonwealth expenditure will only be valid if: legislation authorises the expenditure (with limited exceptions), and the legislation authorising the expenditure is within a Commonwealth head of legislative power. Section 32B was inserted into the then Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (currently the FFSP Act) to provide legislative authority for existing and future Commonwealth programs. The FFSP framework has supported a broad range of spending via arrangements or grants, including emergency payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 bushfires and floods. The amendments will put beyond doubt that the FFSP framework operates consistently with how it has been understood to operate, including in circumstances where another general spending power may be available. The amendments would clarify the operation of the FFSP framework and confirm the validity of government spending programs that rely on section 32B of the FFSP Act, as well as any government involvement in companies in reliance on section 39B of the FFSP Act, in circumstances where other general powers could also be relied on. This bill also includes validation and savings provisions to regularise past spending and government activities in reliance on sections 32B and 39B, in the event that any such past spending or activity may not have been valid because there was an alternate source of legislative authority. The changes in this bill simply clarify the position to what has always been the common understanding. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately. 10:29 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie This bill makes technical amendments to clarify that the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 operates consistently with how it has been understood to operate and has been used by both sides of parliament, since its inception. Part 1 of the bill amends the act and removes particular words from section 32B and 39B, which confers power on the Commonwealth to make, vary or administer an arrangement or grant and allows certain related activities with regard to government business enterprises. Parts 2 and 3 of the bill make consequential and contingent amendments to related laws that authorise expenditure that have been amended to reflect the laws that the bill removes from the act. The opposition will be supporting this legislation. The coalition notes the importance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 and the programs it supports, including ones relating to emergency response payments, drought assistance payments and programs relating to health, education and employment. These are important programs, and the framework that supports them must be as robust as possible. The opposition thanks the government for its consultative and collaborative approach on this bill and the Department of Finance for sharing expertise. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 21

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

Consideration of Senate Message 21 10:32 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. I table a statement of reasons. The Albanese government knows that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and our communities. They're the heart of local communities, the significant employer, employing millions of Australians. Small businesses are doing it tough. We know that. In part in acknowledgment of this fact, we introduced a number of measures to provide ongoing support to small business in last night's budget. They'll find their way through the parliament and we'll be debating that over the course of the week and the fortnights ahead. Small businesses need certainty and they need to ensure that measures announced in the previous budget are legislated in a timely fashion so that they can make their decisions, including their business and investment decisions, accordingly. For this reason it was a kick in the guts for every Australian small business when the opposition blocked the passage of this bill in the Senate for no good reason, leaving small businesses up in the air without any certainty about whether they would get the requisite relief anticipated by the government's tax measures that were announced in last year's budget. The bill should have been passed into law months ago. This would have given small business and their accountants and advisors the capacity to plan for the year ahead. While the coalition blocks this significant relief for small business, the government is moving forward. We have announced an extension of the scheme. We'll extend the instant asset write-off for yet another year, providing an additional $290 million for small businesses over the course of the year ahead. If those opposite vote against this bill in the form that was introduced in the House after the last budget, they'll be voting to block that support for small businesses at the very time that they need relief, including tax relief, and certainty around the investments that they have made and will make into the future. So we call on all members of this House to support the measures as they were originally introduced and enable the government to get on and provide the support small business deserves and needs—and were led to believe they could rely upon. 10:35 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 was amended by the Senate to lift the annual threshold of assets that can be instantly written off by small businesses from $20,000 to $30,000. We want businesses to invest and we want banks to be lending to businesses like they used to. We want productive investment that creates the jobs and industries that we need, instead of speculative investment in asset inflation. Before financial deregulation in the 1990s, banks lent twice as much to businesses as they did for housing. Now they lend twice as much for housing as they do for businesses. This expanded flow of credit into the housing market has helped turbocharge house prices—but that is a bigger issue than what's in the bill. The biggest issue about the bill is its greenwashing. In last year's budget they announced a $340 million package for businesses to improve their energy efficiency. That was part of the $1.7 billion the Greens secured in exchange for the energy price caps. With the passage of time we know that the Treasurer cares more about the announcements than about policy outcomes regarding the emissions of small businesses. Firstly, this program expires next month, so the $340 million announcement will be closer to a $3 million program, because no small business will have the knowledge or time to have made these investments. Treasury and the department of climate change have done nothing to promote awareness of this scheme amongst small-to-medium business owners. Secondly, this won't reduce emissions or energy bills for businesses. The short timeframe, even if it was legislated six months ago, means it is impossible for any sort of thoughtful or methodical energy investment saving to occur. Small business owners are just too busy to manage a project in these short timeframes while still trying to carry out their business. This should be good policy, but it needs to run longer. It needs public awareness. We're not asking for radical changes. We are just trying to get the government to make its policy work so that businesses are investing in energy-saving projects. A period of three years would be enough for businesses to actually plan and use this $314 million. Until that problem is solved, we will insist on the amendments agreed to in the Senate to lift the threshold for eligible assets from $20,000 to $30,000. 10:38 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I note the comments that have been made just now by the member for Brisbane. I simply make this point: it is now 12 months and one day since the government announced these measures for relief for small businesses—the energy investment relief and the $20,000 instant cash write-off. It was the reasonable expectation of small businesses around the country—their advisers and associations—that a measure such as this, which enjoys wide support within the business community and presumably within the parliament as well, that it would be swiftly legislated. As soon as was possible, the legislation was introduced into the House, and it moved through this place and was introduced into the other place. I can understand members of the other place always wanting to do more. But what we've done in this bill is strike the right balance between providing support for small businesses in a timely fashion and incentivising investments in energy-saving technologies but also enabling businesses to make modest investments in the security and knowledge that they'll have the $20,000 instant write-off available to them. We announced in last night's budget that we intend to extend this measure for another 12 months, and legislation will be introduced to enable it to be extended for another 12 months. The right, good and just thing for this House to do is to ensure that the measures already announced can be enacted and that the new measures can be introduced into this place and enacted to provide certainty and security for small businesses. We all want to ensure that small businesses can invest in the sorts of energy-saving technologies that will be good for their business, saving them money on power bills, but also good for the environment. We all want to ensure that they can make investments with the certainty—on the basis of the advice that they get from their accountants and others—that they'll be able to get the tax relief available to them. Let's do the right thing: let's get this measure enacted now, and then we can move on to the measures that were announced in last night's budget. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 75 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 18 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. (Teller) Bell, A. M. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Joyce, B. T. G. Marino, N. B. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wood, J. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:49 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the Treasurer and I simply make the point that the member for La Trobe has moved a division but couldn't gain the support from his own members to back in his division. The member for La Trobe was keen to block an instant tax write-off for over three million small businesses in this country, but he couldn't get the support of any members of his caucus for that—and for good reason. With that point made, I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, and I move: That the reasons be adopted. I hope this time we're able to gain the support of coalition members for over three million small businesses in this country. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 24 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Nepal and India 24 10:50 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Nepal and India from 4 October to 12 October 2023. It was my privilege to lead this parliamentary delegation, and I was joined by Senator Dean Smith, senator for Western Australia, as the deputy leader of the delegation; the Chief Government Whip, the member for Lalor; the member for Corangamite; and Senator Ralph Babet. The Australian parliamentary delegation to Nepal was a historic visit. It was the first of its kind in 63 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries. The delegation was honoured to be the first in so many years. Australia and Nepal share deep ties. Our people-to-people links and education form the foundation of the strong bilateral relationship. Nepal is the third largest source of international students in Australia, and the Nepalese diaspora in Australia is the fastest-growing migrant community, particularly in my home state of Queensland. The trade relationship between Australia and Nepal is growing, and both countries share a commitment to democratic values and international rules based order. The delegation was privileged to call on the Rt Hon. Mr Devraj Ghimire, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Nepal, and the Rt Hon. Mr Ganesh Prasad Timilsina, Chairman of the National Assembly of Nepal. These discussions were warm and emphasised the importance of strong relationships between our parliaments and our countries more broadly. The delegation was delighted to learn from Speaker Ghimire that Nepal has just established its own Nepal-Australia friendship group, an excellent sign for our relationship. The bilateral relationship between Australia and India is at an all-time high. We are comprehensive strategic partners and free trade agreement partners. Like Nepal, India has hundreds of thousands of its citizens studying in Australia and a large diaspora, particularly in the member for Lalor's electorate, who now call Australia home. The delegation was delighted to visit India at such an important time to establish and further strengthen relationships with leaders across the Indian parliament, businesses, academia, and the not-for-profit and other sectors. In Chennai, the delegation was particularly honoured to call on the honourable Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Thiru M Appavu, and the Hon. Dr Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, the Minister for Information Technology and Digital Services. In New Delhi, the delegates received a warm welcome from Mr Baijayant Panda, the BJP national vice president and spokesman, and Mr Manish Tewari MP of the Lok Sabha, a member of the Indian National Congress party, for more insightful discussions. I wish to record our appreciation for the preparation that went into the visit, including the arrangements made by the Australian parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office, led by Ms Alex Cullum, and especially to Ms Shannon Karppinen for all her hard work. The delegation would also like to thank officials from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their invaluable work in the lead-up to and during the delegation. In particular, the delegates wish to thank Her Excellency Ms Felicity Volk, the Australian Ambassador to Nepal; His Excellency Mr Philip Green OAM, High Commissioner to India; Ms Sarah Kirlew, the consul-general in Chennai; and Ms Hilary McGeachy, the consul-general in Bengaluru. Their support to the delegation and the quality of the briefings was outstanding. Finally, the deep ties between Australia and Nepal and India and the ongoing strength of these bilateral relationships were evident to the Australian delegation. There is much promise of further engagement and linkage into the future, and the delegation was pleased to contribute to this. I commend the report to the House. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 25 Report 25 10:54 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report, incorporating additional comments, entitled A capital for all Australians: report of the inquiry into fostering and promoting the significance of Australia's national capital. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms PAYNE 144732 by leave—Australia's national capital, Canberra, belongs to all of us. It is our meeting place, the centre of our democracy. It is where our stories and history are shared through our national institutions. It is a representation of our values and aspirations. It is an expression of who we are as a nation. It is a place we should all be proud of. Unfortunately, our national capital is not always looked upon with the sense of pride or affection that befits a nation's capital. In fact, criticising and dismissing the national capital can often be not only acceptable but politically advantageous for public figures in a way that would be unacceptable of any other city. This inquiry sought to change that narrative by shining a light on and building upon all that our capital has to offer. It sought to ensure that Canberra is equipped to meet the expectations and needs of a city designed to provide for and reflect who we are as Australians. The committee's inquiry was referred by the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Hon. Kristy McBain MP, and I thank her for allowing us to undertake this inquiry. Through the inquiry, we received 48 thoughtful and detailed submissions and conducted nine public hearings to hear directly from the heads of national institutions located in Canberra, from leaders in business and tourism, and from sporting, community, education and environment groups. I really wanted to do this inquiry to give voice to the wonderful people that I meet with as the member for Canberra every day and their visions and the challenges they face in our nation's capital. I wanted to put those on the parliamentary record and enable our committee to make recommendations to government on how we can foster the significance of our nation's capital. I sincerely want to thank everyone who shared their ideas for their commitment to our nation's capital. The committee has made 21 recommendations about how the federal government can foster and promote the significance of the national capital, from nation-building infrastructure projects to supporting stronger collaboration between the national institutions and improved accessibility, particularly for those living in rural, regional and remote Australia. A key focus of the committee's recommendations is investing in and developing essential infrastructure, such as sporting, entertainment and art facilities. This includes stadium infrastructure, Manuka Oval, the AIS, the National Convention Centre Canberra, the Canberra Theatre Centre and Stage 88. It is vital that facilities be modern and comfortable and have the capacity to host world-class sporting events, meetings and performances—events that we can all enjoy, either as athletes, performers, participants or spectators. To experience everything on offer in the national capital, visitors and those who live in Canberra need ready access to it. The committee has made several recommendations relating to accessibility within and to the national capital. This includes the introduction of a hop-on hop-off shuttle bus stopping at each national institution and other attractions around the ACT; improving rail connectivity between Sydney and Canberra, with more services and more passenger capacity; and improving public transport and pedestrian access throughout popular attractions, including in the Parliamentary Triangle. To complement these measures, the committee has recommended better coordination of and collaboration between the fabulous national institutions to support collective storytelling and shared promotion of the national capital. This includes introducing a Canberra ticket or pass to use across the capital and establishing a single online platform to access visitor information. The committee also sees an important role for the National Capital Authority in coordinating these tourism opportunities. Each year, schoolchildren across Australia visit the national capital as part of the PACER program. For most students, it is their first visit to Canberra and an experience they share with their families. The committee heard that access to the national capital through the PACER program is limited for some schools, and more can be done to improve accessibility to the program and to ensure that PACER meets the educational and travel needs of students. The committee agrees and has recommended a review of the PACER program. I want to particularly thank Garry Watson and Jose Robertson from the National Capital Educational Tourism Project for their contribution to this inquiry and their passion for the PACER program and for our capital. Visiting the national capital is not the only way to enjoy it. The committee has made a number of recommendations to support remote access to Canberra and its collections, particularly for Australians living in rural, regional and remote communities. This includes marketing digital access to Australia's national collections and funding touring exhibitions. These recommendations are about bringing the national capital to Australians. The committee's recommendations aim to ensure that all Australians can take pride in our national capital, its institutions and how it represents us. The work set out in this report will help to strengthen Canberra's reputation as a modern and representative capital, ensure that it can be accessed within and outside of Canberra and provide appropriate levels of funding for national facilities. I'd like to just briefly stress, in particular, the importance of the recommendation around a national convention centre and the need for our nation's capital to have the facilities it needs to host the international events and conferences that befits a nation's capital. At the moment, the current facility has to turn away business, and there are larger facilities in much smaller cities around our country. This is something that has been talked about for many years and something that I hope will be seen as a nation-building project and one that we will take up. I would like to really thank my fellow committee members for their hard work and ongoing engagement in this inquiry, especially the deputy chair, the member for Forrest, Nola Marino. I've really appreciated her input and commitment to the nation's capital throughout this process. I'd also like to thank the committee secretariat—in particular Ms Fran Denny, our secretary—for your incredible work in putting this very comprehensive report together. Committee work is such an important mechanism of our democracy, and it is an honour to work with such a professional and dedicated secretariat on this committee, as others. Canberra is more than just a city. It is a symbol of who we are as Australians. It is important that this significant role is recognised, fostered and celebrated. I commend our report to the government as a road map towards this and I commend the report to the House. 11:02 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest by leave—I want to thank the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for her work as well. This report is about fostering and promoting the significance of Australia's national capital; I think the title says it all. It is a Capital for all Australians. Initially, I do want to thank not just the chair but also the rest of the committee and all of those groups, organisations and bodies who came along and presented to us at those hearings. Their great passion and commitment to whatever institution or group they were representing was commendable and gave the committee very valuable information and advice. I do—as the Chair has—want to thank Fran Denny and her very capable team in the secretariat for their work, the way they approached this and what they've delivered for us through the terms of reference: for the national institutions to convey a dynamic, representative national story; to be a source of pride and international recognition; to raise the profile and to focus on the character, values and identity of Australia—which we should be so proud of, because I am—to highlight our sporting, cultural and tourism potential; and to consider future infrastructure needs. As the previous minister in this role, I had the national capital within my scope. I love the capital very much. It was a great privilege to serve in that role. What we see around us here, in my mind, is the vision, the planning and the development of Walter and Marion Mahony Griffin. We see it to this day. It needs to be preserved, which is in part what we're about with this report—to not just preserve it but to enhance it for the future in what is our national capital. I certainly have a particular love for the work of Charles Weston and the two million trees and shrubs he planned and planted between 1911 and 1926. Every time I arrive from Western Australia, every day I walk into this place, one of the great pleasures is to see what changes there have been in the colours, in the foliage and in the constant plantings that remain that are quintessentially Canberra. That's such a treat for someone from rural and regional Australia who doesn't get to see this in their own electorate. We're seeing that ongoing legacy today. I'm very proud of that. I'm also quietly proud of commissioning, when I was the minister, those two wonderful sculptures of Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons for the Parliamentary Triangle. They were the first two female federal MPs, elected in 1943. What a wonderful thing that we now have the sculptures of these two fabulous women right next to Old Parliament House, where they first walked in together. I hope that is something that is celebrated forever. In the recommendations we talked about so many of our national institutions. We did acknowledge the need for people to be able to move around Canberra and that same Parliamentary Triangle efficiently and effectively, without having to use their own vehicles. It was something that came up regularly. We made practical recommendations about public transport, shuttle buses and constant stopping at different institutions so that people could move easily from one to the other. It's really important to be able to do that with the points of interest. I thought the practical recommendations around a Canberra pass were excellent—a ticket that allows people entry to a range of institutions and that lets them get on and off the bus. They choose wherever they go. They use the same ticket. They walk in and make the most of it. These are great offerings for the National Capital Authority to pursue, from pedestrian and footpath access through to providing information and support beyond private vehicles. There was strong support for the government to prioritise the Sydney to Canberra rail option and work with the ACT and New South Wales governments to increase the train services and the number of carriages—a very good thing. No doubt those of us who live in regional and remote Australia certainly need far better access. It was something that I took up with those who came and spoke to us. We actually explored, when we talk about a capital for all Australians, how do those who can never get here ever—and there are some who can never and will never—still be part of this and enjoy the experience? We talked about digital marketing campaigns that were recommended to promote the digital access to national collections, so you can still enjoy these whether you're in Canberra itself or in a very rural, regional or remote part of our country. To actually enable that option for remote participation so that it continues to be a capital for all Australians is something I feel very strongly about. We should not have to miss out just because we can't afford to travel if we're from a remote area. We should be able to enjoy all of these wonderful institutions and what they've got to offer in this digital way. There were other recommendations for regional and remote access and the need for touring exhibitions to take more of these exhibits physically from Canberra and our national institutions to the people in their communities. It creates such an interest and a direct connection back to Canberra. For me, one of the key recommendations was around the proposal to review the current PACER program for schools, to provide a much better opportunity for as many Australian schools as possible to come to Canberra. I'm from WA and I know there are members from other states and territories—it's a huge cost. It's a cost on the parents and on the school community, as well as what's provided through the parliament here and the Commonwealth. But one of the great benefits in their lives is to come to Canberra as a school student. So don't just review the actual opportunities to get here, review the one-size approach as it doesn't necessarily work for some schools or their students because they might have particular focuses in those schools that want to visit different institutions, and smaller institutions, rather than those that are currently on the lists. I had a school of my own here not so long ago. They were from Georgiana Molloy Anglican School in Busselton. It's one of the furthest places from here. In hearing what they got from that, it was just precious to visit them afterwards and say: 'What was it that you got out of this, and will you come back with your family or friends at a particular time? Did you enjoy what you saw? What stood out the most? What about your capital meant the most to you when you were here? What were your favourite sights and experiences?' They will never forget that and what they shared with their friends. Even the things they may not have liked or appreciated at the time will resonate with them as they go through life. They actually came to their national capital, and I'd love to see more young people have that opportunity. We did make recommendations around upgrading Canberra's sporting venues to support national and international events. We are, after all, a very proud sporting nation, and where better to see that than in our national capital at appropriate times. We do need to maintain the AIS as a world-class venue and up to world-class standards so our athletes can get all the help they need to achieve. We actually made recommendations around the redevelopment of the National Convention Centre. It is the 'National' Convention Centre. It needs to be internationally recognised but fit for purpose, not only as a showpiece but as a venue that will do the job that's needed of a national convention centre. For me personally, previously in this role I was very supportive of the development of Stage 88. I think it's a beautiful venue, and there's much more that can be done and enjoyed there. So I think it's a very worthwhile investment. I want to just thank everyone who came, once again, and the committee and our secretariat. I'm looking forward to the government's response to the recommendations that we've made in this report. 11:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 28 11:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 28 Report 28 11:12 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report Statutory inquiry into ASIC, the Takeovers Panel, and the corporations legislation: competition in clearing and settlement and the ASX CHESS replacement project: the CHESS replacement project is too important to fail. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HAWKE HWO I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is leave granted? Dr Aly 13050 Leave is granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I call the member for Mitchell. An incident having occurred in the gallery— Mr HAWKE HWO Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I'll proceed, in spite of that noise. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Can Broadcasting please check what that noise is? Just pause for a second, Member for Mitchell. That's better. I call the member for Mitchell. Mr HAWKE HWO As part of our statutory inquiry duties under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the committee inquired into the regulation of financial market infrastructure and problems with the ASX Clearing House Electronic Subregister System, CHESS, replacement project. Indeed, the committee found many problems with the current replacement project transition as it is today. In our report, we've made several key recommendations—12, in fact—and they go to government, parliament, our agencies, the Treasury and ASIC, and they are well-considered recommendations about what should happen now about the CHESS replacement project. In relation to the regulation of financial market infrastructure, the committee identified significant industry support for the government's competition in clearing and settlement and financial market infrastructure reforms. Hence, the committee has recommended that the government proceed with those reports in a timely way. The committee considered further clearing and settlement reforms proposed by industry participants including pricing and structural incentives, central counterparty interoperability and operational standards, regulator competition mandates and central counterparty default funds. The committee also explored other industry proposed reforms for ASX services including removing the staggered opening of the ASX equities trading, moving to T-plus-one settlement, access to electronic CHESS statements, regulations for titles and transfers, ASIC's role in approving the ASX's operating rules and fair access to ASX's Trade Acceptance Service. This is where we turn to the problems and the pause in the redesign of the ASX CHESS replacement project. It was a significant focus of the committee's report—the problems in the replacement—and it is the considered view of all members of the committee, that, given the importance of the CHESS replacement project to the financial markets in Australia and the operation of our economy, that this pause and the problems that have happened with the redesign of the CHESS replacement project be a central focus moving forward from our committee's report and that our recommendations be taken most seriously in ensuring that this critical replacement project of CHESS be put back on track. In our report, the parliament will find the cost to industry participants in preparing their systems for the new CHESS have been substantial. It's probably tens of millions of dollars in aggregate. ASX shareholders have suffered the impacts associated with the $250 million writedown by the ASX. Acting too late has magnified the costs of the regulatory cleanup by ASIC and the RBA—most serious findings, I'm sure most members here will agree. The CHESS replacement project is a critical component of Australia's financial market infrastructure, and therefore responsibility for it extends beyond the strict legal obligations of the ASX. In fact, if we don't get this right in the technological age that we live in, this will be, potentially, very damaging for the financial markets in Australia, and the committee's confident that we can get this right if these recommendations are considered. That's why the committee's report is entitled on the very front cover 'The CHESS Replacement Project is too important to fail'. It's a clear signal to all agencies involved in this project that we must now get this right. The ASX, ASIC, the RBA and Treasury should have identified and monitored strategic technical risks, such as scalability, for the CHESS replacement project much more carefully in the committee's view. The committee considers that the ASX, ASIC, the RBA and Treasury should now enhance technological skills that are needed. This is a very complex area of financial markets and a very complex project, and those skills and experience at the most senior levels to oversight and ensure projects are on track must be available to these agencies of government. There must be less reliance, in the committee's view, on outsourcing responsibility to contractors and consultants given the centrality of the CHESS replacement project to the operation of Australia's financial markets. Our committee has made recommendations—12 serious ones—to address all of these issues that I've raised today and improve the regulatory supervision of critical financial services technology platforms such as CHESS. For those members who aren't aware, this is a leap forward in technological reform for the clearance and settlement system in Australia. Other countries are doing it and have done it. We must do it and we must get it right. I want to thank the committee chair, Senator O'Neill, for her collaborative and cooperative work. She is an exceptionally financially literate member of the government and someone who was a pleasure to work with on this critical issue. I also want to thank the secretariat; Sean Turner, the committee secretary, and, obviously, Jon Bell, who took over; Rachel Benzie, Julia Bowan and Morgan Jacobs for their exceptional work. The committee, I think it's fair to say, was not pleased to have to conduct this inquiry into this matter and find the failures that we uncovered. What is critical now is that these recommendations are taken most seriously by the Treasury, ASIC and the ASX—I know the government will take them seriously—and that we get the CHESS replacement right and back on track as quickly as possible. BILLS 29 BILLS Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 29

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

Second Reading 29 11:20 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I want to start with a statement of the bleeding obvious, that all members in this place recognise there is a major issue with vaping in Australia. You only need to visit a school in your electorate to hear from the education sector that use of mobile phones and vapes are the two major behavioural issues that our schools are dealing with today in the playground. I would also say that all members in this place would support a harm minimisation approach, particularly as it relates to our young people, and members of this place would support doing whatever we can to discourage young Australians from using these products and becoming addicted to these products. The key question is how we achieve these mutually agreed outcomes. In seconding the amendment moved by my good friend and colleague the member for Cowper, I want to reflect on his contribution to this debate. Keep in mind that the member for Cowper's contribution to this debate came from a very strong lived experience as an undercover police officer and someone who has worked in the legal fraternity. In his amendments the member for Cowper highlighted the need to criticise the government for failing to control the illicit vaping market and failing to protect our children against the proliferation of vaping products, which have exploded in availability through a black market driven by organised crime. His amendments also indicated that we have to acknowledge the existence and the strength of the $1 billion black-market vape trade in Australia, which is fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. He also called on the government to consider all policies to prevent children from accessing and becoming addicted to vaping products. It is easy on the side of the chamber to come to this place and criticise the government. It's very easy to do that. But we also need to acknowledge all the things that we got wrong when we were in government. The policies we made as a coalition in government haven't worked. Effectively a prohibition model has failed. We have seen a proliferation of vaping products. It has flourished and become one of the biggest behavioural problems in our education sector, as I indicated previously. Crime has flourished, attracted by incredible profits. We still don't know what the long-term and unknown health impacts might be on young Australians. I make my position very clear: I hate cigarette smoking. My father died from smoking related lung cancer. I accepted several years ago the rhetoric and the lived experience of many smokers who told me that they believed vaping was actually helping them to get off cigarettes. That's how it was explained to me. It was explained to me as a pathway to better health by getting addicted smokers of their cigarettes and onto the vaping products. We agreed in government that it was somewhat of a necessary evil to help reduce the harmful rates of smoking in our community, because we knew what impact cigarette smoking was having on the health budget. But I fear we were sold a pup. Prohibition simply hasn't worked. In an ideal world no-one would be smoking tobacco and no-one would be addicted to nicotine. But we don't live in an ideal world; we live in the real world. In the real world we need to address the realities of the current e-cigarette climate and the prevalence of their use amongst all age groups, particularly among young Australians. Currently 1.7 million adults are believed to vape in Australia. Approximately just 10 per cent have current GP's prescription, as required by the law. The GP model has not worked. We have to be honest with the Australian public: it simply has not worked. Australia is the only country to adopt the GP restriction model, which has not worked. What has actually happened under the current policy settings—and the member for Cowper explained it perfectly—is that we have effectively outsourced public policy to organised crime. They love it. They love the current policy. Criminal syndicates have flourished under the current legislative regime, and we have seen countless firebombings, particularly in Melbourne but also in my electorate of Gippsland. There have been firebombings of tobacconists as there's been a turf war amongst organised crime figures to protect their own profits associated with the e-cigarettes. It's virtually impossible to counter the organised crime elements, as the member for Cowper has explained, and, as I said at the outset, he would know better than anyone in this place how hard that is. He has lived experience as an undercover drugs operative in the New South Wales Police Force. For, I think, at least five years, I have been writing to the previous government and the current government about my concerns about illegal tobacconists operating in my electorate and have basically been told the resources aren't available. The resources aren't available to tackle this scourge. Continuing with this prohibition model is playing right into the hands of the organised crime gangs and the violent steps they're prepared to take to protect their revenue streams. This is by no means any criticism of any police force in the country, but the reality is our overworked police officers won't be prioritising raids on tobacconists when they have priorities around protecting Australians from family violence, when they have other illicit drugs they're meant to be policing and when they have street crime issues such as people being assaulted. These issues will take priority over raids on tobacconists, and we simply cannot be putting more pressure on our overworked police officers to try and enforce this prohibition model. It really is public policy madness to keep going down this prohibition pathway. The Nationals position on this issue has been developed over a period of several years. This is not a position we have reached overnight. It took a lot of research and consultation with key stakeholders. I do take great exception when I read the comments from the captain of Sanctimony Corner over there: the member for Kooyong. This member publicly alleged that we, the Nationals, reached our position because big tobacco companies have provided financial support to the Nationals, and I find that both hypocritical and offensive. On her logic, our position on a matter of incredible importance to public health has been effectively bought by big tobacco companies for a few thousand dollars. That is the allegation we are wearing from the captain of Sanctimony Corner, the member for Kooyong. So let's just extend that logic to her own circumstances. The Australian Election Commission financial disclosures that are released after each election indicate that the member for Kooyong spent more than $2.1 million to get elected, including a quite extraordinary $749,000 donation from Climate 200. The difference between me and the member for Kooyong is I wouldn't suggest for a second that the member for Kooyong has been bought off or that her donors have some sort of control over her. I wouldn't suggest that for a second, because—quite the opposite—I think it's actually good when people donate to political parties and candidates. That's active participation in our democratic system, in the electoral system, and that transparency in the way the political donations have to be declared are important. It means we know what funding candidates have received. Again, I absolutely reject the suggestion that our position as the National Party to regulate vapes, in much the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are regulated, is kowtowing in any way to big tobacco companies. Our position, as I said earlier, came about after years of consideration of the data and consultation with stakeholders, including in the education sector and families. It's a position that I believe is based on common sense, lived experience and a desire to get crime bosses out of the sector and focus on harm minimisation, which I believe every member of this place supports. We want to see fewer young people vaping. We want to see the health and the harmful impacts being reduced in our community. The prescription and prohibition model will just clog our already overstretched GP clinics and will be welcomed by the crime bosses, who will continue to enjoy the flourishing black market in vape products. A key benefit to our approach and the approach being proposed by the Nationals is that we actually trust our health authorities to run prevention awareness campaigns, because they're pretty good at them here in Australia. We've had great success in Australia with health prevention awareness campaigns in reducing harmful smoking. Regulation has been successful in significantly reducing tobacco smoking rates across Australia, and the take-up amongst young smokers has also been reduced by good health awareness and prevention campaigns. If you follow this approach, duplicate this approach, we believe that vaping products should be regulated and sold as adult consumer products from licensed retail outlets with strict age verification measures in place, similar to tobacco and alcohol. It's been a proven model. Aggressive media campaigns, no doubt, funded from the revenue received from a regulated industry, would be more effective than the failed prohibition approach. I'm not standing here today and pretending this is perfect, but we don't live in an ideal world, and to continue down this pathway is public policy madness. Introducing a tightly controlled regulatory model brings our nation into line with the existing policies in place in other comparable countries such as the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and the EU. The Nationals propose the legalisation, regulation and taxing of government-approved nicotine vapes that follow the same general principles of alcohol and cigarette sales. These principles are pretty clear. They include: licensed retail outlets, supply chains and manufacturing of the goods; availability restricted to people aged 18 and above; strict age verification requirements; plain packaged with mandatory warnings, just like we have on cigarette packets and alcoholic goods; approved labelling; and restricted flavours approved by the TGA. The products would be subject to excise duty which will help to fund the prevention campaigns and there would be enforcement regimes and harsh penalties for offenders. The Nationals' approach, which has been driven from a position of lived experience, honesty and transparency in recognising what we're doing right now hasn't worked, and a determination to support harm minimisation and protect our kids from these products, is an approach that I believe has more chance of achieving success in this space. So in supporting these amendments put by the member for Cowper, I want to return to where I started. I hate cigarette smoking. I support a harm-minimisation approach to vaping, and the government needs to step in to squeeze the organised crime figures out of the market and take away their rivers of cash which are funding violence and other criminal activities. I thank the House. 11:33 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise in support of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 before the House, which is to amend the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to prohibit the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of non-therapeutic and disposable vaping goods. I'm happy to do so as I'm horrified by the blatant marketing of vaping to our youth, especially in light of the advice from Australian Medical Association and other reputable health groups regarding the significant risk to the population's health. This legislation breaks new ground to protect Australians from the harms of vaping, particularly children. Vaping—the act of inhalation and exhalation of vapour produced by electronic cigarettes or similar device—has gained popularity in recent years, especially among adolescents and young adults. However, this trend comes with significant dangers to individual health and to the broader population. Let us address the misconception that vaping is a harmless alternative to traditional smoking. While some may argue that vaping eliminates the harmful tar and chemicals found in cigarettes, it is crucial to recognise that vaping still poses serious health risks. It is also worth noting that most e-cigarettes in Australia contain nicotine even when their packaging says they don't. Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic drug that can harm brain development and impact attention, learning and memory and cause changes in mood. Vaping involves inhaling a plethora of harmful chemicals, including listed poisons, heavy metals such as nickel and chromium, and chemical by-products produced during heating. We're advised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that acrolein, aldehydes and polycyclic hydrocarbons are probably carcinogenic, while nicotine derivatives are known carcinogens in humans. Further, low concentrations of toxic chemicals in vaping substances convert to high concentrations when aerosolised after heating and as the chemicals combine. Evidence suggests that vaping by nonsmokers results in dependence and that vaping can cause respiratory disease, severe burns, poisoning, seizures, acute nicotine toxicity and increased uptake of cigarette smoking. Furthermore, the long-term effects of vaping are still not fully understood, making it risky behaviour with potentially dire consequences for those who engage in it. Labor has a long history of pioneering tobacco control reforms, dating back 50 years to the Whitlam government's introduction of restrictions on tobacco advertising. That legacy certainly continued with the introduction of Australia's world-leading tobacco plain-packaging reforms over 10 years ago. The Pearce electorate includes many families and a growing youth population. The 2021 census registered in excess of 23,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24, so I find the evidence of increasing vaping to be a worrying trend that certainly requires our attention. Given these findings, it is not surprising that grave concern is widespread amongst public health policymakers and practitioners about the increased use of marketing and vaping goods. There are reports from parents, teachers and doctors that nicotine dependence is impacting learning behaviours and wellbeing in our schools. The Australian Dental Association warns that vaping may cause oral health issues. The use of vapes can mean a decreased blood supply to gum tissue, which can result in difficulty getting oxygen and nutrients to this important tissue as well as trouble healing, increasing the risk of gum disease, which often results in significant tooth loss. Vaping is rapidly rising in Australia—which is of great concern—among our youth and young adults, who are particularly susceptible to the allure of vaping, thanks in part to clever marketing tactics that glamorise vaping as a trendy and harmless activity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marketing intentionally targets youth and young adults, with advertising spending often focused on social media promotion, allowing for lower costs and wider reach. Flavoured e-cigarettes in particular have been heavily marketed toward the youth, enticing them with flavours like strawberry, ice mango, blueberry, grape and watermelon. This has led to a concerning rise in vaping among teenagers, with many viewing it as a harmless habit or even a social status symbol. However, once again, the reality is far from benign. Nicotine addiction impairs brain development and is a gateway to traditional smoking. These are just some of the dangers that young vapers face. We cannot sit idly by while our youth fall victim to the deceptive allure of vaping. We must educate our young people about the dangers of vaping, equipping them with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about their own health. The Albanese Labor government is implementing a comprehensive range of regulatory and non-regulatory measures in parallel with this bill. The Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 from 1 April 2024 streamlines and modernises existing Commonwealth tobacco control laws. It also extends advertising regulations to vaping goods and includes new tobacco excise measures, which were announced last year, to further reduce the affordability of tobacco products. The government will also provide $29.5 million over four years to help Australians quit, and it will invest a further $63.4 million in public health information campaigns to discourage Australians from taking up vaping and smoking and to encourage quitting. The government will provide $141.2 million to extend the successful Tackling Indigenous Smoking program to reduce the uptake of vaping and reduce smoking among First Nations people. Funding also includes support for regulatory and enforcement activities, with $56.9 million for the Therapeutic Goods Administration and $25 million for the Australian Border Force. The new ban on possession includes an exception for personal use, including young Australians who are being deliberately targeted. This bill is not about penalising vape users, whether they be adults or children. The focus of the bill is to criminalise the illicit importation, manufacture, supply, advertisement and commercial possession of vapes, to help protect young Australians. I want to repeat that: the focus of the bill is to criminalise the illicit importation, manufacture, supply, advertisement and commercial possession of vapes. The priority is to help protect young Australians. Vaping poses a great threat to the health and wellbeing of our people. It is not a harmless habit but, rather, a dangerous addiction with potentially life-altering consequences. We are committed to measures that will ban all vapes, other than therapeutic vapes imported, manufactured or supplied in accordance with the Therapeutic Goods Act. It is important to note that this bill does not take away the ability for patients to legitimately access therapeutic vapes to help them quit smoking or manage their nicotine dependency. If that is deemed to be clinically appropriate for a patient, then so be it. As the Australian Medical Association has stated, the government's reforms will support people to cease smoking and/or vaping by retaining access to prescription e-cigarettes and making these more accessible to patients, where clinically appropriate, through any GP—and GPs are experts in smoking cessation—and backed by new guidelines that are well placed to help patients quit. We are committed to Australia's international obligations as a party to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, under which parties are obliged to develop and implement effective policies to prevent and reduce tobacco consumption and exposure and nicotine addiction. As a cancer survivor myself, it is clear to me that the health risks posed by vaping are totally unacceptable. I urge you all to support the bill. I'd also like to share a story with you. My young grandson is a type 1 diabetic, and it's very clear in the research that vaping increases spiking in type 1 diabetics, which is life threatening in itself. Please, I urge you to support the bill to help protect our youth from the dangers of vaping and ensure a healthier future for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House. 11:43 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise to speak in strong support of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, and I commend the government and the health minister for introducing this much-needed public health intervention. I'm proud that, as a nation, we are building on the world-leading role Australia has already played in tobacco control. Unrestricted, unregulated vaping is seriously harmful to the health of too many Australians, particularly young Australians. There is a widespread and serious concern among health policy makers, practitioners and academics about the growing use of disposable, single-use e-cigarettes, particularly amongst young people. In addition to the significant health concerns is the fact that the plastic waste from these hundreds of thousands of single-use vapes often end up in our waterways and in our landfill and take a thousand years to decompose. This is not acceptable, when microplastics are already found throughout our bodies and our environment. I would like to note upfront the near unanimous support this legislation has in the public health community. Very broadly, academics, civil society organisations and medical practitioners are delighted that this legislation has been introduced and look forward to the positive impact it will have on the health of Australians, particularly young Australians, both now and into the future. The Cancer Council, a leading expert group on tobacco control with decades of experience in this field, wrote to me to confirm that they and other members of the public health community are united in their strong support for these reforms. The Cancer Council's view is that the reforms will reduce the easy availability of e-cigarettes in our community and to our young people and children. Our children simply should not be able to hop off their school bus, go to the local convenience store and buy e-cigarettes whenever they wish. The Cancer Council also commends the fact that this bill will strengthen and streamline the pathway to access therapeutic e-cigarettes so that prescriptions for them will be more easily and more broadly accessible for those who need them for smoking cessation. It is simply misinformation by vested interests to say that GPs will not be able to keep up with demand. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners strongly refutes this claim, saying, 'This is our bread and butter.' And don't forget: nicotine replacement products are widely available in every pharmacy in the country. The Australian Medical Association was also vociferous in its support for this legislation. I have spoken many times in this place on my significant concerns about the rise of vaping in Australia, particularly amongst young people and children. I'm a mother of teenagers and have practised as a GP for years. I understand the dangers of vaping, both from a health perspective and from a parental one. Those dangers include negative impacts on adolescent brain development, worsened pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. Other, less direct health risks include severe burns, poisoning and seizures. And don't be fooled by the sweet smell of the emissions. E-cigarettes contain as many as 200 toxic chemicals. The World Health Organization has confirmed: E-cigarette emissions typically contain nicotine and other toxic substances that are harmful to both users and non-users who are exposed to the aerosols second-hand. These chemicals include carcinogens, chemicals known to cause cancer, such as acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. They also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds, which can cause irreversible lung damage. They contain diacetyl, a chemical linked to a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans—meaning it destroys lung tissue. This disease is also called popcorn lung. And then there's acetone—yes, nail polish remover. Yum! A single disposable product can contain as much nicotine as 50 traditional cigarettes and cost as little as $5. That's what our children are ingesting. Commonly, they contain nicotine even if they are labelled 'nicotine free'. And nicotine—let's be clear—is one of the most addictive substances in existence, comparable to opioids and cocaine—not quite the cookies and cream and strawberry kisses that you read on the label. What worries me particularly about vaping is the immediate adverse impacts on adolescent and teen brains—the impact on their concentration, their behaviour and their ability to learn. I've heard stories from schoolteachers about schoolkids who have to wear nicotine patches just so they can make it through the exam period and about the behavioural issues and impaired concentration that nicotine dependence and withdrawal lead to in schoolchildren. I've heard from local schools that they have had to install vapour detectors in bathrooms because the use of vapes during class is so prolific. A scientific article on the toxicology of e-cigarette constituents concluded: The adolescent brain is particularly sensitive to the effects of nicotine. It said: This may help explain altered cognitive function and attention performance in adolescents who smoke. It said: Studies in human subjects indicate that smoking during adolescence increases the risk of developing psychiatric disorders and cognitive impairment in later life. In addition, adolescent smokers suffer from attention deficits, which aggravate with the years of smoking. It would simply be irresponsible not to act now when we know this. It is simply not correct to say that vapes are being used by young people as a strategy to quit smoking cigarettes. A recent study of adolescents in New South Wales reported that half of the kids who were regularly consuming e-cigarettes had never smoked. In fact, people who use e-cigarettes are around three times more likely to take up tobacco smoking compared to those who have never vaped. Research published in December 2022 concluded that vaping is the strongest risk factor for smoking. In other words, vaping is a gateway drug to smoking cigarettes. Sadly, it seems to me there has been a cynical strategy to move our children from e-cigarettes to cigarettes by getting them hooked on nicotine. In fact, in Australia there are currently no therapeutic vapes that have been evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for smoking cessation or the management of nicotine dependence. GPs already have several effective ways to help people quit smoking, including nicotine replacement therapy, medications to help manage cravings and counselling. These methods have actually got the evidence behind them that they work. In fact, in my many years as a GP I don't recall a single patient coming to me and asking for a script for an e-cigarette to help them quit smoking. Further, the very idea of vaping as a cigarette cessation tool has been bolstered by—you guessed it—the tobacco industry. Four years after announcing it would move into the e-cigarette market, Philip Morris launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. It is the sole founder of that foundation to which, as reported by the Australian newspaper, it contributes an astonishing $80 million annually. The foundation has financed more than 70 academic papers on e-cigarettes and smoking cessation. It seems to me the tobacco industry is reinventing itself and crafting its own narrative. And it's not just the academic and scientific community that the tobacco industry seeks to capture with its ill-gotten wealth; it's our politicians, too. Firstly, I'll say that the Greens have never accepted donations from tobacco companies. The Labor Party announced 20 years ago that they would no longer accept donations from tobacco companies, and the Liberal Party followed suit in 2013. But, between 2013 and 2023, the Nationals have accepted over $385,000 in donations from the tobacco company Philip Morris. It will be interesting to see how the Nationals vote on this issue. The changes being introduced by this bill have not come a moment too soon, as so-called convenience stores, which are poorly disguised facades for selling e-cigarettes, have popped up in communities all over Australia. In my own electorate of Mackellar, there are at least eight such stores, many of them springing up soon after the government announced, last year, their intention to phase out the use of disposable vapes. These stores are typically located near schools and near stops for buses and trains that ferry our children to and from school. This bill is the next step in the government's efforts to arrest and reverse the increasing rates of vaping and smoking. At its most basic, the bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to ban the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of disposable, single-use non-therapeutic vapes. The bill also requires pharmaceutical-like packaging for e-cigarettes and makes them available only through pharmacies. I congratulate the government for continuing its world leadership in public health by acting swiftly to curb dangerous cigarette products. As part of that sentiment, it's worth taking the opportunity to reflect on the many successful public health initiatives that Australian health professionals have fought for so tenaciously to reduce smoking related harms to Australians, including cancer and emphysema. As a doctor, having witnessed the distress of many patients with emphysema, in my opinion it is one of the cruellest ways to die. We must also remember the health professionals who helped Australia join the front line of global tobacco control. Professor Simon Chapman, world renowned tobacco-control academic and activist, deserves a special mention, as does Professor Melanie Wakefield and her team at the Cancer Council, whose work established the vital negative link between plain packaging and cigarette smoking. The approach to cutting smoking rates in this country has been multifaceted and grew momentum over time. In 1976 the ban on advertising of tobacco products on TV and radio was implemented. Later, cigarette ads were also banned at sporting events. Then tobacco company sponsorship of sport was proscribed, and smoking in workplaces and restaurants and on planes was forbidden. Taxes on tobacco products were gradually increased and graphic warnings on packets mandated. Then in December 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to implement plain-packaging laws. Within three years of this legislation being introduced an estimated 100,000 fewer Australians smoked. This legislation builds on that leadership, and I congratulate and thank this government, and Minister Butler in particular, for their hard work and vision. This is a Sliding Doors moment for tens of thousands of people in Australia who will be spared years of suffering. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 35 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Budget Statement 35 11:56 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro by leave—On behalf of the Albanese Labor government I'm proud to deliver our third regional ministerial budget statement, and I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land where we are today and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. Over the last two years I've had the privilege of travelling this country and talking to people in diverse communities, from Rockhampton up north to Whyalla in South Australia to Tambo Valley in Gippsland and of course across my own electorate of Eden-Monaro. And wherever I go I meet passionate regional Australians that are working hard to build a prosperous life for their families. I know that regional people are talented, they're innovators and they aren't afraid to have a crack. I know this because I've spent my entire life living in regional Australia. Growing up I watched my parents work hard every day to build their own small business. They gave back to our community, and they built a good life for our family. This instilled the values of an honest living and making something of your own. It's why my husband and I followed in their footsteps and set up our own small business. The Albanese government values hard work, and, importantly, we invest in it. It's why we're putting regional Australia at the centre of our plan for a prosperous and resilient future made in Australia—a plan that uses local skills and supports making more things in our own backyard. It's why we're also delivering targeted cost-of-living relief to ease the immediate pressures faced by regional families and businesses. As a regional Australian I want businesses outside of our big cities to grow and to thrive—because they're central to Australia's economy. I want my kids and kids from the country to pursue a career at home—because you shouldn't have to pack up your bags to build a good future. This budget will help deliver that future. Regional Australians are loud and proud of what they have to offer—and the Albanese government backs this. We've delivered record investments in regional people—the places they live, the services they need, the industries that stimulate our local economies. We're relieving pressures on family and businesses, including targeted energy bill relief. And we're improving access to affordable early childhood education and have expanded paid parental leave. We've made historic investments in Medicare—a Labor invention and something that we're strengthening 40 years on. This includes our $3.5 billion investment to triple the bulk-billing incentive, significant investments in Medicare urgent care clinics and the establishment of MyMedicare. We've also been setting regional Australians up for the future, creating a record number of jobs and boosting training opportunities. This includes over 100,000 regional people securing fee-free TAFE to date and our investment in 20 additional regional university study hubs. The Albanese government takes the needs of our regions seriously. It's why we've implemented our Regional Investment Framework, a first-of-its-kind, whole-of-government approach to ensuring regional investment is coordinated and targeted. Labor governments have a strong record of boosting local manufacturing, harnessing economic opportunities and making our regions more productive, and we're building on this through the 2024-25 budget by putting regional industries and local economies at the centre of our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia plan. It is a plan that will leverage the competitive advantages outside of our big cities, that will stimulate our regional economies and that will forge significant investment opportunities. We're investing $7 billion over the next decade to support critical minerals processing in Australia through the new Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive, which will stimulate regional jobs. On top of this, $10.2 million in 2024-25 will establish the Critical Minerals National Productivity Initiative, growing our onshore processing of critical minerals. We will deliver $566.1 million over 10 years from 2024-25 to Geoscience Australia to map the whole of onshore Australia by 2060. This will help us understand the potential of Australia's critical minerals, alternative energy sources, groundwater and other resources. Regional Australia will also benefit from new opportunities in hydrogen, including a commitment of $8 billion over the next decade to introduce a new hydrogen production tax incentive and to extend the Hydrogen Headstart program. The $835.6 million over 10 years from 2024-25 will grow Australian solar manufacturing and open new opportunities across the solar value chain. At Punch's Creek in the Toowoomba region, an 800-megawatt solar farm will support up to 340 direct jobs during construction and generate enough energy to power 300,000 homes. We're also investing $549.1 million to build Australia's battery manufacturing capabilities, which will create a diverse and competitive domestic battery manufacturing industry. An investment of up to $7.1 billion over four years in Snowy Hydro will help deliver Snowy 2.0, a key project in Australia's renewable energy transition. This project, in a beautiful part of my own electorate, is creating cheaper, cleaner power and is just one of the many renewables projects that is uplifting regional economies. Another industry that delivers significant returns to our regions is agriculture, which is why we're investing in the future of the sector with $1.9 million in targeted grants over three years. This will support industry led projects and regional jobs and will encourage highly skilled graduates to enter the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector. After a wasted decade from those opposite, we're making significant investments to improve access to doctors and healthcare professionals because regional communities deserve so much more than empty promises and colour coded spreadsheets. It's why we're making significant investments to improve access to doctors and healthcare professionals. This includes $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive, which has already supported 555,000 additional free visits to GPs outside of our metro areas. I'm a mum. I live in a regional community and, like so many people, have had to drive hours when my kids have been sick in the middle of the night or when there has been a weekend sports injury. The Albanese government is doing something about this. We're providing regional Australians with faster access to medical treatment and more flexibility by increasing the number of urgent care clinics in our regions. From Shepparton in Victoria to Rockingham in WA through to Batemans Bay in New South Wales, existing clinics are ensuring regional Australians can walk in and receive urgent care quickly and for free. We're building on this success by investing an additional $227 million to roll out a further 29 clinics across the country, including in our regions. We'll work with states and territories to ensure these additional urgent care clinic locations meet the needs of people living in our regions. We know that our regional communities are screaming out for doctors, which is why we're incentivising doctors to train and work outside of our big cities. We're investing $116.2 million over five years to strengthen and support our health workforce, including in regional, rural and remote communities. We're expanding the number of rural GP training places in our rural areas in 2024 because we want more people to study in their own backyard and to continue working in their local community. And we're delivering on the long-term call from Charles Darwin University to establish the first medical school in the NT, which will boost training in this region and support growing the NT health workforce. In so many of our rural communities, the Royal Flying Doctor Service provides essential primary health services. That's why we'll deliver $73.8 million over three years to support their vital work. Not only do the RFDS provide emergency medical care and air transport; they also run nearly 25,000 nurse, GP and dental clinics each year and deliver 20,000 face-to-face mental health consultations. Places like William Creek in outback South Australia, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year, now have a permanent RFDS health clinic thanks to our investment. One million dollars from the Albanese government got this site off the ground, and this remote community no longer need to travel up to two hours to their nearest health service. We're delivering record investments in mental health services and training, because we want people in our regions to access care and support at the earliest opportunity. With mental health hubs in Bega and Queanbeyan in my own electorate of Eden-Monaro, I know how access to direct and on-the-ground support makes a huge difference. That's why we're investing $29.8 million over four years in our Head to Health network—which will expand access to free clinical mental health treatment. We're also delivering $27.1 million over three years towards the headspace early career program—prioritising the need to build mental health capabilities and workforces outside of our big cities. On top of this, we're investing $588.5 million over eight years to establish a national digital mental health service—to give people in our regions more options with accessing care. We're a government that's focused on delivering support, regardless of your postcode. That's why we're rebuilding Services Australia, which was completely gutted by those opposite—resulting in slow processing times and phone delays. We're investing $2.8 billion in Services Australia to support the delivery of quality services, efficient customer payments and rapid responses, particularly during natural disasters, which all too often hit our regions. After a decade of neglect, we're also delivering on our commitment to improve aged care, which was left in tatters by the those opposite. Right now, older Australians are receiving more care in their homes than ever before—historic levels of care—thanks to our record investment. We're building on this, with $88.4 million over four years to continue improving the quality of services, including the implementation of 24/7 registered nurses. We'll invest in an additional 24,100 home-care packages, to support people to live independently for longer and to reduce wait times—which will have huge benefits across our regions. We're a government that recognises the importance of connecting regional people and investing in the services they need. That includes our veterans, because Labor has a proud history of tailoring veteran support through the stages of their defence career and into their civilian life. As part of this, we'll deliver $48.4 million over two years to the Veterans' Home Care and Community Nursing programs, to assist veterans to remain independent for longer. We know our regions are great places to live, to work and to invest in. We've strengthened partnerships with all levels of government, to deliver high-priority projects that have lasting benefits. We're delivering billions of dollars towards infrastructure, transport, road safety, housing, and energy efficiency projects. We're progressively increasing Roads to Recovery funding from $500 million to $1 billion per year. We're increasing road black spot funding to $150 million per year. These programs are already supporting hundreds of projects across the country right now, many of which I've had the pleasure of visiting over the last two years—including the Avenue of the Allies at Tanilba Bay in New South Wales and Dixon Drive at Gladstone, which I visited just last week as part of my trip to Beef2024. We'll deliver the $200 million Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program. And because every local community should have confidence in the roads they're driving on, we're progressing a number of road safety projects under our $120 billion Infrastructure Investment Program pipeline. Projects under the pipeline will also connect our regions to key freight routes. In the two years I've spent in the regional portfolio, regional businesses have told me it's hard to keep workers in their communities, because there's nowhere to house them—a direct consequence of nearly 10 years of eyes wide shut from those opposite—but we're doing something about it. We're making significant investments to build more homes across the country. On top of the $500 million we've already committed to the Housing Support Program, we're investing an additional $1 billion to support states and territories continue to build roads, sewers, energy, water and community infrastructure needed to deliver more housing. We're providing $1.9 billion in concessional loan financing for community housing providers and charities to deliver new social and affordable dwellings, including in our regions. And because we know how hard it is to get a tradie, particularly in our regions, we're committing $90.6 million to boost housing supply, by growing Australia's construction workforce. This investment is part of our broader plan to support people in our regions build the skills they need now and into the future. We'll invest $350.3 million over four years to expand the availability of FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses. This will support people in our regions to take the next step in their careers and will help narrow the enrolment divide with our city neighbours. Over five years, $91 million will increase vocational education and apprenticeships in clean energy occupations. That's on top of significant investments we're making to support workers impacted by energy system changes, including in our regions, to secure new training and employment opportunities. We're investing $777.4 million over five years to fund the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, which will work with First Nations people and communities to help close the gap in employment outcomes. Unlike those opposite, we take disaster preparedness and risk reduction seriously. Natural disasters are something my own electorate of Eden-Monaro has felt deeply, which is why I'm proud that Labor are on the front foot. We're investing $73.3 million over four years to support the National Emergency Management Agency continue to play a leading role in disaster preparedness and recovery. The climate is changing and we are supporting regional communities when it comes to climate risks and adaptation, including $519.1 million in Future Drought Fund programs—which will support regional businesses and Aussie farmers to invest in new technologies that will improve their drought resilience. We're investing $20.7 million over seven years to engage with communities on their energy transition, because locally led ideas will be central to unlocking future opportunities. And in my own territories portfolio, I'm proud that we're funding $22.5 million over four years for critical asset replacement and repair in our non-self-governing territories. Since we came to government, we've invested in a better future for regional Australians. We're responding to cost-of-living pressures, including a tax cut for all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers. We're investing $3.5 billion in additional energy bill relief for all Australians, with households to receive a $300 rebate, and eligible small businesses receiving a $325 rebate. We're increasing the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by a further 10 per cent, to help relieve rental pressures. We're making student loans fairer, by changing the way they're indexed. We're wiping around $3 billion in student debt from the Higher Education Loan Program—meaning people in our regions will receive a credit, backdated to 1 June 2023. We'll deliver $319.50 per week to students in teaching, nursing, midwifery, and social work during their mandatory prac, which will also encourage more kids from our regions to pursue study in these priority areas. For women in our regions, we know that financial insecurity is a major contributing factor to whether they stay, leave or return to a violent relationship. That's why we're investing $925.2 million over five years to establish a permanent leaving violence program, providing life-changing financial support for women after leaving a violent relationship and for those who are seeking support and a safety plan to leave a violent relationship. We're a government that backs women, which is why we'll also invest $1.1 billion over four years to pay super on government funded paid parental leave. As a mum from the regions, I know this will have a huge impact, because women retiring with 25 per cent less in their super than men just isn't good enough. This budget is about delivering on our commitments to regional Australia, building on the solid foundations we've established across our first two years in government. It's also about securing a better outcome for people and their families. It's about supporting better access to opportunities and to services, and it's about creating the environments for regional businesses and industries to innovate and grow through a future made in Australia. It's a budget that responds to pressures felt today while ensuring we are on the right track to achieve the potential of tomorrow. When we invest with purpose, when we invest for people, when we invest with principles and when we invest for the future, we're building a stronger regional Australia for generations to come. 12:16 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa It was just under two years ago, at the conclusion of the federal election, that the Prime Minister stood up at an RSL in the inner west of Sydney to give his first televised address to this nation. In his speech, he took this opportunity to articulate the two guiding principles that would drive his government: no-one would be held back, and no-one would be left behind. We've heard these words repeated many times, yet this vision, this promise, this slogan—no-one held back and no-one left behind—rings hollow for the 30 per cent of Australians who live in regional Australia. They are the hardworking men and women who have always been the backbone of our economy. They are the proud men and women who grow our nation's food and fibre and dig up our resources. They are those dedicated Australians who contribute enormously to sectors like primary production, tourism, mining and manufacturing—all those essential services that keep our country moving forward. It should never be lost on those sitting opposite that much of the wealth which underpins their electorates in metropolitan Australia and this budget comes from the efforts of those who live, work and invest in the regions. However, the stark reality is that, in just under two years of this Labor government, the people, the families, the communities and the industries in regional Australia are doing it tough, and it's a direct consequence of the policy decisions this government is making. What we've seen in the 24 months since the Albanese government was elected is an unprecedented and targeted assault on the regions. We've seen enormous cuts to regional infrastructure in road, rail and water projects. We've seen the government tear up the dedicated agricultural visa despite crippling and widespread workforce shortages. We've seen changes to the PALM scheme to the point where it's almost unworkable for our primary producers. We've seen Labor pushing ahead with a $150 million fresh food tax on Australian farmers to make them pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors. We've seen the devastating human toll of the government's move to shut down Australia's live sheep export industry. We've seen the end of bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the return of water buybacks and the recovery of an additional 450 gigalitres of water. We've seen the ongoing rollout of wind and solar factories and the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines across agricultural land in pursuit of a disastrous all-renewables approach to our energy grid. We've seen the distribution priority area classification system blown up, which has made it more difficult for rural and remote towns to recruit a doctor. We've seen a tax on new vehicles, where Australian families, farmers and tradies will pay more for SUVs, four-wheel drives and utes. We've seen more than $400 million wasted on a referendum that divided our nation. And we've seen a cost-of-living crisis continue to worsen, where inflation remains high and where, under Labor's watch, the cost of almost everything is going up—a crisis that has been further compounded by shameful price gouging by the big supermarkets, with Labor taking far too long to act. These are just a few examples of what this government has inflicted on regional Australia. All over our regions it has been hit after hit. It is clear that these are the practices and decisions of a government that is blinded by an ideology which has no empathy, no understanding and no recognition of the practical realities of living in regional Australia and it only promises to get worse, because last night the Treasurer did us over again. This is a budget that completely fails regional Australia. Ever since it was elected, the Albanese government has proven itself incapable of dealing with the cost-of-living crisis that is smashing the hip pockets of so many families. These are families that simply can't afford a third budget failure in beating this crisis, a crisis where Australians are paying 10 per cent more for their food, 12 per cent more for housing, nearly 20 per cent more for their power and 25 per cent more for their gas—their gas. The ultimate result of Labor's economic mismanagement is that families in regional Australia are being hit with higher taxes, higher grocery bills, higher energy bills and higher mortgage repayments. Driven by poor policy and surging migration, Australia is facing a housing crisis. It is an issue that is biting hard in the regions. Since Labor was elected, national median rents have increased by 21 per cent, and Australians are paying an extra $24,000 per year on an average mortgage. Immigration is out of control, and the budget papers confirm the unprecedented increase in net overseas migration which will now see nearly 1.7 million new migrants coming to Australia over five years. This government has fuelled our nation's housing and rental crisis with record immigration at a time when housing approvals are at an 11-year low. While cost-of-living pain intensifies and the housing crisis worsens, many entrenched problems in regional Australia remain under Labor's radar. This is a government that refuses to fix the mess it caused by its decision to change the parameters of the distribution priority areas, a move that has forced rural towns into direct competition with city suburbs to recruit GPs. For Australians living in regional, rural and remote communities, this remains difficult to accept, and it puts lives at risk. Access to child care is an enormous source of stress and frustration for young families living in our regions. Currently about nine million Australians live in a childcare desert while one million have no access at all. We urgently need innovative measures that provide flexibility, choice and access for families living outside the major cities, something that the Albanese government has again failed to do. When it comes to infrastructure and water, we noted that in its first two budgets the Albanese government swung the financial axe over crucial projects which will be worth billions of dollars. Labor cancelled, cut and delayed $25 billion worth of infrastructure projects over its first two years. They abolished more than $10 billion worth of regional programs, crucial programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, community development grants, the Stronger Communities Program and the Roads of Strategic Importance, among many others, are all gone. On top of this we saw transformational water projects including Hells Gate Dam, Dungowan Dam and Emu Swamp Dam all having their funding ripped away. Unfortunately, in last night's budget we saw this trend of cuts and neglect continue with confirmation that not one cent for regional economic development community infrastructure will be delivered this year. Meanwhile, not one new program to support regional economic development was announced. Despite claiming that $1 billion will be made available to strengthen regional communities, funding which would commence on 1 July 2023, no money will be paid out this year under either the Growing Regions or the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. In total, our regions have been robbed of $130 million worth of investment that was intended to be delivered this year. In addition to the $25 billion that was cut and cancelled in our first two years, these budget papers reveal a further $2.1 billion worth of infrastructure that has been gutted from the regions. This takes total project cuts and cancellations under Labor to more than $27 billion. This is a government that now expects to spend $1.6 billion less on infrastructure this year than they budgeted for just five months ago in MYEFO. This is yet more proof of Labor's inability to deliver. Road investment will be $906 million less in 2024-25, and rail investment has been reduced by $528 million across the same period from what was budgeted last May. It's a shame that Labor can find money for an extra 36,000 Canberra bureaucrats but couldn't spend money to fill a few potholes—let alone build new roads—for regional Australia. In the water portfolio, Labor have cut more than $590 million in funding for the Paradise Dam Improvement Project, the Big Rocks Weir project and the Hughenden Irrigation Scheme and redirected those savings to other priorities they haven't even announced. Disgracefully, this government has form when it comes to ripping out funding from water projects, and these cuts add to the $7 billion that was removed from water infrastructure in Labor's first budget. It's also an insult to impacted regional communities that Labor is still hiding how much funding it has allocated to water recovery in the Murray-Darling Basin. These are the water buybacks which will drive up the cost of food and pour more fuel on a cost-of-living crisis. What they're not hiding is the additional $217 million in funding that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water have received to increase their number of public servants by 35 per cent. It's unclear why the department needs more Canberra based bureaucrats at a time when the government is damaging regional communities in our nation's food bowl. But it's not just the paralysis of infrastructure and water where this government has failed the regions. Despite being legislated more than a year ago, Labor's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is yet to deliver a single cent into Australia's manufacturing industry. Those opposite may talk a big game about 'made in Australia', but there's been minimal action on the ground. This is a budget that also shamelessly highlights the contempt the Albanese government holds for Australian agriculture, and among the most troubling measures confronting this sector is the government's so-called biosecurity protection levy, which is due to take effect in less than two months. It's, at core, a new tax which is expected to collect $50 million a year—a tax on Australian farmers and Australian fresh produce. It's a fresh food tax that will make our farmers pay the biosecurity risk of their foreign competitors so they can bring their products into this country and compete with Australian producers on the shelves of our supermarkets. In what parallel universe would any government do this to our primary producers? But, despite widespread opposition, with a glaring lack of detail Labor is pushing ahead by setting the tax rate as a proportion of an industry gross value of production over a three-year period. Unlike under those opposite, under a coalition government Australian farmers will not be punished by the biosecurity risks of their international competitors. If elected, our approach to sustainably fund biosecurity in the long term will target those who create the risk—the importers. This will be done by establishing an importer container levy, which would apply to all containerised cargo coming into Australia. This is the sensible, reasonable and fair approach that's needed. So, when it comes to the biosecurity protection levy, we urge the Albanese government to listen to the concerns of our farmers and industry leaders and to take action. An essential part of our agriculture sector is the live export industry. It contributes more than $1 billion, provides a crucial source of employment across regional Australia and is underpinned by the world's best animal welfare standards. However, what we see in this horror budget is $107 million committed by the Albanese government to transition to the end of live sheep exports by 1 May 2028. It's inexcusable that we have just witnessed an Australian government throw more than $100 million in taxpayers' money to shut down a lawful, profitable and sustainable animal production industry—one which employs more than 3,000 Western Australians. The decision by the Albanese government to proceed with this policy is disgraceful, heartless and morally bankrupt. An essential question is: while sheep producers are suffering from drought and falling prices and being forced to shoot their own livestock, why has Labor callously placed the interests of extreme activists over the emotional wellbeing of our farmers? This is a decision that will cost thousands of jobs and will tear apart the social and economic fabric of Western Australia. Shamefully, this is a decision that has never been predicated on science or economic data, and it's one that ignores the clear evidence that this trade is growing substantially and the comprehensive animal welfare reforms implemented in 2019 have been world leading. I say to those opposite that ripping up this trade—cutting and running—and ruining innocent livelihoods in the process is not the Australian way. Today I reaffirm the federal coalition's ironclad commitment that, if we are elected, we will protect, support and reinstate the live sheep export industry if Labor succeeds in shutting it down. Under the coalition, this trade has a future, and this side of the House will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. In this budget, when it comes to agriculture, the hypocrisy of the Albanese government is staggering. Take, for example, drought assistance. Not only is the government announcement of a $519 million Future Drought Fund nothing new, given that it was the coalition who set it up when we were in office, but the stark reality is that Labor voted against it in 2019. So we welcome this measure and the support that it will offer. It's worth recognising that when this fund was first created it was Labor MPs who turned their backs on farmers and local communities at a time of drought when they needed it the most. In conclusion, in contrast to the empty slogans of the Albanese government under their watch, our regions are being held back and left behind. Right now, the people in that part of the nation are struggling. Under Labor, they feel abandoned, ignored and taken for granted. I want to take this opportunity to assure those regional Australians who are watching this broadcast that, if the federal coalition is elected into government, we'll take the decisive action that's needed to give them a fair go. We'll take action on Labor's cost-of-living crisis by tackling the drivers of inflation. We'll take action by delivering the strong infrastructure funding pipeline that our regional communities need. We'll take action by reinstating the ag visa and ensuring that the PALM scheme works for farmers so that we can establish a sustainable long-term regional workforce. We'll take action by axing Labor's shambolic fresh food tax and instead properly funding our biosecurity system by targeting the risk creators—the importers—instead of forcing primary producers to pay for the biosecurity risks of international competitors. And we'll take action by always supporting and backing our live export industry and reinstating the live sheep trade, in contrast to Labor, who have embraced a destructive ideology to tear it down. Unlike those opposite, the federal coalition will take the action that's required to give regional Australia the optimistic and promising future that it deserves. BILLS 41 BILLS Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 41

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

Second Reading 41 12:32 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Vaping is a pox upon our house—this House and our entire nation. Currently in Australia there are 1.7 million people who regularly vape, and amongst high school students that number is one in six. Why is vaping so problematic? It's problematic for many reasons. One is that vaping is a gateway drug to nicotine addiction. We know that people who vape on a regular basis are three times as likely to go on to become smokers, and that's a huge problem, because smoking and tobacco use are the No. 1 risk factor for death in Australia. This is based on evidence tabled by the National Tobacco Strategy last year. Tobacco use is the No. 1 cause of death, followed by a range of other risk factors. It's higher than a poor diet, it's higher than physical inactivity, it's higher than alcohol use and it's higher than illicit drugs. At the moment in Australia, smoking prevalence is around 11 to 12 per cent. We want to drive those rates down, and the National Tobacco Strategy discusses that. We are aiming to drive smoking rates down to 10 per cent or less by 2025 and to five per cent or less by 2030. But it's not going to be achievable unless we tackle the scourge of vaping. Vapes were originally sold as a therapeutic device to help smokers get off the cigarettes. In fact, the reverse has occurred. These devices were so poorly regulated that big tobacco essentially used them as a marketing tool to hook people and turn them into nicotine addicts. They have interesting flavours—a whole variety of flavours, including strawberry. They look like highlighter pens or USBs. The vaping stores have cropped up throughout our streets and suburbs, and most of them are within 50 metres of a school. In fact, big tobacco is aiming to turn a young generation of Australians into nicotine addicts, essentially. Vapes themselves, however, are not just full of nicotine, they are actually a chemical cocktail. We don't actually know what is in these substances, but we have got evidence that they can cause severe lung injury. There is a condition called EVALI, e-cigarette and vaping acute lung injury, which has been well described in medical literature. It shows that vapes are associated with severe lung injury, which can result in intubation and ventilation in intensive care, as well as lung transplantation for those patients who are lucky enough to get access to lung transplants. There is widespread community concern around this issue. In fact, reforms that we've already tabled with the banning of the importation of vapes in January of this year have been widely supported by the community and by a range of public health experts. Our second tranche of reforms, which is the substance of this bill, will aim to ban the sale and marketing of vapes in the streets and suburbs of our communities. This approach has been endorsed by a range of organisations, including peak medical groups such as the AMA and the RACGP, as well as others. The state and territory health ministers have also endorsed this legislation, so we would urge support from everyone in this House. But it's not just the peak groups, ordinary Australians arealso very interested and animated by this issue. My own constituents have stated on a local Facebook group: 'As a paediatrician and a parent of teens, I have significant concerns about the impact of vapes. Nicotine and up to 200 other toxic chemicals contained in vapes impact on the current physical and mental health of young people. We see this firsthand in our interactions and consultations with young people. I also have significant concern about the long-term impacts and effects of vaping. If we wait for long-term data, it will be too late. We need to act now. Indeed, there is evidence that vaping on a regular basis has an adverse impact on adolescent brain growth. We also know that it has an adverse effect on pregnancy outcomes and it can contribute to accelerated cardiovascular and respiratory disease.' Another constituent said: 'Sensible regulation is a strong, positive move towards ending the youth vaping crisis. Regulating retail sales of nicotine vaping products, including strict age verification requirements, will stop the black market in its tracks and keep dodgy products out of the hands of children.' And that's the message that we are hearing loud and clear: the community want action and we are indeed delivering on that. The legislation that we are tabling will introduce offences and civil penalty provisions designed to protect Australians, particularly young people, from the harms associated with illicit vapes. This will be achieved by banning the importation of vapes, which was done back in January of this year, as well as the domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and marketing of non-therapeutic and disposable single vapes. All vaping advertising on social media or on retail websites and the promotion of vaping goods by influencers on social media will also be banned. Those flashing lights signalling 'vapes sold here' that you drive or walk past in our streets will be gone. They will be made unlawful. We're also enhancing the quality and safety standards associated with the manufacture of vapes. These commenced back in March of this year. We have limited the flavours to mint, menthol or tobacco, and we are also foreshadowing other standards, such as the requirement to limit the maximum amount of nicotine in the vape, as well as plain pharmaceutical packaging, and very clear labelling. In other words, we are dialling down the flashing lights and dialling down the marketing so that these devices just simply do not look enticing enough to hook people. The important message here is that we're not taking a punitive approach to the individual. We're not out to target the individual, but we are certainly going for big tobacco. That is why we introduced the ban on the importation of vapes back in January of this year. Since that ban came through, we have seized 1.5 million vapes—1.5 million. It is huge. That's a mountain of vapes. That's 1.5 million fewer vapes in the hands of Australians, including children. We're trying to choke off the supply, but we need to do more. The issue now, of course, is that we have a group of Australians who are essentially dependent on nicotine. I think it's important to talk a little bit about the kinds of problems that these people may encounter as access to vapes diminishes. Nicotine withdrawal is well described. It's something that I had to deal with in my medical practice in hospital, and it can manifest in many ways. People rarely say that they are withdrawing from nicotine or smokes; they just don't say it. Instead, it manifests as irritability, problems with concentration, difficulty sleeping and, of course, finally aggression. These manifestations can occur not only in adults but also in children. I think it's important, particularly for parents, as well as for schools, teachers and principals, to be aware that there may be children in their midst who are not disclosing that they are regular vapers but who will manifest problems with nicotine withdrawal. We are committing close to $30 million towards smoking cessation services. That includes bolstering the Quitline. It is also important to understand that access to nicotine replacement therapy is widely available. Nicotine patches, gums and sprays can be purchased over the counter at pharmacies and sometimes even at supermarkets. They are widely available, and they can be used by anyone over the age of 12, depending on the product labelling. But further support is also needed, sometimes with counselling and with psychotherapy. My advice to parents and to persons in authority, like schoolteachers and principals, is to flag these issues early with your organisation. I advise parents to take their children, particularly, to their local doctor for advice on how to manage nicotine withdrawal. GPs are well versed in doing this work. They are professionals. They've done it for decades, fighting the fight against big tobacco. The Commonwealth has also committed an additional $25 million to the Australian Border Force and $56 million to the Therapeutic Goods Administration over the next two years to enforce this work. A National Vaping Working Group was formed in November 2023, comprising the Commonwealth, state and territory health and police departments, the AFP and Australian Border Force. It's really important that this work continues in a very collaborative fashion, because obviously the Commonwealth can create the legislation but it needs to be operationalised, and big tobacco are sneaky. These illicit operators will try to find any weakness in order to ply their trade. We need to ensure that all our agencies in our state and federal governments, as well as other groups, are working collaboratively, and that is something we are supporting with this funding. Finally, I would also like to say that, once upon a time, Australia led the world when it came to tobacco control and smoking cessation. Indeed, it was a Labor government, the Rudd and Gillard governments, and a Labor health minister, Nicola Roxon, who took on big tobacco, with plain packaging. We are now picking up that baton. It is commendable that this minister, Minister Mark Butler, is willing to take on this scourge and do something about it. I commend this bill to the House. 12:44 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I'm supportive of any measures that will curb the insidious uptake of nicotine vaping by our young people. The rapid rise of vaping amongst young people is a huge issue in my community. It was one of the first issues that were raised with me when I was elected, and it continues to be raised again and again by constituents. I've had more than 40 individual emails about kids and young adults vaping, all of them worried about the harmful long-term health effects of nicotine addiction. For so many years, Australia was a world leader in tobacco control, but, with the increase in recreational vaping, it feels like we've lost our way. So I commend the government for introducing the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, which prohibits the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of non-therapeutic vapes and vaping goods. This is aimed at stopping the supply of non-therapeutic vapes and stamping out the illicit vaping black market. Its aim is to criminalise not vape users but rather vape suppliers. I note that this bill is the final stage of the government's vaping reforms, following a series of regulation changes intended to address the illicit vaping market and its harms on the Australian community. This House has spoken previously about the provision of medical-use vapes as a tool to assist with nicotine dependency. This bill is not about prescription vapes, which can be regulated and provided to patients in need. This is about non-prescription vapes that are being sold in an unregulated market. The legality of non-prescription vapes in WA is actually different to the rest of the country. In WA, non-prescription vapes, both those containing nicotine and those without, have been illegal since the 2016 court case that found that vapes breached the tobacco control act, which prohibits any product that looks like a cigarette or a cigar. But, despite this ban, vapes are still everywhere in Western Australia. Last year, I was contacted by distressed constituents about a vape shop that had opened on Rokeby Road in Subiaco, 120 metres from Subiaco Primary School. The shop was branded, outfitted and advertised as selling vapes despite the fact that selling vapes was illegal. I'm pleased to say that, along with other community voices, I drew attention to the vape store, and the Subiaco council took action. It's no longer there, but this should not be allowed to happen. In WA, single-use vapes may be technically banned, but the black market continues to publicly and blatantly exist, and it appears that the biggest issue is a complete inability to enforce the prohibition. That brings me to this bill. I'm pleased that the additional measures in this legislation include creating structures to enable better enforcement through state and federal governments working together and also higher penalties relating to importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisements. This is great for WA. Cutting off imports at the border is essential to halting the supply of vapes reaching Australia. Allowing the seizure and forfeiture of vaping products that have been commercially supplied or manufactured empowers state and territory officials to carry out enforcement powers under the new reforms. Having a coordinated approach between federal and state governments will be essential. There'll be a national vaping working group with senior members from state and territory health departments and police forces, as well as the Australian Border Force, the TGA and the AFP. So, after this legislation is passed, in WA it will now be up to the health and police departments to take an active and collaborative role to enforce the laws that we now have in place. I do have one concern about the bill. The bill aims to stop the supply of vapes by prohibiting commercial possession, yet the term 'commercial possession' is not defined and is expected to be defined in the regulations. I am concerned that this definition could be so broad that addicted individuals could be caught up in the new criminal charges, so I urge the government to clarify this definition to strike that balance between the need to crack down on vape suppliers and the desire to keep individuals out of the criminal justice system. We will hear a lot of noise from the tobacco lobby and related parties about why we should not ban vapes but just tax them instead. If you hear this message, I'd encourage you to follow the money. You'll only hear this pro-vaping message from those who stand to benefit from people vaping, whether it's the tobacco companies or the political parties that receive donations. The National Party has taken nearly $400,000 from Philip Morris over the last decade, and I'll be very interested to see how the National Party votes on this piece of legislation. The reality is that nicotine in vaping is damaging and addictive. ANU research has shown that in the long term nonsmokers who vape are three times as likely to take up smoking as nonsmokers who don't vape. That is why the tobacco industry wants to see vapes normalised: it's their survival and expansion plan—at the cost of our kids. They're trying to build a new generation of smokers. I'm pleased that the government has committed to a public health awareness campaign and further funding for smoking cessation support services to complement the measures in this bill and to ensure that there'll be effective support for those who need it to help them quit nicotine products. I hear time and time again the growing community and expert concern, not about smokers transitioning down to vaping but about young nonsmokers transitioning up to vaping and then on to smoking. In the words of a 23-year-old constituent, 'Most of my friends vape and none of them were smokers before.' I think that says it all. I've heard stories about how hard it is to quit vaping because you can do it anywhere, even in class at school. I've heard of vapers actually switching to cigarettes to try to quit because at least it's less socially acceptable and you have to go outside, which forces them to do it less often. As with so many things, the success of this legislation will depend on state and federal cooperation. I implore the WA government and the federal government to work together to enforce these important new laws in the interests of our young people. Thank you. 12:51 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls At the outset I just want to say that nobody wants to see Australian children having access to vaping products or becoming addicted to vaping, and I think that's the sentiment across this parliament. So, the debate is: what's the best way to reduce Australian children's access or addiction to vaping or their trying vaping in the first place? That's the debate we're having. It's a little bit like emissions reduction: we all want to see emissions reduction; it's not about 'if' we act; it's about the 'how'. And we should have that debate about the 'how'. It's clear that the current prescription-only model is failing, with only around 10 per cent of vapers purchasing their product legally through prescriptions. We're very concerned that entrenching this existing failing model will not prevent children from having access to vaping products—it hasn't so far—and will further drive the sale of these products to the black market. The government has also failed to establish or fund its promised illicit tobacco and vaping commissioner. And the resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and the point of sale has been grossly insufficient. Critically, the government has failed to explain how their legislation will prevent children from accessing vaping products, how it will not further fuel the black market and how they will adequately fund enforcement measures, both at the border and at the point of sale, and measure the success or failure of the policy. It would be irresponsible not to demand further investigation into these issues through a Senate committee inquiry before we finalise our position on this legislation. And we will not stand in the way of this legislation passing through the House so that we can thoroughly scrutinise this critical issue in the Senate. And the government's failure to control the illicit vaping market and its failure to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products means that greater scrutiny is absolutely essential. Now, just to say a bit on the black market, currently the vaping black market is estimated to be worth $1 billion, which is fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. We have seen, particularly in Victoria, the consequences of fostering a lucrative black market in tobacco and vaping—a string of fire bombings and other serious crimes that have occurred during a brutal turf war between criminal gangs fighting to control the market. The latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that one in 10 Australians under 18 are current vapers. This represents a fourfold increase since 2019—an unacceptable situation. In Victoria alone the black market for vapes has been valued at up to $500 million. Critically, the government has to explain how this legislation is going to be enforced, how it will prevent children from accessing vaping products and how it will not further fuel the black market. Now, one of the great contributions to this debate and to this legislation has come from the member for Cowper, and I know it comes from the member through lived experiences and through a desire to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is reducing vaping, amongst children particularly. He makes sense. He criticises the government for failing to control the illicit vaping market and failing to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products that have exploded in availability through a black market driven by organised crime. The member for Cowper is alarmed, as we all are, at the proliferation of vaping amongst young people. The member accepts the reality that a $1 billion black market vape trade exists in Australia, fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. And he recognises that the resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and at the point of sale has been grossly inefficient. I think the most important thing the member for Cowper brings to the table is that policy measures such as prohibition have historically not worked. Now, it takes humility to admit when your policy wasn't quite right. But it's also necessary for us to look at what we've tried to do with the best of intentions as a parliament and change our approach if the approach isn't working, and that's what the amendment from the member for Cowper seeks to do. I notice that the AMA and some other health experts support a prohibition model, and people say, 'Oh, we have to listen to the AMA; they're the experts'—or other health groups. No-one's arguing that vaping is good for you. No-one's arguing that vaping is good. And the AMA are not experts in public policy or how to enforce or encourage certain behaviour in people. So, whilst I respect the AMA and I respect their position, I think this is about the mechanism we use in order to get people to stop doing a certain thing. The debate in this place is about prohibition versus a regulated model. I just want to draw attention to my good friend the member for Higgins, who I think is making a good contribution in this place. But she made the point earlier that it was a Labor government, with Nicola Roxon as the health minister, who led the charge on reducing smoking with plain packaging and a regulated model putting money into advertising. Well, that's the model we're talking about here for vaping. What Labor did then—they didn't prohibit smoking, because they knew that wouldn't work, because they knew it would lead to a black market—was a regulated model. And I support some of the things that were done during that government, which the member for Higgins told us about. But it was a regulated model and involved using the revenue to try to drastically reduce the number of people smoking—and it's had some good effects. What we're saying is that that model can work in this case, and that's the important point I think we need to make. There's no doubt that vaping is out of control, I hate seeing it; we all hate seeing it. We hate seeing children having access to these products. We don't know what's in them. They're imported. They're not subject to any control in manufacture or requirements to be upfront or to identify what's in them. The current situation is unsustainable. How will we protect our children if all we do is create a bigger black market? As with tobacco, the rewards are worth the risks for criminals. Losing shipments at the border is not a deterrent; the ones that inevitably get through more than make up for it. In clear acknowledgement of their lack of action on enforcement, the government supported the coalition's amendment to establish a new illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner within the Australian Border Force. We've called for the urgency of putting the commissioner in place to adequately address the tobacco and vape black market, but the government has failed to do so. The Albanese government must come clean on this legislation and say how it will be enforced, how it will stop the illegal trade flourishing and how it will protect Australian children. In conclusion, I want to commend the member for Cowper on the approach in his amendments. It comes from lived experience. When we have people who have expertise in certain areas—and law enforcement is part of the expertise of the member for Cowper—we should listen to those people. When I was elected, this was not an issue that I came to this place with a specific view on. I was happy to listen to both sides. All I want to see is less vaping—and no vaping amongst people who are under 18. How do we best do that? It's the how, not the if. I think that previous approaches to the reduction of smoking, through a regulated model, indicate that that's the direction we should go in and that the prohibition model, particularly as it's currently being operated, is not working. Again, we all want to see an end to this. How do we do it? We need to have a constructive conversation and be prepared to change our position as the evidence mounts. 13:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. I have reflected on the remarks of the member who spoke immediately before me, and I would like to draw a distinction between where cigarettes have been and where vaping is now. I think cigarettes have been built into the culture of Australia over many, many decades, and we are doing our very best, through regulation, to reduce that dependence on cigarettes. Vaping is a new form of nicotine dependence that has emerged very quickly and very strongly, and very much amongst our young people. My nervousness about what the member suggested, in terms of pursuing a purely regulatory model, is that it misses the opportunity to stamp out vape dependence more broadly, except in the case of nicotine cessation or smoking cessation. If we look back in time, 100 years ago, if we had the opportunity to stop smoking before the dependence started, would we have jumped in—and should we have jumped in? I think the answer is actually yes in that situation. I think it is going to be very hard for us, given the extent to which vaping has taken hold, to take it away from our society. At the same time, I think we should still try, because this is a relatively new area. It is an area that is still emerging, and habits haven't been formed over a lifetime in the same way that they have for cigarette smoking. To come back to the reason why I support this bill, the availability of vapes is of enormous concern to my community. The approach has been low regulation—you can't sell nicotine vapes in our stores; you have to get a prescription for that. But these nicotine vapes are absolutely everywhere. In my electorate of Wentworth I was appalled, as was the principal, to find that a tobacco shop had opened just two doors down from the entrance to my old school, with tobacco vapes out the front. In that particular situation, I know that the store was approached by the health department. They looked at it and found that they were selling nicotine vapes. My community is very concerned that that shop and other shops like it couldn't be closed down and that very little action could be taken. I think my community is looking for much stronger action on vapes. Vaping is being directed at our children, and it is unacceptable. We see the nicotine vapes, in bright colours and in flavours like bubblegum and banana milkshake, stacked on shelves alongside lollies and chocolates. That's exactly what I saw in my community. Parents were outraged. This is not a story that's unique to Wentworth. Across New South Wales one-third of 14- to 17-year-olds have used vaping products, and more than half of that group have used a product they know to have contained nicotine. Under the current regulations, which aren't working, they should only have been able to get those through their GP, but that is not how it is currently working. The current regulations are not fit for purpose, and so I applaud the government for trying to take action. Among other things, this bill implements a general definition of vaping products, accounting for the rapidly evolving market determined to avoid regulation. It places penalties on the importation and manufacture of vapes as well as significantly restricting the advertisement and spread of health misinformation regarding these products. I think these changes will help put an end to the tobacco industry's insidious marketing of vaping products to children, which is putting the health and wellbeing of our young people at risk, but I acknowledge this is going to be hard to implement, and I think the devil is absolutely going to be in whether we can actually implement this effectively. This is an area where I'll be following the government actions very closely, because I think we would like to remove the prevalence of vaping across our community and really reduce that, but how we do that is not going to be simple. This legislation is a start, but it is going to be all in the implementation in terms of whether it has the impact that we across the community want it to have. But the legislation is, at least, a first step. 13:05 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I want to thank the member for Wentworth for her contribution and for the contribution of all members, but the member for Wentworth has been a strong advocate for action in this area. She talks about her experience of a vape store setting up just down the road from her old school, and you think, 'What a coincidence, Deirdre Chambers!' But the experience across the country is that nine out of 10 vaping stores have been set up in walking distance of schools, and it's not a coincidence. It's a deliberate decision because those stores know that their target market are schoolkids, and it's an absolute outrage. Today, I'm summing up the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. This bill builds on Australia's pioneering tobacco control reforms that go back 50 years but also include our world-first tobacco plain-packaging reforms and the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 that was passed in parliament just before we rose in December. Consistent with these reforms, the Australian government is now introducing world-leading vaping reforms to prevent serious current and future population health risks. Vaping is a public health menace. The rapid rise in vaping among young people is particularly alarming. The latest national data showed that in the year to June 2023 one in six high school students had recently vaped—a fourfold increase since the previous survey in 2017. This underscores widespread and serious concern among public health advocates, policymakers, practitioners, parents and school communities about vaping in this country. Strong and decisive action is needed to arrest and reverse this increase in vaping and to prevent long-term adverse effects on population health before it is too late. The Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 addresses these concerns through stronger regulation and enforcement. The bill is the centrepiece of our reform package and supplements import controls that were instituted at the border earlier this year. Specifically, the bill bans the importation, manufacture, supply and commercial possession of disposable single-use and non-therapeutic vapes while preserving legitimate patient access to therapeutic vapes through pharmacy settings for smoking cessation and the management of nicotine dependence, where clinically appropriate. To achieve this outcome, the bill extends the operation of the Therapeutic Goods Act to all vapes, irrespective of nicotine content or therapeutic claims. This is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances to address strategies used by companies and criminal syndicates to avoid detection and seizure by mislabelling vapes to conceal nicotine content. Such tactics, for so long, have frustrated compliance and enforcement efforts by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, border authorities and the states and territories by requiring laboratory testing of the vapes before any action can be taken. Vapes are marketed to young people aggressively in online advertising and other youth focused media channels, with product flavouring and design explicitly intended to contribute to their appeal and their uptake among young people. This is unacceptable, particularly noting the highly addictive nature of nicotine and the exposure to other dangerous chemicals. This is a crisis that deserves our national attention. The Commonwealth and all states and territories, Liberal and Labor alike, are committed to collaboration on compliance and enforcement activities. This is reflected in the establishment of the National Vaping Working Group, comprising Commonwealth, state and territory health and policing departments, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force. This working group is responsible for developing the national vaping enforcement framework, which will support a collaborative, coordinated and nationally consistent approach to enforcement. Under the bill, there are significant penalties for the importation, manufacture, supply and commercial possession of disposable single-use and non-therapeutic vapes. Consistent with the federal cooperative scheme, the Commonwealth will take responsibility for enforcing importation, manufacture, sponsor, supply and advertisement. The states and territories will take responsibility for enforcing wholesale supply, retail supply and commercial possession. The Australian Border Force will lead enforcement at the border. The Therapeutic Goods Administration and state and territory health officers will exercise powers and functions in concert with police authorities as required, and that will be particularly when organised crime is involved. The focus of the bill is to criminalise unlawful advertisement and supply. Strengthening the regulation of all vapes through enhancing border controls, banning all disposable single-use and non-therapeutic vapes and ending the supply of vapes outside of pharmacy settings will make it easier to identify and disrupt the illicit supply and advertisement of vapes and to take appropriate enforcement action. This is needed to protect young Australians, in particular. For the first time, under the Therapeutic Goods Act there will be offences and civil penalties for the commercial possession of vapes outside of appropriate clinical settings. We're not interested in penalising vape users. These offences and penalties are aimed squarely at unlawful retailers and operators of warehouses, as well as other persons with significant quantities of vapes who deny any involvement in commercial supply. These are tiered offences, with higher maximum penalties depending on the quantities of vapes that are possessed. The new ban on possession includes an exception for personal use, including by young Australians, who are deliberately being targeted by companies and criminal syndicates determined to make a profit. This bill is not about penalising persons who are using vapes, whether they are adults or children. It is about ensuring strong deterrence from illegal conduct that may harm an entire generation and future generations of Australians. This bill has been through a process of extensive consultation and input from the Australian community, including from public health experts, cancer groups, tobacco control groups and many, many others besides. A lot of work has gone into the development of the bill to ensure that it appropriately responds to the scale of the public health issue that it seeks to address. I want to acknowledge the immense effort given by all of those who had a part in its development, including stakeholders from across the community as well as officials from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Australian Border Force and the Department of Health and Aged Care, to name but a few. A lot of people have worked very hard to get us to this point on behalf of generations of young people, both today and into the future. To all those who did, I say this: you have the thanks and the gratitude of the Australian people and, most particularly, from young Australians and their parents, their teachers and their school communities. I'd also like to acknowledge the engagement of all those in this place who have spoken in support of the bill, particularly those members of the crossbench who have been such strident and vocal supporters of these reforms. Parents and young Australians are grateful for the support that you gave, both inside and outside this place, and that support will be particularly important if we now pass the baton to our colleagues in the other place. I was pleased to see that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee did recommend that this bill be passed. Their support gives me faith that the Senate will do the right thing and support its passage when the time comes. Vapes were sold to the Australian community as therapeutic goods that would aid those seeking to quit cigarette smoking, and so it is entirely appropriate to regulate them as therapeutic goods, through controls that simultaneously ensure legitimate access for patients and provide sound public protection, particularly for our children. We must act now to stop the importation, manufacture, supply and advertisement of recreational vapes in Australia, vapes that are not being used for legitimate therapeutic use, to prevent a whole new generation of Australians with nicotine dependence. This bill will provide comprehensive and effective deterrence measures. It will come as no surprise to those opposite that the government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the member for Cowper. I don't need to hold the House too long in my explanation for that, except to acknowledge that the former Minister for Health and Aged Care, the former member for Flinders, to his credit, did try—and I've acknowledged this publicly—to put in place importation controls on disposable vapes. Unfortunately, after he did that his party room took a different decision and, within a couple of weeks, forced him to revoke those regulations, as I understand it. So, when the member for Cowper moves an amendment complaining about the existing regulatory framework for vapes, I advise him and any of those who might be seeking to support his second reading amendment: have a look at the record of your own government, because that is why we are in the complete mess that is causing such alarm to Australian parents, Australian school communities and Australian health leaders. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I commend it to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Cowper has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view with substituting other words. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

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

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 49 13:25 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 49

Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

Second Reading 49 13:27 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's sad that we have to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, because it is a broken election promise from the government. The Albanese Labor government said that they would not be changing super; there would be no major changes. This is a major change with what they're proposing. We will be moving amendments when the time is appropriate. We will be moving amendments to make sure that we hold the government to account. To everyone that's going to be affected by these changes: the amendments that we move will be supporting you. The big issue here is that this is a broken promise. It's a doubling of taxation on some Australians' retirement savings. It is a tax on hardworking Australians. Labor's division 296 tax is an unindexed wealth tax affecting countless Australians. It is a tax on unrealised capital gains, which is completely unheard of. This has never been done before. For those lucky enough to have a superannuation balance of a certain amount, they will be hit with a tax on unrealised capital gains. For everyone else, they face unindexed annual tax on unrealised capital gains. It is a tax on aspiration. Superannuation belongs to Australians. It is not the Albanese government's money, it is not the Prime Minister's money and it is certainly not the Treasurer's money. Superannuation is Australians' money, and the Albanese Labor government are not respecting that—that it belongs to Australians, not the government. We've seen when they are irresponsible with spending. We've seen, since they were elected just two years ago, some $315 billion over the forward estimates in increased spending—and they wonder why inflation's through the roof and why Australians are paying more rent and higher mortgages and paying more at the checkout when they buy their groceries. The purpose of superannuation is to take pressure off the budget; not prop it up by filling revenue gaps. Even with their super guarantee bill, they've changed that. They're saying, 'Well, superannuation is there, along with government support.' That's not the purpose of super. When superannuation was brought in—which they so proudly talk about and which the opposition has always supported—it was meant to make Australians able to support themselves and actually lower the costs on the budget—to make sure that the budget wasn't hit up in the future for more support payments and to actually lower the welfare budget. Now we see the government saying, 'We need to tax some people with super more,' despite the fact that they said they wouldn't do that before the last election. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave if they need to continue their comments. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 50 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Super Swim 2024 50 13:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon At 6 am at the Hamilton indoor pool of a morning, there's a hive of activity. There are swimmers there doing their laps, and Pam Trigg comes along and helps a group of ladies go through a series of exercises. She had the great idea of getting everyone to join the Starlight Children's Foundation Super Swim. I hooked up and thought it was a great idea, although I must say my efforts were not as great as others'. The Western District Health Service got behind it, formed a team and were able to raise over $2,000 for a wonderful, wonderful cause. Julia Howes led all fundraising efforts with a great effort. She raised over $1,000 herself, so congratulations to her. To the entire team and to everyone across the nation who helped the Starlight Children's Foundation raise money through the Super Swim: well done. It is a wonderful, wonderful cause to help and support sick children. They do a wonderful job, and right across the nation people were swimming to make sure they raised money for this great cause. I say to everyone who gets up, whether it be in the morning or at night, to go swimming: keep it up. Budget 50 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Last night, the Treasurer delivered a truly Labor budget, a budget for every Australian, not just a few, a budget that recognises that Australians are under pressure right now and provides cost-of-living relief for all. Every single household in my community and across Australia will benefit from the $300 off their energy bill. Eighty thousand taxpayers in my community and every taxpayer across the country will benefit from the tax cut from 1 July. There will be 9,170 households in Werriwa and nearly a million households across Australia that benefit from the 10 per cent increase to the maximum Commonwealth rent assistance rate, building on last year's 15 per cent. All Australians with a Medicare card will benefit from the freeze on the maximum costs of PBS medicines. This budget is also about investing in Australia's future, with a $22.7 billion plan to help make Australia a renewable energy powerhouse, help secure our supply chains and increase our economic resilience. It invests in the future of my community of Werriwa. After years of advocacy on behalf of that community, this budget delivers infrastructure funding and greater Medicare access that our community deserves. This is a budget that has delivered for every Australian, but we know there's more to do and we will continue to work for all Australians. Great Barrier Reef Aquarium 50 13:33 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Reef HQ is the largest living coral reef aquarium in the world—110,000 people visit each year, and it is projected to inject $444 million into our local economy. The previous coalition government delivered $80 million for a refurbishment. The new Labor government decided to rescope, change the plan, knock down and rebuild. That costs more money and takes more time. Not a dollar was invested then, and not a dollar was invested in this budget. What an absolute disgrace. If you want to rescope the project, you fund it in full. We're not talking about a small fish tank; we're talking about the world's largest living coral reef aquarium. Tens of thousands of locals visit. People from around the state, the country and the world come to hear about the great work that our marine biologists and our scientists are doing on the Great Barrier Reef and also to hear the experiences of what's happening in Reef HQ. I support this project. I will work with the community to make sure that it gets funding that it deserves. But, if you're going to rescope and change the plan, then you fund the project. There's a big cloud over Reef HQ at the moment: Will it be funded? When will it happen? Or is this a way by which this Labor government is cutting Reef HQ? I support Reef HQ. It's great for our economy, and it's great for the city of Townsville. Budget 50 13:34 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari Our government's No. 1 priority in Lingiari is easing the cost of living. This budget is designed to help people, particularly in Lingiari, and that's why we're giving every taxpayer a tax cut and giving every household $300 in their energy bill. And, certainly for electorates like mine, that is welcome news, and I can't wait to get out there and talk to people in my electorate about this Labor budget. When we look at the funding for infrastructure in Lingiari, we're seeing new investment, like $23.2 million for the Sandover Highway upgrades and the national network highway, where we had some recent floods. That's certainly welcome in terms of resilience upgrades. There is $40 million for some of the remote communities, and we're seeing funding going into the Barkly Highway. There's a lot of money in infrastructure across all of our road networks, particularly in this wet season, where a lot of our roads have taken a big hit. But there's a lot of welcome news, particularly in the seat of Lingiari, and I'll be looking forward to getting out there and communicating with my electorate about the good news in this Labor budget. Budget 51 13:36 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith How can this Labor government know that there are millions of renters and mortgage holders choosing between feeding their kids or making their rent or mortgage payment, and the best they can do is offer them scraps? Meanwhile, they're giving property investors $175 billion. How is it that the best Labor can do for renters is give nothing to four million of them, and then, for the precious few that do get Commonwealth rent assistance, all they get is $9 extra a week when rents are sometimes going up by hundreds of dollars a week? This budget also gives every politician in this place $4½ thousand off on their tax. That is $87 dollars a week for every politician in this place and just $9 a week for some of the poorest renters. Surely Labor knows people are hurting. Surely they know that there are millions giving up on ever being able to buy a home. Surely they know that there are millions choosing between making that rent payment and feeding their kids. How can Labor know all of this and then turn around and give billions of dollars to billionaires and big corporations and, to top it all off, bank a $9.3 billion surplus that could build over 18,000 public homes? I'll tell you what will help people: stop giving money to billionaires and use it to bring dental into Medicare, build public housing and scrap student debt—the sort of things that will help people in this country. Budget 51 13:37 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Last night, the Treasurer delivered a budget for all Australians, not just for the fortunate few or the fortunate few electorates. We on this side recognise that Australian families are under pressure, and that's why in this budget we are responsibly easing that pressure with measures that will also reduce inflation. Nearly 16,000 residents in Bean will benefit from this budget's wiping of $3 billion worth of debt from HELP and HECS debts, and, from 1 July next year, teaching, nursing, social work and midwifery students doing their mandatory placements will be able to access nearly $320 in weekly payments to support them during those placements. All households in Bean and right across Australia will be able to access a $300 power bill relief rebate, with eligible small businesses being able to access $325 in power bill relief. In addition to this, 82,000 taxpayers in Bean—every single taxpayer—will receive a tax cut on 1 July this year. On average, a taxpayer in Bean will be $1,800 better off. That's more money back into household budgets. A future made in Australia will also be made here in the ACT—an Australia that will be a renewable energy superpower. This is a true Labor budget because it keeps to our commitment of no-one left behind and no-one held back. It deals with cost-of-living pressures now but invests in all Australians' future. Aged Care 51 13:39 Ms LE 295676 Fowler More than 20 per cent of my constituents aged 60 and over rely on aged-care services. It's a sector full of challenges, systematic and human resources, despite continuous reforms. I hosted an aged-care forum at Fairfield City HQ last week to understand the sector's challenges—the lack of resources, the lack of staff, the shrinking operational budget and the bureaucratic burden—that hamper quality care in this sector. Overcompliance placed on big providers is affecting small providers doing the right thing. Nurses face physical and mental challenges in the workplace. Last night's budget put forward $65.6 million over four years from 2024-25 to attract and retain aged-care workers. Whilst I welcome the news, how will the fund be utilised? Who will get a share? And what about an aged-care pay rise? For my community in Fowler, which is very culturally diverse, it's critical that aged-care services are culturally adept and able to cater to the needs of an ageing population from a CALD background. The silver lining of the forum is that, despite the red tape and the structural challenges in the system, the people working in it—the nurses and the small providers—are so passionate and committed to ensuring that the needs of our seniors in aged care are at the forefront of their work. The government must provide support and investment to alleviate the constraints faced by the sector and make aged care a rewarding space to be in. Budget 51 13:40 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise to speak on the carefully considered, effective budget that was delivered by the Treasurer last night. This budget is designed to help people under pressure, while supporting Australians for the future. This budget speaks volumes about the dedication and collaboration of everyone involved in the process. It prioritises the needs of a diverse population and sets a strong foundation for both progress and fiscal responsibility. Our government's No. 1 priority is easing cost-of-living pressure. I am pleased to highlight that, amongst the many benefits of the new budget, 86,000 Pearce residents will benefit from the revised tax cuts; just under 18,000 Pearce residents will benefit from HECS assistance; every Pearce household will receive $300 towards energy bill relief; 5,230 families in Pearce will receive assistance with rent; and residents in Pearce have already saved nearly $2 million on cheaper medicines. The budget announced last night reflects innovation, resilience and equitable opportunity and lays the groundwork for a brighter future for us all, investing in a future made in Australia. I am proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government. We know there is more to do, and we'll be working very hard every day to deliver for all Australians. Loganholme Wastewater Treatment Plant 52 13:42 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I had the pleasure of touring the Loganholme Wastewater Treatment Plant last week with a delegation from the Netherlands who were looking at waste and recycling. Logan Water's biosolids gasification plant was funded both by the Logan City Council and through a grant of $6.2 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency when the coalition were last in government. I had the pleasure of opening that facility several years ago, so it was wonderful to come back and check out the progress since the opening. The team from Logan Water and Logan City Council shared with us that the plant has been running extraordinarily well and has reduced an estimated 4,800 tonnes of carbon emissions every year, taking that solid waste and turning it into biochar, which is a highly sought-after slow-release fertiliser used in the agriculture sector. Off to the side at the biochar facility they had a year's worth of production stockpiled, which they told us had recently been sold. It was great to be able to check it out. As I said, there was a team from the Netherlands there to look at the waste recovery processes at the wastewater treatment centre. I thank DutchPowerGroup, Blue Phoenix Group, Adverio Waste Systems and others for their visit to Logan, and I thank the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs for their support of the program. Budget 52 13:43 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Last night Treasurer Jim Chalmers stood up in this chamber and spoke to the budget that the Albanese Labor government is delivering—another budget that is relentlessly focused on two things: keeping down the cost of living for working Australians, without adding to inflation, and ensuring that we have an economy that continues to build things, make things and employ people here in Australia. Underpinning the effort to reduce the cost of living is, of course, Labor's tax cut plan—a tax cut for every single taxpaying Australian. That's 13.6 million people across our country who will be getting a tax cut. There's no paperwork required to fill out, and they don't have to wait for tax return time. They will be getting a tax cut from 1 July. In my electorate of Hawke, 73,000 people will be getting a tax cut and an average worker will be getting a tax cut of $1,428 a year as a result of Labor's tax cut plan. This is in stark contrast, extraordinarily stark contrast, to those opposite and their decade of waste and mismanagement. They have left our country with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt that we are working through cleaning up. We have delivered another budget surplus; we are delivering tax cuts for Australians; we are delivering cheaper power, through our bill rebates; and we are making sure that our economy works for working Australians, as opposed to the approach of those opposite, who only care about the big end of town. Artificial Intelligence 52 13:45 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I'd firstly like to thank Mr Mike Goldman for bringing this important issue to my attention. Voice acting is an art form. Professionals spend years training their vocals to entertain, inform and comfort us. They make our favourite audiobooks believable, breakfast radio engaging and GPS systems lifelike. Currently, Australian voice actors risk losing their livelihoods due to synthetic clones of their own human vocals. That's right: replica sound bites created and broadcasted using AI without the original artist's consent. These are real Australians, such as Alistair Lee. Alistair is a blind vocal artist and could lose his income, leaving his family and young children vulnerable. He said, 'It comes back to consent and control over your own voice.' The potential consequences of unregulated AI are vast, powerful and, frankly, terrifying. These clones could be used to say anything at any time, with no-one able to determine the authenticity of the sound bite. From scammers to perpetrators of domestic violence—we've even seen the use of AI manipulation during elections overseas. This is why I'll be working with the Minister for Communications and the Australian Association of Voice Actors to protect not only voice actors like Alistair and Mike but all Australians. Innovation and digital media should be used to make our lives better, not to replace us. Budget 52 13:46 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Bennelong wants their government to be responsible, they want a government that listens and they want a government that cares, and last night's budget showed that Bennelong helped elect a Labor government that delivers on all three. Late last year, locals asked me for more cost-of-living support, which is something I raised both publicly and privately. In response, the government will deliver a tax cut for every single taxpayer in Bennelong. On average, local taxpayers will get a tax cut of $1,782, with 81 per cent of locals better off than they would have been under the Liberal's plan. Secondly, Bennelong told me that last year's energy rebates were great but a little too targeted. Again, I raised this both publicly and privately. In response, starting July this year every household in Bennelong will receive $300 off its power bill. Tax cuts and energy rebates will help with family budgets and deliver much-needed relief to every household. Thirdly, Bennelong told me that they needed the infrastructure to match our region's housing growth. There is an incredible investment in infrastructure in Bennelong from this Labor government. Building on $190 million already delivered, last night's budget delivered a further $150 million in infrastructure for Bennelong, including $115 million for Sydney's first electric-bus depot and $35 million for roads and a bus interchange. This is a responsible budget for all Australians, but, significantly, it's a budget that delivers for everybody in Bennelong. Don Parsons Memorial Anzac Creative Writing Prize 53 13:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is so vital we continue to keep the Anzac spirit alive in our community by promoting respect for and showing appreciation of our Anzac traditions. I was pleased to recently conduct a writing competition for grade 5 and 6 students to recognise the importance of our community's war memorials. The Don Parsons Memorial Anzac Creative Writing Prize was named after the former president of the Lilydale RSL, the late Don Parsons. Don made a significant contribution to the veteran community in the Yarra Ranges and raised awareness of the significance of our local war memorials. It was amazing to see such an overwhelming response, with over 150 entries from kids across the Yarra Ranges. Firstly, thank you to the local RSL judging committee, who read through the many entries and determined the winners. We are so fortunate to have such strong RSLs across our community, and thank you for the great work you do supporting veterans. I am pleased to inform the House that the finalists were Isla from Wandin North Primary School, Lewis from Gladysdale Primary School, Finley from St Mary's Primary School and Mila from Montrose Primary School. The overall final winner was Kaylie from Wandin North Primary School. Well done on your fantastic writing pieces and congratulations to all students who submitted an entry and showed their respect to our Anzacs. Budget 53 13:50 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Last night Labor delivered its third budget. This budget is one that truly delivers for Australian families and sets a vision for our nation's future. We all know that families are doing it tough, and that is why we have been working hard to support them. This is why we are providing a $300 power bill rebate for every single household. That means, if you live in Tooradin, Pearcedale, Warneet, Blind Bight, Clyde, Cranbourne, Narre Warren South, Lynbrook, Lyndhurst or Hampton Park, you will get $300 off your power bill. One million small businesses across our nation will also be eligible for a $325 power rebate. This builds on the $1.5 billion of energy relief announced last year by the Albanese Labor government. The best part: this is non-inflationary. Electricity prices would have risen 15 per cent in the last year if not for our efforts. Instead, they only rose two per cent. When families are doing it tough, Labor will always support them. Infrastructure 53 13:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Nearly three years ago, the member for Fairfax and I were able to secure $1.6 billion from the coalition government to build the North Coast rail line from Beerwah all the way up to Maroochydore. As a result of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government's callous cuts last year, that $1.6 billion was somehow set aside, and then last night we heard—smoke and mirrors—about another $1.15 billion. That's good, but the problem is: we're only going to get a third of the railway line for twice the price. This is a result of the Queensland state government's so-called best practice industry conditions, a program that is driving up the cost of infrastructure by 30 to 40 per cent, just to appease their union mates in the CFMEU. Australian taxpayers are getting less bang for their buck, less railway for their dollars. Australians are waking up to this mob over there, who crow about infrastructure. I had the privilege, so-called, of driving through Melbourne on Friday, on my way to a defence facility. There was infrastructure being built everywhere in Melbourne, in the heartland of Labor. But what about regional Queensland? We are scratching around for dollars. It's time for this Labor government to invest more in regional Queensland. Budget 53 13:52 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Last night's budget was a great Labor budget that delivers for all Australians, living in all of our electorates. It delivers tax cuts for all taxpayers, including 66,000 taxpayers in my electorate. It delivers energy relief for all households and delivers for small business as well. It delivers an increase to the maximum amount of rent assistance that people can receive, up an extra 10 per cent. Six thousand-plus households in my electorate will benefit from this change. It also cuts student debt by more than $3 billion across the country. That will help about 17,000 people in my electorate with their HECS-HELP debt. It helps pensioners and concession card holders by freezing what they'll pay for their medication for the next five years. On top of all of that, one of the other measures that I wish to highlight adds superannuation to government-funded paid parental leave, which is a measure welcomed by many in my electorate. We know that people in Australia are doing it tough. Households are under pressure. That is why our government is delivering responsible cost-of-living change without adding to inflation. This is a great Labor budget that delivers real cost-of-living relief for many in our community, including in my electorate of Bendigo. Hughes Electorate: Cook School 54 13:54 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about Cook School at Loftus, which I recently had the privilege of visiting. For many of our students, mainstream schools simply do not work. Cook School supports vulnerable students who have found mainstream education to be both educationally and socially challenging. It has kindergarten to year 6 classes for students with a diagnosed mental health need as well as many autism support classes. It has classes for students in years 7 to 10 who demonstrate challenging behaviours that simply cannot be coped with in many of our mainstream schools. Recently Cook School commenced a new program, Acacia, which was highlighted on a recent Four Corners show, that supports year 7 to 12 students who present with internalising mental health needs. Led by principal Dave Hobson and a tremendous teaching staff, the school emphasises providing students with a safe and caring environment to access quality education, building their capacity to self-regulate. Many students do transition into mainstream schools. I am pleased to inform the House that Cook School recently won the Australian School of the Year in the Australian education awards run by the Educator Online. The award recognises that the most outstanding school in Australia, which is Cook School, provides care and attention to students with special needs. I congratulate the staff and families involved in Cook School, which is changing lives and, in many cases, saving lives. Budget 54 13:56 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Sometimes it can be really hard to work past all the big headlines around a budget—the billions of dollars—to understand what it means at a household level, so it's wonderful to be able to say to the people in Hasluck that if they are paying tax, from July, they are going to get a tax cut. The 17,000 students in Hasluck will be the beneficiary of a reduced HECS, and there are paid placements on the way for all the wonderful student nurses and midwives and social workers. But there is also great investment at a community level. The Albanese Labor government is committing close to a billion dollars for a leaving domestic violence program. Over a five-year period it will have a huge wonderful positive impact across all Australia. I know it will be well received at home. But it's not just that; it is also infrastructure. There is a commitment to back in major projects, with $490 million extra to accelerate the rollout of the Ellenbrook Metronet line—because Labor loves rail, and my constituents in Hasluck will love catching that train—and $300 million towards a signalling program to ensure those trains can go faster. Labor always has an eye on the future and an eye on the present to make sure that cost-of-living issues are addressed. We are investing into more jobs and new industries, particularly the renewable future that will ensure that we are well placed in the world. Budget 54 13:57 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee If there is one line that sums up Labor's budget it is this: Labor robs regions to buy votes in the cities. Here is one example: the Treasury committed $70 million over four years 'to remove the barriers to accessing Medicare rebates for MRI machines in metropolitan areas to reduce waiting times and costs for patients'. Why not provide MRI Medicare rebates to all regions, especially regional Australia, that need them the most? Labor is playing political games with people's health, and pork-barrelling city electorates. Rural, regional and remote people have to travel longer distances for scans and treatment and consequently have poorer health outcomes, yet Labor is preferencing city seats with greater MRI access. It is a rinse and repeat of Labor's 2022 reversal of the distribution priority areas for international medical graduates—again, robbing regions of desperately needed services. There is talk of an early election. Well, I say, bring it on. Regional Australians need a change of government to a coalition government that will fix the regional health catastrophe. Budget 54 13:59 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon This is a great budget for every Australian, every Territorian, and that includes those in regional Australia, obviously. There will be better, fairer tax cuts for every taxpayer from 1 July, including 69,000 taxpayers in Solomon getting an average of $1,700 and a $300 energy rebate for every household in the Territory. We are wiping around $3 billion in HECS debts, including for almost 11,000 people in Darwin and Palmerston. There have been recent major Defence announcements: over the next 10 years, $14 billion to $18 billion for our northern bases and collective security in the Indo-Pacific. This is great for local jobs across northern Australia, local businesses and local industries, and so is the $128 million investment in local roads infrastructure in Darwin and Palmerston that was announced last night. We have delivered on long-term calls for the Northern Territory's university, CDU, to operate a standalone medical school. For too long, Territory kids have had to go down south because we didn't have enough Commonwealth funded places, but now, with our investment last night, there will be 40 medical places each year—more doctors from the Territory for the Territory. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 55 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE New Caledonia 55 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The government is closely monitoring the situation in New Caledonia. DFAT's Smartraveller advice has been updated: that Australians in Noumea are advised to 'exercise a high degree of caution due to protests and demonstrations'. Our consulate-general in Noumea is advising Australians in New Caledonia to minimise movement, monitor the media and follow the advice of local authorities. The Australian consulate-general in Noumea has been sharing this advice on social media, and we would encourage people who are there to continue to monitor that through those devices. Australians in need of consular assistance should contact the Australian government's 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre on 1300555135 within Australia or +61262613305 if they are calling from overseas. Australia values very much our relationship with both New Caledonia and the French state. We respect and support the referendum process under the Noumea Accord and the discussions underway between all parties. I would encourage, and the government encourages, all parties to work together constructively to shape New Caledonia's institutional future. I thank the House for the opportunity for that update. 14:02 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Just quickly, I thank the Prime Minister for his call earlier, before question time, to advise that he would be making a statement, and I lend support to the Prime Minister's very sage advice to those Australians to listen to and monitor the DFAT advice. These situation can move fluidly. To take early action that's in your best interests and your family's best interests is absolutely crucial, and we lend our support to the government's call in that regard. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 55 14:02 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the last two years, the Albanese government has brought almost one million people into our country. Only 265,000 homes have been built. In fact, building activity is at an 11-year low. We have people who are living in cars or tents at a record level, and yet nothing in this budget provides support to those people. At the same time, the Prime Minister is giving billions of dollars to billionaires. Why does this government have the wrong priorities, and why is this Prime Minister so weak that he can't provide support to Australians in need? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The only thing that is broader than our support for cost-of-living relief is that question from the Leader of the Opposition, because it was all over the shop. On the first issue, of migration, the population statement of 2023 says this: by 2030-31, the expected population is 600,000 people below what was projected prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2019-20. And guess who championed the higher migration intake. See if you can guess who said this: We do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear the number needs to be higher … That's the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, in his first budget reply he said, 'I brought in record numbers of people from India, China and many other countries.' They were all out there, not just him, promoting—you know it's coming!—'Help us spread the word about studying here to help us overtake the UK as the world's second-most popular study destination.' That was the member for Wannon. And the deputy leader: 'We know that urgently business needs a workforce and much of that workforce needs to come from overseas.' And we know that they left an absolute mess when it came to migration, because Dr Martin Parkinson, the person appointed by the coalition to be head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease having a conversation. Interjections are okay but— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Having a conversation and interjecting—both—just so I'm clear. Mr ALBANESE R36 Dr Parkinson, in his report, said that this is a 10-year rebuild, not something you do quickly, because it is so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision to neglect the system. And the Leader of the National Party had this to say—we don't want to leave the Nats out—'We've got to acknowledge some of the challenges that we left behind. You've got to put your hand up. You've got to be honest with people.' That is what he had to say about the migration mess that was left behind. They then go on to speak about the centrepiece of our budget last night, which they just referred to, which is our tax cuts for every taxpayer, something that this bloke— (Time expired) Budget 56 14:07 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question as to the Treasurer. How does the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget help ease cost-of-living pressures? And what approaches were rejected? 14:08 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the wonderful member for Gilmore for her question and for all her work in our team and on behalf of her community. We on this side of the House know that a lot of Australians are under pressure, and, because of the budget last night, more help is on the way. This is a responsible budget which is all about easing cost-of-living pressures, fighting inflation and investing in the future of our people and their economy. The cost-of-living relief in the budget is both substantial and responsible. There is a tax cut in the budget for every Australian taxpayer. There is energy bill relief in the budget for every Australian household. There is a second round of Commonwealth rent assistance in the budget as well, because we know that renters are under pressure. And there are billions of dollars set aside in the budget to make medicines cheaper for our people, particularly for our concession card holders. And there are other measures in the budget as well—$7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief, in addition to a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. As I said, that cost-of-living relief is substantial, but it's also responsible. One of the defining features of this Albanese Labor government and the budget we handed down from this dispatch box last night is responsible economic management, which has helped us to clean up the mess that those opposite left behind in the budget. That's how we are delivering a second surplus, which would mean the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. That's how we're finding savings. That's how we're paying down debt. That's how we're avoiding interest cost on the Liberal debt that we inherited from those opposite. We're getting the budget in much better nick, not instead of helping people doing it tough but as well as helping people doing it tough. That's what we were able to do last night—get the budget in better nick—and provide cost-of-living relief for people at the same time as we invest in the future. This is a key reason we have turned the inflation from those opposite that had a six in front of it into inflation with a three in front of it. But it's not mission accomplished. We know that people are still under pressure, and that's why people under pressure were the defining influence on the budget that we handed down last night. Inflation is still the No. 1 near-term concern that we have in the economy, and that's why the budget is so responsible. That's why the budget is so attentive to cost-of-living pressures that people are under, and we found a way to provide that cost-of-living relief at the same time as we serve our intergenerational responsibilities to build the next generation of prosperity. Budget 56 14:11 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. After three Labor budgets, this government has added $315 billion in spending, throwing more fuel on the inflationary fire. Rating agency Standard & Poor's has confirmed that, as a result of this budget, there is almost no chance of an interest rate cut for struggling families this year. Why are Australians paying the price for this Prime Minister's weak economic leadership? 14:11 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin He's got a lot of nerve asking about responsible economic management, after the mess that they left us to clean up in the budget. We won't be lectured about debt, spending or responsible economic management by the party that left us with more than a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt, which we have spent our two years in office trying to clean up. They would not know the first thing about responsible economic management. The least familiar word in the budget last night, to those opposite, was the word 'surplus'. They had nine cracks at it. They promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, and they came up with doughnuts—none from nine. We've been here for two years, and we're delivering two surpluses at the same time as we provide cost-of-living relief for people and invest in the future of our economy. If they had their way, inflation would be higher, debt and deficits would be bigger, wages growth would be lower and tax cuts for middle Australia would be smaller. The reason I'm so grateful that the Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to answer the question from the member for Hume is it allows me to point out to those opposite that what matters here is real spending growth in the economy, and real spending growth under this side of the House has been 1.4 per cent. Do you know what it was under those opposite? It was 4.1 per cent. There's hypocrisy in asking us about spending in the budget, when what they spent, in real spending growth, was— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 a multiple of the real spending growth that we have seen in our budgets so far. We have been cleaning up the mess that they left us in the budget at the same time as we've been providing cost-of-living relief for people. So I hope that the member for Hume asks many more questions today. Whenever they ask these questions, it gives us an opportunity to point to the shameful mess that they left behind in the budget and the diligent, considered and methodical way that we have been cleaning that mess up, not instead of helping people or investing in the future but as well as doing those things. I want to say about those two surpluses in the budget that, if it was easy, even the member for Hume could do it, but they were unable to do it in their nine years in office. When the member for Hume was the most embarrassing part of a bad government, they were unable to get anywhere near the kinds of outcomes that we are seeing in the budget as a consequence of our diligence and the responsible way that we have come at this difficult task. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 There's far too much noise on both sides of the chamber. If that continues, people will be warned, and there will be consequences. Budget 57 14:14 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget delivering for all Australians, not just some? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Cunningham for her question and for her diligence. She knows that the Illawarra, for example, is a great manufacturing centre in Australia. What we want is for Australians to make more things here, and we know that that has happened in the great regions of the Illawarra, the Hunter Valley, Geelong, the Latrobe Valley, in Western Australia and right around the country. Whilst we've had our eye on the immediate need to address the cost-of-living pressures which families are under, we've always had our eye on the future. How do we build a secure future for our nation? How do we make more things here? How do we ensure that there are good, secure, high-wage jobs going forward as well? At the centre of this budget is support for Australians, all Australians—a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; energy bill relief for every Australian household, not just some; stronger Medicare for every single community, including the 29 additional urgent care clinics added to our 58 that have seen over 400,000 Australians, stopping them from clogging up the emergency departments of our public hospitals; and, of course, more homes in every part of the country. There is $32 billion to make a difference for housing supply. In addition to that, we've made sure that it's a responsible budget and that we've seen something that is foreign to those opposite, which is a creation of not one but two budget surpluses. Last year, we turned a $78 billion deficit that we inherited into a $22 billion surplus, and this year we are projecting a $9.3 billion surplus, making sure that we have those responsible measures in place. Our cost-of-living policies are also designed to take pressure off inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in the current financial year and half a percentage point in the next financial year, which is why we've designed things like the tax cuts, the energy price relief plan, fee-free TAFE and cheaper child care—all of these measures designed in a calibrated way to make a positive impact on the economy at the same time as they're having a positive impact on household budgets. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Paterson, Mayor Matt 57 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to advise that, in the gallery today, the member for Lingiari has advised me that the Mayor of Alice Springs Town Council, Councillor Matt Paterson, is here. I extend him a very warm welcome to question time. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Parliamentary Standards 58 14:18 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I understand that last night you attended a $5,000 per head post-budget dinner, which was hosted by the Federal Labor Business Forum. For the benefit of the House, were any fossil fuel industry lobbyists or other fossil fuel industry representatives in attendance? The SPEAKER 53517 Just before the Prime Minister answers that question, I do have some difficulty with the phrasing of that question in that it does potentially relate to party affairs that the Prime Minister can't be asked about. I'm just going to ask the member for Kooyong to rephrase her question to ensure that it's within standing orders. Dr RYAN 297660 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister. I understand that you attended a $5,000 a head post-budget dinner last night. Can you tell the House whether any fossil fuel industry lobbyists or other fossil fuel industry representatives were in attendance? The SPEAKER 53517 That question is barely within the standing orders. I'll allow the Prime Minister to answer the question, but he obviously will be able to only answer the parts of the question that are relevant to the standing orders. 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I've stood and had the great honour of being the Australian Labor Party candidate in 10 elections. During those 10 elections as the candidate for Grayndler, I have spent less money on those 10 campaigns than the member for Kooyong did in her one. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hasluck will resume her seat. The House will come to order. The member for Kooyong, just as any other member, is entitled to raise a point of order, but the Prime Minister has concluded his answer, so it obviously can't be a point of order on relevance. But I'll hear from the member for Kooyong. Dr Ryan 297660 My issue is that the Prime Minister has not in any way addressed the substance of my question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. There was no point of order, and it's getting close to abusing standing orders in that way. Budget 58 14:21 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Treasurer. How does the budget help make a future in Australia by investing in the jobs, industries and opportunities of tomorrow? What hurdles were overcome? 14:21 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Hasluck for her question and for the way that she represents the great community from out west here in the people's house. As we said a moment ago, the primary purpose, in the near term, in this budget is to help people who are doing it tough and to get the budget in much better nick as well. But one of the really important things about last night's budget is that it doesn't neglect our responsibilities to the future. The budget was all about a vision for making the most of this remarkable opportunity that we have as a country in our industry, in our energy, in our resources, in our skills base and as an attractive place for investment. The world is changing, and the pace of that change is accelerating, and we need to change with it if our people are to be the primary beneficiaries, not victims, of all of that churn and change. The global transition, the transformation, to net zero is the biggest change in the global economy since the industrial revolution. Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package is all about maximising the opportunities that that will bring for every single part of the country, whether it's out west in the honourable member's community or, indeed, right around Australia. We want to make ourselves an indispensable part of the global net zero economy, and the Future Made in Australia investments in the budget last night will help us do it. They will help us maximise the opportunities and secure Australia's place in the world, with an overwhelming focus not on replacing private investment in our economy but on facilitating more private investment. Our plan for a Future Made in Australia is all about attracting that investment. It's all about making Australia a renewable energy superpower. It's about value-adding to our resources and strengthening our economic security. It's about improving our innovation, our science and our digital capabilities, and it's about investing in our people and places. This is how we modernise our economy and maximise the opportunities of the future, not for its own sake but so that we can deliver a new generation of prosperity for more of our people, a future defined by good, secure, well-paid jobs, not just in some parts of our country but right around our country, in our suburbs and regions. That's why a Future Made in Australia is a big priority of this government, not at the expense of our efforts to ease cost of living or to get the budget in better nick but in addition to that. That's because we understand, on this side of the House, that we have generational responsibilities to our people to create a new generation of prosperity which is just as good as the past one but which recognises the way that the world is changing and that we need to change with it. Budget 59 14:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor's budgets to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off. Why is the Prime Minister spending $13.7 billion on tax credits for billionaires at a time when ordinary Australian battlers are struggling to make ends meet? 14:24 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Spare us the questions about billionaires when those opposite called for an election because we wanted to give Gina Rinehart a $4½ thousand tax cut instead of a $9,000 tax cut. The Leader of the Opposition was so furious on behalf of his mate that he called for an election over the changes that we made to the tax cuts in January of this year. Spare us the faux outrage. Spare us the faux class warfare over there. They've had a lot to say about class warfare in the past, and this just goes to the shambolic response that we have seen to last night's budget. They're casting around for all kinds of excuses to oppose energy bill relief like they voted against it last time. They're looking around for all kinds of excuses to prevent the renewable energy superpower ambitions of this country being realised in the years and the decades ahead. This is now two questions that the member for Hume has asked the Prime Minister, and it's hard to work out which one was worse. The first one, which quoted hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, and that spending contains the indexation of the age pension, for example. So the member for Hume thinks the indexation of the age pension is overspending. And now in this question, he is all of a sudden— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. I want to hear from the member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about billions for billionaires. Will you answer the question? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I want to make sure the— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lingiari is warned. It is not the time to interject when I'm dealing with a point of order. If that continues, people won't get warned. The question contained 'relief for billionaires when average Australians are worse off'. That was the question. I'm just going to make sure. If the Treasurer is comparing and contrasting— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Okay, 'spending' for billionaires. I just want to make sure he's relevant and make sure he's doing the compare and contrast to that part of the question and not straying into other matters. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Well, first of all, I remind the House again that those opposite called for an election over the changes to the tax cut which provided a tax cut for every taxpayer. Secondly, I haven't been here that long, but I've been here long enough to remember when they used to believe in tax cuts to incentivise business investment. But they seem to have turned their back on that. It is, again, evidence of the shambolic approach they have taken. Thirdly, if they want to talk about battlers, it's a very good day for them to ask that question. I want to tell you why. A couple of hours ago, we got new data on the wage price index, didn't we? We got new data on the wage price index, which showed that real wages in annual terms are growing by half a per cent— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's not funny; he's funny. The reason he's funny is that, when we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. They are now growing again for the first time in years, and that's because this Prime Minister and this government want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and those opposite want people to work longer for less. Budget 59 14:28 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on a future made in Australia and rebuilding Australian manufacturing? Why is this support so desperately needed, and what is standing in the way of this support being delivered? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker knows the rules, particularly about interjecting, more than anyone. 14:29 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I thank the member for Swan for that question from someone who gets that strong, modern economies need strong, modern manufacturing capability because it makes our economies more resilient and creates secure, well-paid blue collar jobs in our regions and our outer suburbs. It's why manufacturing sits at the heart of our Future Made in Australia plans, released last night. Our $23 billion Future Made in Australia package is about mobilising Australian manufacturing to make the things that will help us to get to net zero, such as investments to boost the refining of our critical minerals that then go into making batteries. Under our plan more batteries will be made right here by the Battery Breakthrough Initiative. Investing in green hydrogen will help fuel a green metals future. Our Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund will advance next generation Aussie manufacturing know-how. Our plan guarantees a strong, secure future for working families in our industrial heartlands. For example, in the Illawarra, there will be work in the manufacture of industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysers at Hysata and at Gladstone, where we backed electrolyser manufacturing at FFI. In south-west WA, we're investing in new battery and minerals processing know-how. Blue-collar workers in those regions can see our plans for the future. When they look to those opposite, there's no plan and no future. In fact, everything that the coalition believes about Australian manufacturing can be written on a white flag. They always give up on Australian manufacturing. They drove out Aussie car manufacturers nearly 10 years ago, and, even today, the Manager of Opposition Business declared that that was absolutely the right decision. The deputy opposition leader calls Australian manufacturing a 'graveyard'. Ironically, she's the shadow minister for industry. The shadow Treasurer, because we should never forget him, described the very idea of backing manufacturing and manufacturing workers as 'bizarre'. That was from the shadow Treasurer. Tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition has got a chance to lay out a plan to back Australian manufacturing and blue-collar workers. Is he going to do something to grow manufacturing, or will he do what Liberals normally do, which is surrender and give up on Australian manufacturing? Or will he come up with another shoddy coalition grants program that manufactures colour-coded spreadsheets that slosh cash around in marginal seats? His political interests are always prioritised above the national interest. He needs to come up with a plan for manufacturing tomorrow, and we'll be waiting to see what he says. (Time expired) Budget 60 14:32 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the energy rebate announced in the budget. If we take a typical Australian—let's call him Andrew—who recently had to relocate from Bellevue Hill to Parramatta for work reasons and happens to own five houses, including a newly acquired $12 million beach house at Palm Beach, will he be eligible to receive the rebate on all five houses? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker is now warned. 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about our energy policy, and this is— Mr Dutton 00AKI No; you were asked about Andrew. Mr ALBANESE R36 He's full of hubris and anger today—a very bad combination. It's a very bad combination, because, when we had the previous energy price relief plan, they opposed it. They voted against it when it went just to people who were on payments—when it went to low-income earners. Now that we have an energy price relief plan that goes to all Australians, they're going to vote against that as well! They are now against that. Late last night, I watched the shadow Treasurer. I wanted to see the Treasurer on 7.30, and he was on afterwards. They gave him 30 seconds afterwards on 7.30, and there he made it very clear that he was opposed to the Future Made in Australia plan, opposed to manufacturing, but I thought that he did actually say that he supported some of the measures of support. It was in there. But now today they are finding a way to crab walk away from giving any support to Australians—just like when we announced our tax cuts for every Australian. First of all, they said that they hadn't seen it, but they were against it. Then they said that they'd roll it back. Then they said that we should go to an election on it, and then they voted for it. But they're still bagging it. Energy 60 14:35 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to help families and businesses with the cost of energy bills, and how does this compare to alternative energy policies? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). You've been constantly interjecting. I can't even hear the question, and before she's concluded the question people are just interjecting continuously. We're going to revert back to the way question time has been operating. When a member is asking a question, they'll be heard in silence on both sides and across the crossbench. Everyone's earned the right to be here, and everyone's earned the right to ask a question. What happens after that depends on the remarks in the chamber—but not during the question. The member for Aston will begin her question again. Ms DOYLE 299962 Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to help families and businesses with the cost of energy bills, and how does this compare to alternative energy policies? 14:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I appreciate the question from the terrific member for Aston. From 1 July, every taxpayer in Australia will receive a tax cut, and from 1 July everybody who has an energy bill will receive an energy bill rebate under the Albanese government. In Victoria, that means 2.7 million households and 230,000 small businesses, which is good news for those businesses. It comes after the recent Victorian Default Offer, which was encouraging because it showed a six per cent reduction in energy prices. We know there's a lot more to do, but when you put the energy price reduction, the tax cuts and those encouraging default offers together, we are seeing real relief for Australians, who we recognise have been doing it very tough. Also, last night we had other reforms in the budget which facilitate work with the states to ensure that people who are entitled to a discount get it automatically and that people who want to change their provider can do so easily, with one-click switching of energy bills. The honourable member asked me what approaches we have rejected and how they compare. There have been other approaches in the past. This is a month of anniversaries. May is a month of political anniversaries. It's been two years since the election of the Albanese government. It's also two years since the member for Hume changed the law to hide a 20 per cent price rise from the Australian people. He changed the law. Two years ago, today, prices were going up 20 per cent, but we just didn't know about it. We were meant to know on 1 May. The member for Hume changed a law, wrote a regulation, so we didn't find out until 25 May. That was two years ago, this month. We take a different approach. We take an approach of providing relief to Australians, not hiding the truth from Australians. We're not hiding big energy price rises from them, but, rather, dealing with what is before us, and dealing with the relief we can provide. There have been other approaches as well. I was, perhaps—I have to say—a little unfair to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I said that he'd never released an energy policy, and he hasn't this term, but he did when he was running against the member for Wentworth for the prime ministership. He announced that he would take the GST off all energy bills if he was the prime minister, at the cost of $32 billion, which would apply to billionaires if he'd done that—if he took the GST off energy prices. We take a better approach. We take an approach of working with the states to provide real relief for the people doing it tough. He has a chance tomorrow night to announce more policies. He can announce his nuclear policy, with the sites and the costings. He can announce how he will help Australians doing it tough. He can announce what his real plan for Australians is when it comes to energy relief, because two years into this term he has announced not a single policy—not a single energy policy and nothing about relief for families. The Leader of the Opposition has a chance tomorrow night to outline his alternative vision with the real cost of policies. We can't wait to see it. (Time expired) Regional Australia 61 14:39 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. After two years and three budgets, the minister is yet to announce a single regional grant funded by Labor's centrepiece regional development program. The government's own time line for the Growing Regions Program from the October '22 budget states that successful grant recipients must start their projects no later than today, 15 May, but 18 months on the minister hasn't even announced a single successful recipient. Why has Labor abandoned regional Australia? 14:40 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank very much the member for Nicholls for that question. In this budget we are delivering billions of dollars in new infrastructure investment right the way across this country, including in our regions. In your home state of Victoria, we are putting a $150 million into the Maroona to Portland rail line, something that those opposite have been talking about for ages. I know the member for Wannon is going to say, 'Thank you very much for that investment,' because that is a project that is incredibly important to regional Australia. We are also delivering over a billion dollars in our election commitments—construction underway—in projects across the country in our regions. I have finalised the assessments for the Growing Regions Program and the regional partnerships program and I look forward to making announcements shortly. Budget 62 14:41 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will social services measures in the government's 2024-25 budget help ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australians right around the country? 14:42 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Fremantle for his question and for his continued advocacy on behalf of families and seniors in his electorate. The Albanese government is committed to delivering responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians, including targeted support for pensioners and income support recipients. In this budget we've taken action to provide more cost-of-living assistance and to strengthen our social security safety net. To support renters that rely on Commonwealth rent assistance we are increasing the maximum rates by a further 10 per cent. This will benefit close to a million households. This increase is on top of the increase that we delivered in our last budget and it is the first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. It means, combined with indexation, we will have increased the maximum rates of rent assistance by more than 40 per cent since being elected. We are also extending the eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to people who have been assessed as only being able to work up to 14 hours a week because we know these people have additional barriers to working. It builds on our changes in the last budget to extend the eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker for people aged over 55. Of course, our government last night committed to continuing to freeze the social security deeming rates for a further 12 months. This keeps the upper deeming rate well below the cash rate so that part-pensioners along with other income support recipients will keep more of what they earn. Now, these might be the billionaires that those opposite are referring to. Well, these part-pensioners deserve some extra cost-of-living support and that is what we are providing. Now, of course, it depends on individual circumstances but, for example, a pensioner with deemed assets of $250,000 could benefit by more than $2,300 over the course of the coming year. Of course, this has been backed in. National Seniors Australia has said that our budget delivers a trifecta for older Australians, referring to our cost-of-living support. In addition to the steps we're taking in my portfolio, the government are delivering further cost-of-living relief, including through energy rebates for households and cheaper medicines, and of course on 1 July all Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut, helping people keep more of what they earn. Unlike those opposite, who are full of negativity and have zero plan, Labor will always do what it can to provide people with more support, ease cost-of-living pressures and put downward pressure on inflation. Domestic and Family Violence 62 14:45 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Treasurer, since the budget all I've heard from domestic violence services is outrage. Women can't access help, yet the government chose not to allocate new funding to services like Safe Steps that see more than 200 women put in motels across Victoria every night. A lack of frontline services has led to several suicides this year. Today I'm launching a petition seeking both government and opposition support to properly fund programs to end violence against women. Treasurer, how many signatures do I need for the government to fund these programs? 14:45 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Goldstein not just for her question but also for her genuine interest, passion and compassion for women who are experiencing or at risk of experiencing domestic and family violence. I think we all in this House understand that violence against women is a national shame and it requires national action and leadership, and we are prepared to provide that leadership. Including from the budget last night, we've invested almost $3½ billion in addressing violence against women since coming to office, and that includes the $925 million that the PM and some colleagues announced for the permanent Leaving Violence Program. I do want to say and I do want to acknowledge that, even with that substantial investment, we all have much more work to do. We all have much more work that we need to do together because women still aren't safe in our communities. We acknowledge that, and I think the Prime Minister and others have acknowledged that on multiple occasions as well. It's also why we have directed a billion dollars of funding for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility towards crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing violence, and that will add to the $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness. We've also got, in the Attorney General's portfolio, $44 million to keep the doors open at critical legal assistance centres, including women's legal centres, while we negotiate the next National Legal Assistance Partnership. In the Minister for Education's portfolio, there's almost $20 million to help eradicate gender based violence from our universities, as well as some other investments. We know that we need to do more. We know that we need to work closely with the states and territories as well, and that's why the National Cabinet meeting on 1 May was important. There was broad agreement that we need to do things better and we need to strengthen our systemic responses, particularly with a focus on high-risk perpetrators and serial offenders and on preventing homicides. This will require work across all governments, portfolios and jurisdictions, and there is more work to be done as part of that process. I do acknowledge that the member for Goldstein is asking about an element of really important work that our community service providers do in our local communities. I want to take the opportunity, as I'm sure the member for Goldstein would like to, to thank and acknowledge the people who do this work. It must be incredibly harrowing work. I see it in my own community, and no doubt the member sees it in her community as well. We are always prepared to consider what more can be responsibly done as we work together to tackle this national shame of gender based violence. Budget 63 14:48 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How does this budget continue to deliver cheaper medicine for all Australians, after a decade of cuts and neglect? 14:49 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Lyons. I know that two years ago he promised his community in Tasmania that we would make medicines cheaper, and we have been busy delivering on that promise that the member for Lyons made. In July 2022, within a couple of months of being elected, we slashed the maximum amount that pensioners and concession card holders would pay for their medicines in a given year by 25 per cent—by a full quarter. A few months after that, we cut the price of around 2,000 brands of medicine. A few months after that, on 1 January last year, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. That measure alone will save general patients around $250 million in medicine payments every single year. A bit after that, we allowed doctors to prescribe around 184 different common medicines for ongoing chronic conditions for 60 days supply rather than just 30, saving patients time and money and freeing up some desperately needed GP consults. Last night, not to be outdone, the Treasurer delivered $4.3 billion in new initiatives to make medicines cheaper. This includes new and amended listings on the PBS that give Australian patients access to the best treatments available in the world at affordable PBS prices—like Verzenio, listed just this month. This is the first new treatment for common forms of early breast cancer listed on the PBS in 15 years. Even when successfully treated at first, one in three of these patients will see that cancer come back, often in far more deadly forms, but Verzenio dramatically reduces the risk of that cancer returning. It's now available, we think, to around 2,400 patients every single year at no more than $31 a script instead of the going price of $97,000 per patient per course of treatment. Speaking of co-payments, last night the Treasurer in his budget also froze co-payments for one year for millions of general patients and for up to five years for pensioners, for seniors health card holders and for holders of other concession cards. It is absolutely terrific cost-of-living relief from the Treasurer for life-changing medicines. This is all obviously a world away from the approach of those opposites. Remember: 10 years ago this week, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister, tried to jack up medicine prices by as much as $5 a script. He tried to make medicines dearer, while we make medicines cheaper. (Time expired) Budget 63 14:52 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Prime Minister. Respected economic journalist Alan Kohler has said: It's the big-picture numbers that confirm this government to be an amazingly and unexpectedly big-spending one. Why are Australians paying the price for the Prime Minister 's weak economic leadership? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting. The minister for infrastructure and the Minister for Home Affairs won't interject before a minister or the Prime— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for the environment is warned. When I'm saying 'don't interject' and explaining the reasons why, that's definitely not the time to interject. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Member for Petrie for his question. The best response to that question is to respond with some facts. In the LNP's last budget, in 2022, prior to the election, spending provisioned for a 27.2 percentage of GDP. Mr Dutton 00AKI During COVID. Mr ALBANESE R36 After. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. Members— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Members on my right will cease interjecting. Everyone's going to cease interjecting. The member was heard in silence and he deserved to be heard in silence. The Prime Minister's going to be given the same courtesy, and he has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's anger overload over there today! In that budget, they predicted—bear in mind that this was the March 2022 budget—that in 2023-24 there would be spending of 27.1 per cent of GDP and, going forward, in 2024-25, 26.6 per cent. On all three years, our spending in the 2023-24 budget shows 24.5 per cent compared with 27.2 per cent, 25.4 per cent under Labor compared with their projections of 27.1 per cent, and 26.4 per cent compared with 26.6 per cent under the coalition. The biggest ever tax take by a federal government in a single year was in 2005-2006 at 24.2 per cent of GDP. And guess who the minister for revenue was? This bloke here. In their last budget, they had not a single saving. Not one. Nothing whatsoever. Our budgets have delivered $77 billion in total savings, including $27.9 billion in the budget that was handed down last night. Last night, in terms of revenue, we banked almost all of the revenue upgrades in 2023-24. The former government averaged just 40 per cent of revenue upgrades. Those opposites promised to deliver a surplus in their first year and every year and delivered a big duck egg—nothing; zero out of nine. We've been in government for two years, and last night the Treasurer announced a projected surplus of $9.3 billion. Budget 64 14:56 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help more young people from the outer suburbs and regions get the opportunity to go to university after a decade of coalition cuts to education? 14:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the sensational member for Newcastle for her question. I'm really glad that she asked me this question because, for 50 years, Newcastle Uni has been running fee-free uni-ready courses, and she has been a champion for all her time in the parliament and a defender of these courses. These are courses that have changed the lives of about 70,000 people in Newcastle and the Hunter. Today, one in five people who get a degree from Newcastle Uni start doing one of these fee-free courses. One of those is Jennifer Baker. Jennifer is from Maitland. She was a mum at the age of 19. She worked in hospitality for 10 years. One day, she saw an ad for one of these courses in the local paper. Now, she has got a science degree and an honours degree and a PhD. She's a Fulbright scholar. She's now a computational medicinal chemist. That's what these courses do. They're a bridge between school and uni, giving you the skills to get to uni and succeed when you get there. Fee-free TAFE has been incredibly successful, and what we announced last night in the budget is that we are essentially going to uncap these fee-free uni-ready courses, like you see at Newcastle, right across the country. They're expected to increase the number of people doing these fee-free uni-ready courses by about 40 per cent by the end of the decade and double the number doing them by the end of the decade after that. Last night, we also announced that we're going to uncap places at uni for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who get the marks to go to uni. On top of that, we also announced a new needs based funding system so that students from disadvantaged backgrounds and students who study in regional Australia get the extra support that they need to succeed when they get there. We know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to finish their degree than other students, and this is all about fixing that, giving them extra academic support and extra wraparound support. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating saw an increase in the number of kids finishing high school from 40 per cent to almost 80 per cent. That was nation-changing stuff. This is the next step. In the budget, we've set a target that, by 2050, 80 per cent of our workforce will have not just finished school but gone to TAFE or university as well. To hit that target, we've got to help more young people from the outer suburbs and the regions to get to uni and to succeed when they get there. That's what these reforms are about: fee-free, uni-ready courses; uncapping places; and needs-based funding—more spots and more support, opening the door of opportunity for more Australians. This is the sort of change, the sort of reform, that helps to make sure that no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. Budget 64 15:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Treasurer. The budget papers project a structural deficit across the medium term and into the 2030s. This is unsustainable. What is the Treasurer's plan to return to a structural budget balance, and when will this be? 15:00 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Wentworth for her question, which reflects her longstanding interest in budget policy, particularly tax reform. One of the most important reasons why the progress we've made so far in the budget, in budget repair, is so important—if you look at the two fastest-growing areas of government spending, which are feeding the structural deficit to which the member rightly refers, the first one is the interest on the debt that we inherited from those opposite and the second one has been the NDIS. We have taken considered, methodical action to address both of those areas—two of the big drivers. I pay tribute to the minister, Minister Shorten, for the work that we do together on the NDIS, which recognises that we need to ensure that the NDIS continues to deliver for the people it was designed to help, and we need to do that not by cutting back spending but by managing the growth of that spending. So I pay tribute to him. When it comes to the contribution of debt interest to the structural deficit, that has been considerable as well. One of the reasons why it's so important that we've been able to shave that $150 billion of debt this year is that it saves us something like $80 billion in debt interest over the course of the next 10 years, and you can see that $80 billion makes a meaningful difference to the structural position of the budget in the medium term. So those are two things that we are doing. As I think the member for Wentworth would acknowledge, even if she may have a different combination of proposals, there is a role for tax reform in that too. Before the parliament we have changes to the PRRT. We have changes to high-balance superannuation—that's why it's so ironic that those opposite are asking about billionaires when they are voting against some of these fairness measures in the tax system in the other place. Tax reform has a role to play as well, and in last night's budget there was more tax reform. I acknowledge that the member for Wentworth would like us to go further and faster on tax reform, but that doesn't mean that it has been absent. We've been working through a really comprehensive tax reform agenda in a methodical and considered way. In the changes last night there were some compliance changes. There's obviously a tax cut for every taxpayer, to return bracket creep in the best possible way. There are also small-business tax incentives. There are tax incentives to make ourselves a renewable energy superpower. There are also other important changes, like the changes to capital gains taxes for foreign property owners. That's another change that's in the budget. All of this together—the very responsible approach that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the government take to managing the budget—is about improving the structural position over time. We've done a whole heap of that. We've made some good progress, but we know that there is more to do. Budget 65 15:03 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Small Business. How will small businesses benefit from the targeted support in last night's budget, and what could be standing in its way? 15:03 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the wonderful member for Macquarie. The member for Macquarie has been a longstanding supporter of small business because, of course, she's been a small-business owner herself. She understands how important it is that we put downward pressure on inflation because of the input costs of small businesses. We know that Australia's 2.5 million small businesses have been doing it tough, which is why we are providing targeted support in this year's budget. We know that they employ over five million Australians and, importantly, contribute half a trillion dollars to our economy each and every year. It's critical that they get the support that they need when we have those cost-of-living pressures. Indeed, it's laid out in our small-business statement, which is part of the budget. It's $640 million in targeted support for small businesses. It starts, of course, with a 12-month extension to the $20,000 instant asset write-off that hopefully those across the other side there will be supporting. Ms COLLINS HWM Oh, you want to spend more now? Is that what I've just heard from the shadow Treasurer over there? He wants to spend more! We're providing $290 million in cash flow support through this instant asset write-off, and, indeed, they'll be able to write off each asset, up to $20,000, in those businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million. So it is targeted because we do need to put downward pressure on inflation. Of course we also have, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said, energy bill relief for small businesses. Around a million small businesses will be getting additional energy bill relief, and, last time we had energy bill relief and support for small businesses, those opposite voted against it. It's another measure that small businesses can benefit from and that this time I hope those opposite are going to support, when small businesses need this targeted support. Around one million businesses will be getting an additional $325 to help them with their energy costs. We also, very importantly, have extended for two years the financial counselling, mental health and wellbeing support for small businesses because we do know that they're doing it tough. That is $10 million for an extension of those services, including the Small Business Debt Helpline. Again, I would encourage small businesses who are in trouble and need support to contact them and to contact them early, and for those businesses that are having interactions with the Australian Taxation Office to do that. What this shows is that we are supporting small businesses. There's also support for franchising and, importantly, to make sure that small businesses are paid on time. I want to see those opposite support all of these measures that the government is proposing for small business. (Time expired) Budget 66 15:06 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. A gym in my electorate of Lindsay have seen their energy costs go from $13,000 to $27,500. The $325 energy bill credit will barely cover a fraction of the increase. How are Western Sydney small businesses meant to survive under Labor's reckless energy policies that are causing such high costs? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and my right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. Of course she, along with other members of the coalition, voted against our energy price relief plan, which assisted not just members in her electorate but small businesses in her electorate as well. They voted against it, like they didn't support any of the cost-of-living measures that we've put in place. Now we've made further announcements last night about cost-of-living relief, and they've walked away from that and have been opposing that as well. Mr Taylor 231027 You didn't announce your policies until after the election. Mr ALBANESE R36 The member raises energy policy. Well, there's an opportunity tomorrow night for the Leader of the Opposition to actually tell us their energy policy, to bring it out from wherever it's hidden. He gave a commitment that it would be announced and he gave notice of two weeks. When was that? Mr Bowen DZS Nine weeks ago. Mr ALBANESE R36 That was nine weeks ago, and we've been waiting and waiting. Then he said it was going to be before the budget. We were going to know where the nuclear reactors were going to be. I assume tomorrow night we'll hear who's going to pay for them, how they're going to be financed, whether they will be subsidised or whether they will be able to stand on their own two feet, as the shadow Treasurer on Insiders, on Sunday, said they had to. The hypocrisy, when it comes to those opposite, is just extraordinary. On Sunday, the shadow Treasurer said: 'You shouldn't have subsidies. They should be able to stack up.' But the Leader of the Opposition, when asked whether they would subsidise nuclear, said very clearly, 'If it provides a base load to renewables, then yes.' And the shadow minister, when asked, 'Isn't it part of the problem that it's so incredibly expensive that you'd need government subsidies to get a nuclear industry up?' said, 'Look, there's no doubt that you'd need government involved.' So they're against any government engagement to support private sector investment. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The deputy leader has the right to raise a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN On relevance, her question was about the government's budget. It offered no request for compare or contrast. How can it be in order for the Prime Minister to continually just talk about the opposition, not his own budget? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has had some— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume will cease interjecting. I'm just going to ask the Prime Minister to return to the question and not simply— The SPEAKER 53517 I'm trying to deal with the point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI I'm just trying to help, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm so lucky for your help, but this time I have this one. I'm just going to ask the Prime Minister— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The Prime Minister needs to return back to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 There he is, projecting again, because he knows that tomorrow night is his third budget reply, and he's yet to break his ducking-an-answer policy about anything. He's yet to have any costings. He's yet to have any detail whatsoever. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister needs to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we did was prepare for that, just like last night. Last night we announced an energy policy to deliver support to every household, and I wait to see whether the member for Lindsay actually supports her constituents in supporting that policy. (Time expired) Wages 67 15:11 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. After a decade of wage stagnation, why are better wages so important to the Albanese Labor government's economic agenda, and what approaches has our government rejected? 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Paterson for the question and acknowledge the member's advocacy—including, in particular, of closing the labour hire loophole, which was being used in such an appalling way in her part of Australia. As the Treasurer has already reported, we're pleased to say today, as the numbers have come in, that real wages are still growing in this country. That's real wages growing compared to when we came to office, when they were going backwards at 3.4 per cent. We've talked about tests for the Leader of the Opposition. When I talk about real wages growing, the shadow Treasurer is shaking his head, saying, 'No, they're not.' So, when he leaves, here's a test: 4.1 and 3.6—write both down and work out which is the bigger number. Four point one is what's happening with wages; 3.6 is what's happening with inflation. Don't try to work it out now. Wait till you get back to the office. There'll be people to help you and maybe even an abacus available. But, when wages are rising faster than inflation, that's called real wages growth. But I understand why they're sensitive about it. Wages growth, the WPI, when they were in office for their 10 years, averaged 2.2 per cent. You look at what the Treasurer announced last night in the budget. Have a look at Budget Paper No. 1—you might not have reached that one yet—and you'll see the projection over the next four years, with real wages projected to grow in year 1, year 2, year 3 and year 4. But, if real wages were still running at 2.2 per cent, as they averaged over then, real wages would be going backwards in year 1, year 2, year 3 and year 4. And we know this has been their view the whole way through, because it was the shadow Treasurer himself who, when we introduced our secure jobs, better pay bill, when asked why he opposed it, said, 'Well, it pushes up wages.' And then, only as recently as Sunday on Insiders—and I can understand why the shadow Treasurer didn't turn up to question time yesterday, straight after the Insiders interview. I'm not sure if it was because of budget rules or at the— Mr Taylor 231027 It was a lock-up! Mr BURKE DYW I don't know if you were locked up because of budget rules or at the request of your colleagues. It was one or the other. In that interview, when asked about the budget— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW he said these words: … the way to get there is pretty straightforward. You do exactly what Mathias Cormann did from 2013 … Which minister was the one who referred to low wages being a deliberate design feature of their economic management? It was Mathias Cormann and this opposition. I'm looking forward to the announcements tomorrow night when we hear from the Leader of the Opposition what the costed policies are, when we hear from the Leader of the Opposition what the targeted package of repeals are. We know they want to cut wages. They want to cut wages, they want to pay for their nuclear reactors. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further question be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 67 Presentation 67 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the annual report of the AFP's handling of complaints against its officers, the report on Commonwealth Ombudsman activities under part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. Document made a parliamentary paper. Presentation 67 15:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These 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. CONDOLENCES 68 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Yixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ashlee, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 68 Report from Federation Chamber 68 15:16 The SPEAKER 53517 I have to report the order of the day relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the tragic deaths of Yixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia, Ash Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young have been debated in the Federation Chamber and is returned to the House. I present a certified copy of the motion. Reference to Federation Chamber 68 15:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Just for the information of members, there are a number of members who still want to speak on that motion. The vote to return it from the Federation Chamber happened earlier than had been intended. I know that a number of people still want to speak on it, so, with that in mind, I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the deaths of Yixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia, Ash Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young is referred to the Federation Chamber. There will be another opportunity this afternoon to speak on that. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 68 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 68 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: "This government's failure in its third budget to help Australian families during a cost of living crisis". 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— 15:17 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Before the last election, the Albanese Labor Party promised Australians a great deal. They promised lower electricity prices—indeed, $275. They promised cheaper mortgages. They promised there wouldn't be any new taxes. They promised a lower cost of living. And they said that life would be easier. But after three budgets in a row, life is only harder for hardworking Australians. And every single one of those promises has been broken. We have just seen the third budget flop in a row. One's bad, two's awful but three is three strikes. It is a shame on those opposite that, after three budgets, they still haven't been able to deliver the most basic promises they made before the election. The truth is that Australians are poorer under Labor. We know that the real disposable incomes of Australians have dropped by 7½ per cent in two years. We haven't seen that before in our lifetimes—7½ per cent in two years. And we see it on the ground wherever we go: pensioners struggling to pay their energy bills and pay for their groceries; hardworking Australians battling with a mortgage, working extra hours and not being able to pay for the kids sport because they have to pay their mortgage; young students who can't pay the rent because there's no spare housing for them when they come from a regional area to go to university. Australian after Australian is struggling because this government has failed to deliver on its most basic promises and has now delivered its third budget flop. Those opposite claim that real wages have gone up. Well, the facts are there in the budget papers. I added them up for the three years of this term of parliament—I gave them the benefit of an extra year, because they're promising a lot for the next year. I thought, I'll add up the WPI, the wage price index, and the CPI over the three years. And guess what? The CPI prices go up faster than wages. Real wages go down under Labor. The minister has left the chamber, because he didn't want to hear the truth. He likes to spin his own story to Australians. But it's good to see the minister opposite here, who's an economist. He knows that, over three years, if the price index goes up faster than the wage price index, that means real wages have gone down. Before this budget we said that there were three tests for the budget. The first is that it needs to restore Australians' standard of living to where it was before Labor made Australians poorer—before we saw this domestic, homegrown inflation that Labor has created and imposed on all Australians. We said that the second test is that they need to re-establish a pathway to prosperity and aspiration, opportunity for Australians that is led by business, particularly small business, because we know that it's not government that pays the bills in the end; it's hardworking Australians, who pay their taxes, and it's business that create opportunities and pay tax that can pay for our schools, for our roads, for our hospitals and so on. And the third test was that they would re-establish the basic fiscal disciplines that have been in place in this country since the 1990s, since the Charter of Budget Honesty Act was put in place by Peter Costello—structural budget balance, making sure the economy grows faster than spending. This budget confirms that none of those tests have been met. Australians are poorer under Labor and will remain poorer under this Labor government. The fiscal disciplines that were established in the 1990s have gone out the window, and they haven't been replaced with anything other than this big-spending Treasurer's aspiration, which is purely political. We know where he wants to get to in the coming years. And the budget confirms that spending is up—$315 billion of extra spending across the forwards since Labor came to power. That is $30,000 for every Australian household. When I talk to Australians about how they're feeling at the moment, I don't hear anyone saying that they're $30,000 better off than they were when Labor came into power. In fact, I hear them constantly saying that they are worse off than when Labor came into power—because they are worse off than when Labor came into power. Spending is growing faster than the economy, at double the pace. And when spending is growing faster than the economy, guess what happens? You go into deep deficit, and in two years time we're going to see a $43 billion structural deficit, and that is throwing fuel on the inflationary fire. Meanwhile, unemployment is expected to rise, with 175,000 jobs to be lost in the coming years under Labor as unemployment goes up to 4½ per cent. In this budget we see that immigration is up to 1.67 million. Australians are struggling to find a home. When we left government we said that over the five years through to 2026-27 immigration would be under 1.1 million. By the October budget, just after Labor had taken power, they decided it should be 1.2 million. By the next budget, in 2023-24, the number had become 1.5 million. And then by the 2023-24 MYEFO it had become 1.6 million. In the budget that was handed down last night, over that five-year period it's just under 1.7 million. That's an increase of $600,000. Indeed, just in the year 2022-23 we saw an increase from 180,000 to 528,000 and, in the meantime, housing construction has not moved. They promised 1.2 million houses and even their own national housing supply council says they are pulling up short of 950,000 and most in the industry think it will be well short of that. Many third parties have made comments about this budget. The economist Steven Hamilton called this budget 'downright reckless'. We saw the HSBC chief economist, Paul Bloxham, say that the budget supports underlying inflation rather than lowering it. University of New South Wales Professor Richard Holden says, 'Last year's budget expanded net spending by 0.8 per cent of GDP. This year it is 1.5 and those increases look permanent. They're inflationary, irresponsible and hard to reverse. They deepen and cement our structural budget deficit.' S&P, sadly, has said, 'We no longer expect the RBA to cut its policy rate in calendar (year) 2024,' as a result of this budget. Australians are suffering not just from rising prices, and we have seen rising prices across the board—housing up 12 per cent, rent up 12 per cent, insurance up 26 per cent, electricity up 18 per cent and gas up 25 per cent—but they are also suffering from 12 interest rate increases under those opposite. It is clear this budget is doing absolutely nothing to bring those interest rates down. Cherelle Murphy from EY said: … the 2024-25 Federal Budget needed to do three things: not add to spending, unless offsetting it elsewhere; change existing policy to lower spending and find new revenue that will persist over time to close the structural balance; and put in place policies to assist the private sector to maximise productivity growth. What you see in this budget is it is not a budget for the national interest, not a budget for the hard-working Australians trying to pay their mortgages and make ends meet but a budget for this Treasurer and this Prime Minister for an election. That is what you see. This is not a budget in the national interest; this is a budget in Labor's interest. 15:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner If you want to know what the coalition really believe in, let's go back to the most unpopular budget of the past generation, a budget that commemorated its 10-year anniversary this year, the 2014 budget. The 2014 budget was preceded by then Prime Minister Abbott saying there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC and SBS. He vowed to avoid these things and he embraced every single one of them. In that 2014 budget, the Liberal Party and the National Party said that under-30s would get no unemployment support for six months. In fierce discussions about the right level of JobSeeker, they thought the right level for young Australians should be zero. They said that pensions would no longer be indexed to wages but would only be indexed to prices, essentially saying to Australia's fixed-income retirees that they could no longer share in productivity growth in the economy. They said that HECS-HELP debts would be indexed at a faster rate, a strong contrast to what we said in this budget, which was that the indexation of those debts would be lower. The 2014 budget, which commemorates its 10-year anniversary this week, had a $43 million cut to ABC and SBS. It had a $114 million cut to the CSIRO. It had deficits as far as the eye could see from a party that had promised before the election that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and in every year after that. And the 2014 budget ended bulk billing. I wonder who was the health minister who presided over that decision. Hey, that's right: it's none other than the Leader of the Opposition, the man who, when he was health minister, was voted by doctors the worst health minister in living memory. What you saw last night from Labor was something very different: a budget that reduced Australia's debt burden, which under the former government was forecast to peak at 45 per cent of GDP and is now forecast to peak at 35 per cent of GDP, saving Australians billions of dollars in interest payments that no longer need to be made. We've delivered the second back-to-back surplus. This is something that those opposite hoped for and made the mugs for, but in the end they were the ones who looked like mugs, unable to deliver a single surplus in their time in office. Since our coming to office, 780,000 jobs have been created in the Australian economy, and the unemployment rate is 3.8 per cent—full employment by anyone's definition. Our budget locked in a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, meaning that four out of five Australian taxpayers get a bigger tax cut under us than they would have gotten under the former government. All Australian households receive a $300 energy rebate, the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions is frozen, and we're making important changes in the competition regime, strengthening the merger regime, reforming non-compete clauses and taking steps to make the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We understand that productivity is at the heart of living standards growth, and productivity and our investments in our people and infrastructure are at the heart of last night's budget. Tomorrow night the Australian people will get to hear something a little different: they will get to hear the budget reply. When Malcolm Turnbull was shadow Treasurer, apparently he made a pitch to then opposition leader Brendan Nelson that it ought to be the shadow Treasurer who gave the budget reply, and I'm sure that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, has popped off to the Leader of the Opposition's office to make the very same pitch, because he would know, as so many Australians know, how little interest the Leader of the Opposition has in economics. I'm indebted to 'Bad cop: Peter Dutton's strongman politics', the latest Quarterly Essay, by Lech Blaine, which includes the following quote: Dutton is the paperback version of Howard: the same message but less weight. Economics is not his emotional priority, beyond a tribal allegiance to tax loopholes for the rich; penalties for the poor; and hostility to trade unions. This is why he spends most of the time fighting culture wars. His grievances are well practised and sincerely held. But the moment he moves off his preferred turf, Dutton becomes clumsy and unconvincing. Lech Blaine has gone and interviewed former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who says: "Peter is not an original thinker … I cannot recall him ever having a positive idea in the times when I was with him in government." Indeed, the former Prime Minister goes on to say: "Peter wants to be Prime Minister … So he will say and do what he needs to get there. But he is not the sharpest tool in the shed." The former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull isn't the only one with some choice words for the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Bass is quoted as saying: "When I go to Canberra and sit in the party room with Peter Dutton, Tony Pasin and Alex Antic, I think: who are these people?" She says: "The Liberal Party has become One Nation lite." Lech Blaine also includes a discussion of a point which is quite relevant given the points the shadow Treasurer has been making about billionaires. He recounts a moment when: … Dutton boards a chartered flight to Western Australia … Australia's richest billionaire is hosting a "neon bush doof" at her Roy Hill Mine in the Pilbara. Dutton is flown to the shindig by WA billionaire Tim Roberts. The Opposition leader dons a high-vis pink vest for a happy snap with Rinehart … Pauline Hanson is also in attendance. But Dutton is the undisputed guest of honour. …   …   … A smoking ceremony is performed for the traditional owner of the Coalition: Gina Rinehart … This is Dutton in a nutshell. He kisses up and punches down. And there's much more which I'd recommend to viewers in Lech Blaine's Quarterly Essay. So the real question for the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow night is: what will it cost? I want to outline for the Leader of the Opposition five tests which ought to be simple for any opposition leader to clear in their budget reply—tests which could easily be cleared by the now Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese. First, what will it cost? If you're going to announce policies, show us how much they're going to cost. That's what the Parliamentary Budget Office is there for. Their resources are available. Don't give us uncosted thought bubbles; give us costed policies. Second, what are you going to cut? The opposition was out there today talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending—new spending which includes indexation of the age pension. So, if they're against these hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending, do they intend to reduce the level of the age pension? Do they intend to reheat the proposal for the 2014 budget, which would have become law were it not for the Labor opposition? Their proposal back in 2014 was that pensions be indexed to prices and not to wages. Third, who will you take the energy bill relief away from? They're all out there saying that this energy bill relief shouldn't go to billionaires—despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition's signature economic promise when he was running for leader of the Liberal Party was that the GST be taken off electricity bills, including the electricity bills of billionaires. So, if they plan to take away energy bill relief, who will they take it away from? Fourth, what are you going to do for productivity growth and for wage growth? For all the conniptions of the shadow Treasurer, he simply needs to look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics website today, where he will see the wage price index, at 4.1 per cent, is higher than the consumer price index, at 3.6 per cent. Real wages are growing under us. Real wages were falling under them. Are we going to get any answers? I doubt it. Fifth, where will those nuclear power plants be? We saw the promise from the Leader of the Opposition that he would announce before the budget where those nuclear power plants would be, but we've now got members of his own party room saying that they don't want it in their own electorate. The member for Gippsland says that his community wouldn't accept a site unless it was handed a significant economic package, and free energy wouldn't be enough. The Leader of the Nationals has expressed similar doubt about what's going to happen here. We know that the Liberal leaders in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland wouldn't lift their state bans on nuclear. The coalition's policy on nuclear is falling apart before their eyes. The Australian people deserve certainty and clarity tomorrow night. 15:37 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Hooley dooley, there's been quite a strange question time and a strange start to the MPI from the member just opposite who spoke. They put out their budget this week, and you'd think they would take every opportunity to talk about their budget, talk about why they are proud of their budget, talk about how they think their budget's going to be good for Australian families, especially in relation to cost of living, but in question time all we saw from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer to a whole conga line of others was just wanting to talk about us. And it wasn't just talking about us; they wanted to go back 10 years. They wanted to talk about a whole long line of history. I thought: 'Okay, so the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury just came in. He's supposedly one of their brains. He's not a union hack. He actually went to Harvard. He's got a PhD.' I went: 'Great. He'll want to talk about the budget. He'll want to talk about economics. He'll want to talk about cost of living—it's important—and why he thinks the government's policies are good for cost of living.' I thought: 'He's going to sound really academic. They always try to sound intelligent.' I was like: 'Okay, it's going to be great. I'm going to listen to an economic expose about why that budget they brought down was a good budget.' I was probably going to find it hard to believe, but I was at least looking forward to him having a go. It was worse than question time! He brought in a book. He was quoting Dutton from 10 years ago, who did this five years ago, who did—you know what that says to me about today's question time and about our supposedly learned assistant minister who just spoke? They've got nothing to talk about in the budget. When they've talked about cost of living and the budget this week, their first thought wasn't, 'I'm going to go in and start to talk about this policy or what we've just done, about why that's good for cost of living.' They didn't think of that first; they thought they'd have a go at us—because they've got nothing to talk about in the fact of what this budget did to improve cost of living. And that is a real shame, because the average Australian family is $35,000 a year worse off than they were two years ago. That's not my figure; that's an independently calculated figure. You might say, how can you say that? Let's break it up. What is the major component of that? Over $20,000 of it is the increased mortgage cost of an average family. That is the main thing. The main thing that has made the cost of living higher for an Australian family is interest rates. Have any of them mentioned interest rates as a topic today? No. Did the member who just got up mention interest rates? No. But we know why they haven't. It is because every economist who's been commenting on the budget this week has said, 'Uh-oh: danger,' because of the government's prolific spending. It's a well-known economic correlation that when you increase spending you put inflationary pressures on. So a lot of the economists are saying there's a lot of danger in the budget, because the increased spending—they're spending $300 billion a year more than we were when we were in government—is potentially going to put inflationary pressure on. That means interest rates aren't going to come down. That's why some economists, such as Warren Hogan from Judo Bank, even talked about rates potentially going up. Why are they saying that? They're saying that because of what this government is doing. That's why they didn't talk about. It's been quite amazing. I literally thought—wrongly; I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose—that they would come in today and talk about their budget and why they're proud of it, and I certainly thought that in the MPI today they would come in and talk about what they're proud of in their budget. Again, I think it highlights that they've got nothing to be proud of about it in terms of dealing with cost-of-living issues. I did have quite a number of other things I wanted to talk about, but I've been distracted by the first speaker from the other side. I was going to go into energy costs and why they have gone up. We know they promised lower power bills, and I wanted to go through the reckless renewable targets they have. Forty per cent of your energy bill is from transmission lines. They want to build 28,000 kilometres of them, so we'll see how the power bills go with that. I wanted to talk about food inflation as well. We know Labor don't like farmers; we know that with live export and we know that with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the trucking tax and everything else. Cost of living is a real issue. The government doesn't get it, and it's reflected in what they've been saying today. 15:42 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke There is nothing more disingenuous than the Liberal Party, after a decade of government—of poor, wasted, pathetic, profligate Liberal government—coming into this place and pretending that they are on the side of working people, that they care about cost-of-living pressures. There is a reality here that, as frustrated as working people might be with their economic circumstances on any given day—and they can be very difficult, and they have been for a period of time—there is not one working Australian who believes that the answer is the Liberal Party. There's a temptation during these debates, when people roll in after a big night and beak off at the dispatch box with their misguided views about this and that, to engage directly with the matters they put on the table—the dead pig, so to speak. But there is a saying—and I'm not going to address it directly to any individual—that you don't wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty, and the pig likes it. I think when it comes to this particular debate, we need to focus on those very significant policy interventions that the Albanese Labor government have pursued in regard to easing the cost-of-living pressures on working people here in Australia. Obviously the budget came down last night, but we've actually been aware for a number of weeks now of the most important policy measure that our government are going to implement for working people to ease their cost-of-living burden, and that is Labor's tax cut plan: a tax cut for every taxpaying Australian. That's 13.6 million Australians who are going to receive a tax cut on 1 July. They won't have to fill out any paperwork. They won't have to go through a tedious process and wait for their tax return to come in—whatever the obstructive procedure that might have been put in place by the Liberals to prevent working people from accessing things they're entitled to. Every single Australian is going to receive a tax cut from 1 July. In my electorate, that's 73,000 taxpayers. The average household in my electorate, with two workers—a mum and a dad or whatever the combination of workers—will receive $2,856 a year. There is no more direct way to relieve cost-of-living pressure without adding to inflation than delivering the biggest tax cuts for Australians that have ever been delivered, and that is the centrepiece of the budget that Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down last night. There is a fundamental principle behind this. Our government want Australians to earn more. It's why we've worked so hard to get wages moving again. Remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had a decade of wage stagnation—indeed, real wage decline—under the former government. It wasn't by accident. To be fair to them, it wasn't a stuff-up. They had plenty of those, but this wasn't. They made very clear that it was a deliberate design feature of the economy they sought to build for the Australian people. We have wages moving in Australia once again, because we want people to earn more. The other part of that is that we want them to keep more of what they earn. We want Australians to have lower costs, and part of that lower cost base is dealing with rising taxes. That is why we have adjusted the stage 3 tax cut arrangements—why we have implemented a new plan that ensures every single working Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut on 1 July. There are challenges. There are fiscal challenges in our economy. We inherited a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. There was a decade of stagnant productivity and the worst period of real wage decline in Australia's history, so there has been a lot of work to do, and in two short years we've halved the inflation problem. It should fairly be addressed that the cost of mortgages is related to the inflation problem. The inflation problem began under the former Liberal government. We are getting on with the tax cuts and the power bill incentives that will ease the cost of living. All those opposite can do is carp from the sidelines and crow about nothing. 15:47 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay When we were away from this place over the last six weeks I spent a lot of time with small-business owners and manufacturers—everyday Australians—across Western Sydney. They told me that the No. 1 issue facing small businesses was energy costs. A gym in my electorate that was paying $13,000 for its energy bills is now paying $27,500. We've had double-income families lining up for meals at the two local food banks, Mama Lana's and Penrith Community Kitchen. Mama Lana's told me that not only have they been feeding people; they've also been paying people's energy bills so that those people don't default on them. They said they themselves are struggling. Their own energy costs are up 31 per cent a quarter. A mother from Londonderry recently wrote to me saying that the cost of living in Western Sydney is too high and she's looking to sell up and move to a cheaper location in the bush. She's actually moving out of Western Sydney because she and her family just can't afford it. I've heard so many of these stories. Mums and dads are now taking their kids out of sport. What's particularly concerning, the local swim school told me, is that families are taking their kids out of swimming lessons. We saw this risk during COVID-19; we are now seeing it during a cost-of-living crisis, and Labor government is doing nothing to address it. We are meant to be the lucky country, but we're not anymore under this government. The standard of living for Australians has collapsed by 7.5 per cent. Australians need hope, yet many of the measures in the budget handed down last night will just add to inflation and cause more economic tensions. We all know the country is facing immense inflationary challenges, yet the government seems to not want to even take any of the action that will prevent this. Mortgages remain high. Thirty-five thousand dollars—this is how much Australians with mortgages are worse off. Everyday Australians are just trying to get by, pay their bills and get their kids to school and sport. They might own a small business that is at risk of closing its doors. The Reserve Bank governor said inflation is a homegrown problem, which the Treasurer seems to want to ignore. Western Sydney families are also struggling to keep up with the rising costs of insurance, rent and payments. We know that the cost of food is up 10 per cent, gas is up 25 per cent—I will come to gas shortly—and electricity is up 18 per cent, according to the latest inflation data. There are other households and small businesses that are doing it so much tougher under this Albanese Labor government, but, in true Labor fashion, even though they are talking up this minute $300, or $325 for small businesses, it really does not even scratch the surface when a business is paying $15,000 more on their energy bills. The government released its gas strategy, and the backbench pretty much revolted. We know we need more gas supply in the domestic market as quickly as possible right now to assist in bringing down costs. When I go to heavy industry manufacturers across Western Sydney, they say 'We could put all the solar panels in the world on our roofs, but it's not going to make any difference at all, because we need gas.' We need gas furnaces to make the products to keep our manufacturing and our sovereign capability in this country. They want to do the right thing, but they need affordable energy, in the form of gas, to be able to do that. Our Western Sydney builders, plumbers and sparkies are already dealing with inflated costs of materials. They're going to have to find thousands and thousands of more dollars to pay for utes and SUVs to do their job. Migration challenges will continue to put pressure on Western Sydney, and the budget does not adequately address the need for infrastructure in Western Sydney. We've seen funding ripped away from infrastructure and then put back again. The infrastructure minister expects everyone in Western Sydney to be really grateful for that money that she ripped away and then put back, repackaged as some sort of new funding, which it is not. Western Sydney is sick of being stuck in traffic. We're feeling the stress of the services that are at breaking point. And the cost of housing means it is becoming an unachievable burden rather than the hope of the Australian dream. This budget has let down everyday Australians in Western Sydney and right across the nation. We deserve a government that will listen to the community and will act in their best interest. 15:52 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Yet again, this is a matter of public importance where the opposition has failed to put any ideas forward to the Australian people. It's incredibly disappointing that they waste these opportunities day after day. The focus of this debate should be on what we can do to relieve households when they are experiencing cost-of-living pressures, not on partisan negativity. On this side of the House, we know that many Australian families are under pressure. That's why our government is delivering responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. Our budget delivers on our previous investments in excess of tens of billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief to support Australian families. Just briefly, let's contrast our attitude to this moment in history with that of those opposite, who are full of negativity, always saying no to any ideas that we put forward, with zero plans or policies for the future. Since we came to government, we have provided electricity bill relief, delivered cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, provided more Medicare bulk-billing, delivered cheaper medicines, boosted income support payments, provided over 300,000 fee-free TAFE places, expanded paid parental leave and got wages moving again, after a decade of stagnation and economic irresponsibility from those opposite. Of course, from 1 July, we are providing a tax cut for all taxpayers. It's a bigger tax cut for 84 per cent of taxpayers compared with the tax cuts proposed by those opposite. Again, our government knows that many Australian families and households are under pressure. That's why, in the budget delivered by the Treasurer last night, we've demonstrated how we will do more to provide responsible cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. Our support for households with cost of living will include $300 energy rebates for all households. We're providing $1.9 billion to increase Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent, benefiting nearly one million households. We'll be cutting $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. These changes will make student loans fairer, and that includes for over 23,400 people in my electorate of Chisholm who have student debt. We understand on this side of the House that household budgets are tight and that the impact of cost-of-living pressures and inflation are being felt in households across the country. It's great to see the Treasurer take responsible steps to assist with cost-of-living help. All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut from 1 July. This means an average cut of $1,888 a year. This is significant; this will be felt by people. We know that there's always more to do, and that's why we have such a comprehensive cost-of-living package in our budget. We know that our cheaper medicines plan has made a real difference to people, who shouldn't be put into a situation where they are forced to choose between buying medicines or making other decisions. Our agreement with community pharmacies is worth up to $3 billion. We're making sure that there's a fairer deal for consumers at the supermarket checkout. We're investing $1.1 billion to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. These policies are real, and they will make a real difference in people's lives. We are investing $138 million to boost funding for emergency, food relief and financial support. I've visited my local emergency and food relief organisations, and they do a fabulous job. I'm really pleased that they're going to be able to continue to support our communities into the future. We've provisioned for higher wages for aged-care and childcare workers. Early childhood educators do such a wonderful job. I had the pleasure of meeting with many of them this morning, and they have told me that this step forward is going to be life changing for them and significant for their industry. There is a long list of measures from the budget last night, and, in the time that I have left, I couldn't possibly go through all of our measures. But I think it's really important to understand that our budget is not the beginning nor the end of our government's cost-of-living relief. We back everyday Australians every day. 15:58 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I thought we might get through the MPI today successfully without hearing the political spin from those opposite, but we didn't. The member for Hawke used the Treasurer's favourite spin line: one trillion dollars of debt. The awkward part about that mistruth from those opposite is the budget papers actually show that, when the ALP came to power, net debt was $517 billion, and they don't talk about the 30-odd per cent from Rudd and Swan. We won't talk about that. They talk about the one trillion dollars, which is made up, when it was actually $517 billion. But the reason it's important we call that out is it just shows what this government is all about. It's about spin and it's about optics. It's not about providing solutions for the Australian people, and they know that every day. After two years of this government, Australian people know it when they put petrol in the bowser, when their energy bill comes in and it's up, and every time they go to the supermarket. When you listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer today, you would think the Australian people have never had it better, but the Australian people know. Labor have failed in two years to address this cost-of-living crisis, and that's why community organisations have played an important role in filling the void. I'm fortunate in Casey—every member here is fortunate—to have community organisations that give back, and I want to take a moment to mention First Impressions Clothing Exchange in my electorate. It's a local organisation that empowers women for brighter futures, helping them to achieve their personal and employment goals. I had the opportunity to attend their fundraiser, a high tea to raise funds for their amazing work. Over $10,000 was raised on the day. I pay tribute to Renee, to Gus from Cire and to all the participants, mentors and everyone in the community that turned out. Over 150 people were there to raise funds and share their stories about how FICE and Cire are helping women in need. We need these community organisations to continue to do this work, and I'll continue to support all community organisations in Casey, because, as I have said, they are not getting support from this government. The best they're getting is $15 a week from 1 July, which the government have talked about for four months. They've spent $40 million of taxpayer money to sell their $15 a week increase, but, at the same time, they made a decision last year to take $1,500 a year from the Australian people. They let the low- and middle-income tax offset lapse when they had the ability to step in and continue it. This government let that initiative lapse. They took $1,500 away. They now celebrate a $15 a week increase, and now they're celebrating $75 a quarter—$75 a quarter!—for the Australian people, including for Twiggy Forrest. We haven't heard the detail yet. If you've got five houses, we think you get $1,500, because the Prime Minister didn't rule it out when he was asked today. If you're unemployed and you're in one household, you get $300. If you have 10 houses, you get $3,000. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to rule it out today. He didn't. If you're a billionaire, you get this money. At a time when food is up 10 per cent, housing is up 12 per cent, gas is up 25 per cent and electricity is up 18 per cent, you're going to get $75 a quarter from this government, and you're supposed to be thankful and praise them. How out of touch can you be? How out of touch are this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and this government? What they need to do is treat the source, the inflation. Let's be clear: this is homegrown inflation. To quote the RBA governor, Michele Bullock: The remaining inflation challenge we are dealing with is increasingly homegrown … Homegrown inflation is at five per cent. The target band is two to three per cent. It is going to be harder and harder for the Australian people. Prices are continuing to go up every day, and all this Prime Minister and this Treasurer can offer is $15 a week from 1 July, after they've talked about it for four months, and $75 a quarter for 12 months. That's it, Australian people. You've been abandoned, because they don't have the answers to the economic challenges the Australian people face, and that's why they're trying to spin their way out of this situation. 16:03 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The member for Casey brought up opportunity, so let's talk about that for just a short moment. It has been two years, 17,520 hours, since the Albanese Labor government was elected by the Australian people. Surely—and I know we're all thinking this—the opposition by now would have formulated some sort of policy. Give us something. Give us anything. But they haven't formulated anything that could possibly help the Australian people. That's because all we've heard from these lacklustre Liberals and these negative Nationals is no thought, no policy and no vision—all the gear and no idea. To be fair, that has been their baseline throughout history, so we just need to give them a bit of credit on that. Last night's federal budget focused on helping ease the cost of living for all Australians, and not just some but all Australians, whether they're in my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast or in Sydney, in WA, in Victoria—right across the country. We are addressing cost-of-living pressures because we understand and we know that people are doing it tough. We are committed to helping all Australians—and particularly those in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast—with price pressures, and that is through the energy rebate of $300. Similarly, for eligible small businesses there is an energy rebate of $325. This is excellent news for the thousands of households and businesses in my region who are currently struggling with energy costs. The Treasurer also announced last night and again today at the Press Club that for a second consecutive time our government will increase the Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 10 per cent. This is following a previous 15 per cent increase made by our government this term—not last term or the term before; this term. We've done it twice. We have been helping with costs of living now throughout our entire term of government, and all we get from that side is negativity and nothing. I do not have high hopes and high expectations for when the opposition leader gets up tomorrow night and gives his speech. He's just going to give words and air. That is it. On this side of the chamber, with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and every member of this government, we have substance, we have policy and we have vision for an Australia for tomorrow. In Robertson, back to the increase in the Commonwealth Rent Assistance, this will directly impact 7,310 households, and that is a direct cost-of-living support to thousands of people on the Central Coast. For Australians with a HECS debt, our government will change the rate of indexation and wipe $3 billion from student debt. We will backdate this change to 2023, which will help 15,470 people in Robertson. Almost the same amount of people will benefit in the electorate of Dobell. That is 30,000 people on the Central Coast that will benefit from our changes in HECS. As a practising doctor, I'm especially interested in how our government is providing for Australians in the health space. In last night's budget, our government made significant announcements to strengthen health care right across Australia and on the Central Coast. In that, we announced $4 billion to deliver cheaper medicines by freezing the PBS co-payment and adding more medications to the PBS. Since our government came to power and made a concerted effort to help ease the cost of medicines, people in Robertson have saved over $2 million in medication costs. What our new health announcement means is that pensioners and concession cardholders in Robertson will now not have to pay more than $7.70 for their PBS medications for the next five years. This is a phenomenal budget announcement that will assist thousands of people in my electorate of Robertson. This announcement will also save lives and will keep people out of hospital. Our government will also establish another 29 Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country. I can speak to how impactful Medicare urgent care clinics are. They help ease the pressure on our hospital emergency departments and ensure patients receive bulk-billed services. Our one on the Central Coast is home to two urgent care clinics—one in the south in Umina Beach and the other north at Lake Haven. Already, combined, these clinics have seen thousands of patients bulk-billed. Our one on the peninsula has seen nearly 5,000 patients since it has opened. The federal government is focused on delivering for all Australians across the country. It is fiscally mature and responsible. 16:08 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies We cherish those who plant trees under whose shade they will never sit because they have put others ahead of themselves. That is what Australians look for in a moment like the budget announcement last night. They look for a government, a prime minister and a treasurer who will put them before themselves. Indeed, when we have children come and visit us—we had some just before—and look down on this place in debates like this, they will ask themselves, 'Is this a group of people, a government, that will put our interests before theirs?' It's one of the reasons we have the Intergenerational report—because it's not about us; it is about them. When we make decisions in a budget, we are telling Australians about what matters to us and we are telling them and sending a signal of whether our priorities are them or ourselves. Some say you cannot compare how a family manages its budget to how a government does. In some sense, they're right. And it's built upon an assumption that I reject. The assumption that it is built on is that governments are infinite and families are finite: governments will be here again and again and will never be called upon to finally settle a debt—future generations like the children above us can pay that off!—whereas families are finite. I reject that assumption because that is not how responsible families think. Families don't think like that. They plant seeds that become mature trees for their children and grandchildren to sit under. First, I'd like to take you to the intergenerational report, the document that reflects the idea that we put other generations first. There is a graph on page 144 that matters to this country. It uses 2023 dollars—it is not adjusted for inflation—and notes the following: government spending in 2023 per person is at $25,000 per person. We saw reinforced last night that on current trends—not adjusted for inflation—that figure will hit $40,000 per person. That number is extraordinary—$40,000. It doesn't account for state government spending, it doesn't account for councils and it doesn't account for all of the other costs that people have. With an average wage of $93,000 and a median wage—which matters more because it is exactly halfway—of $65,000, we are on a trajectory that will see federal government spending account for two-thirds of a median wage. You don't need to be a futurist to know that that will bankrupt this nation. We won't be able to enjoy all of the prosperity, all of the security, or be able to tell generations beyond us that we will also plant trees that they can sit under. You can fairly say we are cutting them down. So the question is: what does this budget do for future generations? Average families are $35,000 a year worse off, and they were given talking points. Families are making really tough decisions right now. We all have food banks in our electorates and we all know that the queues are out the door. But families who can still afford to put food on the table are making decisions about whether it is fresh or processed. They are making decisions about what type of meat is served. We are seeing fewer students come to Canberra because the cost of coming here is so high. We are seeing sport being cut, and we are seeing the heating turned off in winter and the air conditioning turned off in summer. These are the real decisions that families make for their budgets that provide important lessons for how we conduct ourselves here in this place. There is no more important issue for future generations than housing and, right now, we are seeing a housing crisis. We are seeing young Australians on that median wage of $65,000 a year having to save for 12 years for a deposit—12 years! Even then, most of them will be rejected for the median price, so it is no wonder they are giving up. Australians are looking to us to have their interests at heart. They looked for that in the budget last night and it was wanting. 16:13 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have been in this place longer than I, so I think maybe you will agree to this point: often times in this place, in this chamber, there are a lot of theatrics. There is a lot of important work that happens here, absolutely, but there are also a lot of theatrics and, let's be honest here, this matter of public importance that is being raised by the Liberals is pure theatrics. Because if it was anything else, if it was something of substance, then they would be standing up here to talk about their policies, their agenda to help households in this cost-of-living challenge. But instead, they have nothing. They have no policies. Actually, no—sorry, colleagues—they do have one policy. Their one policy is nuclear energy, which is expensive, difficult to deliver and probably not going to come on until the never-never. They still haven't named where those power stations are going to be but—Hansard, can we just correct that—they do have one policy. They do have their nuclear policy, details to be determined—hopefully, tomorrow. I appreciate the member for Menzies' comments about how important this is, and the tree analogy was really apt, because the budget to us is anything but theatrical. It is deeply serious and important, and we are genuinely trying to make a difference to people's lives. We're doing that on two fronts. These are things that we have been solely focused on over all the budgets that we have been delivering: to drive down inflation and to provide cost-of-living relief to households. You can see that the work that the Treasurer and the entire cabinet are doing to put downward pressure on inflation is paying off. It is working. They have delivered two surpluses. The last time an Australian government was able to deliver two surpluses was almost two decades ago, roughly around the same time that Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone. That is how long ago it was. We were able to do it because we showed spending restraint. So, from those opposite, how many surpluses were they able to deliver? They delivered lots of bravado. They delivered lots of mugs. They did a lot of cigar smoking. But how many surpluses were they able to give us? Big fat doughnut—zero. Ms Mascarenhas 298800 I love doughnuts! Ms SITOU 298121 We all love doughnuts, absolutely, but we on this side of the House have been able to deliver two surpluses because of the spending restraint that we have shown. And, on the spending restraint that we have shown, 97 per cent of revenue upgrades have been banked—put back into government coffers. That's a responsible measure, a responsible step, that this government has taken. How much were those opposite able to bank when they were in government? Only 44 per cent, because they were too busy spending like drunken sailors. Anyone who has a mortgage—and many of us on this side of the House have mortgages that we're trying to pay off—will tell you that the faster you pay down your debt, the less interest you have to pay. Because of the hard work that we have put into this budget to show spending restraint—and bear in mind that we did inherit a trillion dollars worth of debt from those opposite—we will save $80 billion in interest repayments, and that is a significant saving for all Australians. I want to quickly end with all the important cost-of-living relief measures that we have put in place. The first is energy bill relief, and that builds on the energy bill relief that we have already given to concession card holders. How much would they have gotten under those opposite? Big fat doughnut again—zero—because they voted against the energy bill relief last time around, and all indications are that they're not going to support it again this time around. The second is tax cuts. If you are someone who is earning $40,000 a year, how much would you have received had we stuck with the opposition's stage 3 tax cut plan? Big fat doughnut again—zero—whereas you'll be $650 better off under us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 77 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 77

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

Returned from Senate 77 COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee 77 Report 77 16:18 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's Report 215:AANZFTA second protocol. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 by leave—I'm pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 215:AANZFTA second protocol. The report focuses on JSCOT's inquiries into a new major treaty action—the Second Protocol to Amend the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, or AANZFTA. The report also includes minor treaty actions. The first implements changes to the product-specific rules annex of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP. The second minor treaty action is the Instrument for the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, 1986, and the third minor treaty action is the Amendments of 2022 to the Code of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. The original AANZFTA treaty which entered into force for Australia in January 2010 was signed in February 2009 between Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states as well as Australia and New Zealand. This agreement is regarded as being the highest quality of ASEAN's free trade agreements with its many partners. The original agreement, of course, provided for extensive tariff reduction and greater certainty for service suppliers and investors. This update and upgrade goes considerably further. ASEAN is Australia's second largest trading partner taken altogether and as of 2022 accounted for more than 14.8 per cent of the Australia's overall trade, valued at $178 billion annually. Needless to say, Australia's relationship with ASEAN as a group and the individual member states is critically important to our national interest. The AANZFTA second protocol provides broader coverage through new provisions on services and investments, new digital trade data rules, and, for the first time, cooperation in the areas of environment, labour rights, and women's economic empowerment. JSCOT undertook an inquiry into this treaty which included receiving a number submissions and holding two public hearings in March at which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a range of expert and civil society stakeholders appeared. The key issues raised in the submissions and at the public hearings included: the importance of ASEAN to Australia and therefore the value of updating the original treaty; the question of how trade and investment rules can contribute to sustainable development; the specific circumstances and interests of micro, small, and medium enterprises; the interests of First Nations people; the merits of taking a negative list approach; investor-state dispute settlement (or ISDS) mechanisms; and questions relating to Myanmar and the interaction of AANZFTA with the application of current sanctions in the circumstances that apply there. On the question of ISDS, the committee has noted that, in the course of updating the AANZFTA, agreement was reached on a working-party process to consider the ISDS mechanism in that agreement. That is consistent with the Albanese government's policy of not agreeing to ISDS provisions in new trade and investments agreements—we didn't do that in the recent agreement with the UK or in the agreement with India—and at the same time seeking to review ISDS mechanisms in existing agreements. Over several terms of parliament—and certainly in all my time in parliament, in which I've been a member of the JSCOT—the treaties committees has considered evidence which strongly suggests that ISDS mechanisms, whose purpose is to allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government, rather than to seek relief through state-to-state mechanisms, have the clear potential to interfere in a grave and costly fashion with our sovereign right and capacity to set policies in the national interest. Of course, Australia experienced precisely that kind of awful prospect in relation to the challenge by the Philip Morris tobacco company more than a decade ago when it sought to wreck Australia's plain packaging reforms. The legal action in that matter alone cost Australian taxpayers $12 million, and it delayed the reform in this country and elsewhere. The committee believes the updated and upgraded AANZFTA is in Australia's national interest. It builds on the original services and investment outcomes and delivers a new focus on inclusive and sustainable trade, while creating new commercial opportunities for Australians to work with New Zealand and South-East Asian partners. The committee notes the effectively consensus support for ratification of the AANZFTA second protocol from stakeholders who engaged with the inquiry. On that basis, the committee supports the AANZFTA second protocol and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. The committee has also resolved that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the three minor treaty actions contained in this report, which I mentioned at the outset. I thank the deputy chair and all committee members for their work on the inquiry and acknowledge, as always, the excellent support we receive from the committee secretariat. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. 16:24 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I seek leave to make a short but meaningful statement on the report. Leave granted. Mr THOMPSON 281826 I'd like to start by acknowledging the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, who's here today, and the fantastic secretariat for their awesome support through this whole process. The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area agreement was signed in February 2009 and entered into force for Australia in January 2010. The original treaty provided for extensive tariff reduction and greater certainty for service suppliers and investors. It is considered ASEAN's highest-quality free trade agreement in terms of market access for goods trade. The treaty action in question in this report is the AANZFTA second protocol, which provides broader coverage through new provisions on services and investments, new digital trade data rules and, for the first time, cooperation in the areas of environment, labour rights and women's economic empowerment. This was signed in August last year. I would like to note in particular the new chapter on micro, small and medium enterprises, providing for the promotion of information sharing and cooperation among parties to enhance opportunities for these small businesses. Small business is the engine room of our economy, and easy access to international markets in our region can only be a good thing. Our inquiry heard from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: The agreement has made a significant contribution to our collective prosperity and has provided certainty and market access to Australian businesses … ASEAN is Australia's second largest two-way trading partner bloc, behind only the European Union, with total two-way trade of $178 billion in 2022. We did hear some concerns regarding the investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. DFAT told the committee that one of the positive developments from the upgrade under the second protocol was an agreement that Australia would review those ISDS provisions 18 months after entry into force. The committee agrees these should be reviewed in agreements where they already exist, and we'll be seeking an update on the progress of this review work from the department. I thank all those involved in the hearings, and I thank the secretariat, of course, for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. Human Rights Joint Committee 79 Report 79 16:26 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 3 of 2024, incorporating dissenting reports, and Human rights scrutiny report: report 4 of 2024, incorporating a dissenting report. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' third and fourth scrutiny reports of 2024. In these two reports, the committee has considered 24 new bills and 308 new legislative instruments and has substantively commented on four new bills and eight new instruments. For example, the committee has considered the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and raised a number of human rights concerns and suggested a number of amendments to the bill that will assist with human rights compatibility. In addition, the committee has considered a number of migration instruments that also raise human rights concerns. For example, in relation to the Migration (Code of Behaviour for Public Interest Criterion 4022) Instrument, the committee is seeking further information about the human rights compatibility of requiring certain visa holders to sign an enforceable code of behaviour where breach of the code could lead to immigration detention or reduction in social security benefits. The committee has also commented on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024, which seeks to extend the operation of declared area offence provisions for a further three years. These offences criminalise entering or remaining in an area declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, unless the person can raise evidence to demonstrate it is for a legitimate purpose. The committee considers it has not been demonstrated that extending these offences for a further three years is compatible with multiple human rights. Finally, the committee has considered the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, which seeks to make various amendments to the NDIS Act. The committee considers that the National Disability Insurance Scheme promotes multiple human rights, and seeking to improve the scheme is an important objective, particularly having regard to the recommendations of the recent NDIS review. However, the committee is seeking further information with respect to various measures in the bill to better understand how they will work in practice and to what extent they may limit rights. I encourage all members to consider the reports closely. I thank the secretariat. They have been doing an enormous amount of work with both of these reports, over the period in which we haven't been in parliament, while also working diligently to collate all of the different inputs ready for our inquiry report into the human rights framework. There have also been a number of other bits of work that the committee has been doing. To the secretary, to the deputy chair and to my committee members—I thank them all for their contribution and I commend the committee's scrutiny reports 3 and 4 of 2024 to the House. BILLS 80 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 80

Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

Second Reading 80 16:30 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I was saying earlier that this policy is bad for Australians. It's not going to be good for young people, and it does change the goalposts. Now more than ever, in a cost-of-living crisis, it's never been more important to ensure our superannuation schemes remain focused on those they are designed to bring security to. The Albanese Labor government promised two years ago that life would be easier, and they went to an election on a promise of trust around that. This government went to the 2022 election with the claim that they wouldn't touch superannuation. On the night of the election, the Prime Minister said, 'We can protect universal superannuation.' Again, in February 2023, after the election, the Prime Minister promised 'no major changes to superannuation'. These are big changes to superannuation, whichever way you look at it. I'll continue to explain. The problem that I have here is that the Prime Minister did say there would be no changes to superannuation, and it is a matter of trust, because there are a number of election commitments that the Albanese government has broken—things that the Prime Minister said before the election he wouldn't do and then, after the election, has done. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is one such broken promise. We saw Julia Gillard, when she was Prime Minister, make that broken promise about the carbon tax. I'm sure there have been prime ministers on my own side that have paid the price, because it does come down to trust. If you say something to the Australian people and then you go back on that, clearly, that's a big issue, and people no longer trust you. Your word should be your bond. That's what this current Prime Minister has said a number of times: 'My word is my bond.' But then he's broken promises deliberately. One, of course, is on superannuation—this one right here. Another broken promise, of course, was about electricity pricing, when he said there would be a $275 reduction. We heard today in question time about a small business, a gym, in the member for Lindsay's electorate, where the bill had gone from $12,000 annually to $27,000 annually. That is a broken promise. I know that, in my own electorate of Petrie, people's bills have continually gone up and up. Then, of course, there was a promise about stage 3 tax cuts, and this is highly relevant because it does go to trust. The Prime Minister, as well as other members of the government—senior members on the front bench—said lots of times that stage 3 tax cuts were here to stay and that they were rock solid and guaranteed: 'My word is my bond'. It was not that they would be changed a little bit or changed in some way but that they would be unchanged: 'You can vote for us at the 2022 election—unchanged.' Of course, we know the government has changed that as well. There are three clear examples of broken promises. Further in relation to this bill, in relation to the changes that the government is making—which they said they wouldn't—let's be clear: it is a doubling of taxation on quite a few Australians' retirement savings. And why? This government obviously dislikes, I would say, anyone who it doesn't think votes its way or who doesn't have super in a super fund that it wants. This will primarily affect people who run self-managed super funds. There's nothing the matter with running a self-managed super fund. A lot of people do it. My wife and I ran one before I came into this place. I certainly don't have this much in super. But the point I would make is that it is a changing of the goalposts. Ultimately small-business people and farmers are the ones who will be affected disproportionately, and I'll go on to explain why. In Australia, under the Albanese Labor government, with the support of the Greens party in the Senate, with this change people like some public servants who are on defined benefits, judges and perhaps the Prime Minister, who came into this place in 1996 and will receive a parliamentary pension, get different treatment for their superannuation than a farmer or a small-business person, or perhaps a new politician—someone who was elected after 2004. So, when the Prime Minister makes these changes and he listens to the Treasurer and says, 'Look, I think we should break this promise, for this reason,' this change doesn't really impact him, because he gets a parliamentary pension for the rest of his life when he retires. I think that's an important point to make. Let's be clear about what this means. Labor's divisional 296 tax is an unindexed wealth tax. It's a tax on aspiration, and as many as two million Australian people may face these taxes as they approach retirement. Some of these people have a lot of money in super—millions of dollars in super. Of course, we have another bill before the House in relation to super and what it means, and that's changed over time. I said earlier that when superannuation was brought in it was meant to ensure that people could save for their retirement, and the welfare bill that we see in the budget, which is well over a third of the federal budget now and probably growing each year, would reduce as Australians and particularly younger Australians in their 20s would have enough money in their superannuation that there's no way that if they retired at 67, or even 62 or 71 or whatever age they decided to retire, that they would need to go on an Australian government pension. These changes will affect young people as well. I think of my own son, who's in the Australian Army. He's 21 years of age, and he's on an average wage. In 40 years time, when he's 61, he will be caught up in this tax—no doubt about it—because what is the threshold that the Albanese Labor government is imposing here, $3 million, going to be worth in 40 years time? We've seen just in the last two years how quickly, with inflation, rents have been impacted. For someone who had $100,000 in the bank at the 2022 election, do you think $100,000 in the bank two years later is still worth $100,000? No. It would probably buy you $87,000 worth of goods at the time, because the cost of everything has gone up. Inflation has gone up. And you're imposing on young people—people in their 20s, teenagers, younger people who are about to vote in the next election—a tax that is not indexed and that will severely impact them. This is poor policy, and it changes the goalposts. Someone's used the example of these people who have saved for decades in some cases, or maybe even over the last 20 years, or since super came in or when the Howard government ended, in 2007 I think it was—17 years ago. That was a time when you could put a lot more money into super. Those changes have stopped. You know you can put only $27½ thousand into super this financial year to receive a discounted rate of some 15 per cent or whatever it is—not like the old days, right? The people who do have a lot of money there, because they got it there years ago, will not be around forever. They're all getting older. They're retiring or about to retire. They're going to die off. But this government wants to whack 'em—and for what? A couple of extra billion dollars. Maybe the government, since the election two years ago, shouldn't have put in another $315 billion in spending over the forward estimates. They could have restrained that a bit, especially in this inflationary environment, and they wouldn't have needed to break their promises on this superannuation bill and on the stage 3 tax cuts. The Prime Minister isn't good with the figures. We know that. We saw that at the last election when he was asked about the unemployment rate and he was asked about interest rates. Recently, on this bill, he said, 'Oh, it'll impact one in 200 people,' yet the finance minister, in the other place, said it will impact one in 10 people. Which one is it? Is it one in 10 or is it one in 200? And if the government can't explain this bill, how can Australians understand it? We want all Australians to understand what their superannuation is. There are policies that the former government put in place—this government, to their credit, have kept them—like the First Home Super Saver Scheme, that actually puts more money into super. Super funds receive more money from the First Home Super Saver Scheme because it encourages young people—who are perhaps in their first job after finishing university, they might be on 60 grand a year—to salary sacrifice into their super. And rather than paying 30 per cent tax from 1 July, they'll only be hit with 15 per cent tax. They can then pull that back out for their first home. The super funds win because it teaches young Australians about salary sacrifice. The younger people win because it helps them get a deposit for their home a lot quicker. It's good policy, and I congratulate the government on keeping that, even though those opposite voted against it when we brought it in. As far as the Albanese Labor government is concerned, and according to Treasury's own case studies, this policy will double the taxes on retirement savings on an average earning—we're going down the pathway in this country where it will basically increase taxes from 15 per cent to 30 per cent after they said 'no changes'. This is a tax on hardworking Australians as well. As I said before, a regime that proposes a different approach for a farmer in the member for Forrest's electorate or a small-business owner in the member for Moreton's electorate than the approach for a public servant, a judge on a defined benefit or a federal politician elected before 2004 is not good policy. We know it will primarily hurt people who want to run self-managed super funds because they would tend to have more in there. It may hurt some people in industry and retail funds as well, but the government shouldn't be trying to target one group of people. If you make a promise, stick to it. You're meant to govern for all Australians. You're crowing about a $9 billion surplus, even though next year it goes to $43 billion in deficit— Mr Perrett HVP We don't have any mugs! Mr HOWARTH 247742 but the reality is that this government can't be trusted. The member for Moreton might interject, but the reality is that you went to the last election— Mr Perrett HVP We don't have any lying mugs! Mr HOWARTH 247742 saying, 'No changes to stage three tax cuts,' through you, Deputy Chair, 'no changes to superannuation,' and now you're going to stand up and justify why your government has broken three promises that I would rule out. Mr Perrett HVP You said you'd have a surplus! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Member for Moreton, the member for Petrie will be heard without interjection. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Well done on the COVID pandemic! I know that I've never seen anything like that, through you, Deputy Speaker. Mr Perrett HVP Nine years! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Moreton! I will not repeat myself. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Thanks, Deputy Speaker. I was just saying that—I won't continue on with that interjection, but the reality is it's a broken promise. Combined with other changes as well, like the response to the quality of advice review that will impact financial advisers—the government were supposed to run a program there for 12 months. They're only doing it for a few months, which puts more taxes on financial advisers at a time when Australians need financial advice more than ever. I'd call on the minister that I shadow to look at that, to try and fix that up because Australians need financial advice. They need financial advice in their super as well. We don't want a regulatory approach from the Albanese Labor government that favours one form of superannuation over another. This is a big one: tax on unrealised capital gains. Taxing unrealised capital gains in superannuation means Australian retirees will pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet. They haven't made the money, but the Albanese Labor government wants to tax them on it. This is unheard of; it is unprecedented and it would set a new standard if this bill passes with the Greens support in the Senate. I know we're not voting for it. The coalition is not voting for this bad policy, particularly after the government said they wouldn't touch it and then broke that promise. Representations made by the Treasury that the taxation of unrealised gains is already a feature of the country's tax system are misleading because the only example of this within the Australian taxation system is in the taxation of capital gains where an individual or a company ceases to be an Australian tax resident. Well, that's not the case. This is on Australians living in Forrest, living in Swan, living in Petrie, living around Australia. As a good analogy I can think of for young people, it would be like the government saying to you: 'Listen, you buy a carton of beer and you spend 200 dollars on cartons of beer every year. The tax on those cartons of beer is about 25 per cent, so you owe us $50.' This is before they even bought or drank the beer. That's what's happening. They're basically saying: 'You're spending 200 bucks on beef for the year? Twenty-five per cent of that is tax. You haven't purchased it yet, but we know you're going to. You haven't drunk it yet, but we know you're going to. We want our $50.' It would also mean—and many people who are currently homeowners would understand this; we don't trust the government's commitment that they won't tax the family home or even any property. Think of your own property where perhaps you bought a property for $500,000. The reality is that that property today might be worth $1 million. You've had a $500,000 increase in that asset. It would be like the government, before you even sell the house, saying, 'We want tax on 500 grand.' That's what they're doing to super funds. That's what they're doing. Farmers in particular, like in the electorate of the member for Forrest, might have a property of 500 acres, raising sheep, dairy cows or whatever it is. They bought that property years ago. They're providing milk, meat or other food, and on paper they get a valuation from the state government, whether it's Western Australia or another state, saying: 'You bought that property for $1 million. It's now worth $4 million.' The government in this legislation is saying: 'Right. That $4 million is in your super. You haven't sold it yet. It's over $3 million. We want tax on $1 million.' And where are they going to find that money from? Mrs Marino HWP Year on year. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Year on year. This is unheard of. Please understand that. Backbenchers in the Albanese government should be going to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and saying: 'Maybe we've gone a bit too far on this. Maybe that's not a good idea. Maybe my kids'—the fact is that this does not go up each year. Three million dollars is the cut-off. Most things are indexed with inflation or CPI, but no. To all the backbenchers over there who have kids or grandkids: your kids will be impacted by it too. Maybe your kids will run a business or a farm one day to provide food to Australians. The Albanese Labor government is going to hit these people. And it's moving the goalposts. When Paul Keating, John Howard, Bob Hawke—all those former prime ministers—said, 'Yep; let's go with super. Put money into super so that you're not a burden on the taxpayer when you retire,' they set the goalposts up. They've kicked the ball. The football's in the air. It's heading for the goals, and the Albanese government is getting those goalposts and shifting them 50 metres to the left or the right. The goal misses, and you pay more. It doesn't matter that you're retired. Your farm has gone up. The property in the middle of Perth that you bought for $1.2 million years ago, because it's in the CBD? That's worth $5 million. 'You owe us tax on two million bucks even though you haven't sold it.' That's the reality, and it's a poor example. The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister should go back to the Prime Minister and say: 'Every Australian has property. We want all Australians to get into their own home. We want them to run their own businesses. Let's not tax them for it. There is no need to do this.' They’re being tricky with this, saying 'Oh, well this will be legislated on 1 July 2025,' it's after the next election, because the next election is due in 12 months, in May 2025, 'We're not breaking an election promise because this doesn't kick in until two months later.' If you really want to do that, take it to the next election in 12 months and win the next election. I hope you don't, but if you win the next election then you'd have a mandate to legislate this. Right now, you don't. There is no mandate. It is a broken promise, and the people of Australia need to know that. The young people in this country need to know that. With inflation increasing and wages going up, of course, as well—the government crows about that; well done to them if that's the case—the lack of indexation in these proposed bills will impact many, many more Australians, including our kids and our grandkids, because it does not consider homeownership status, combined balances and the level of wealth outside of super. I'll leave it at that, but, unlike the government, the federal coalition opposition and, if given the opportunity at the next election, a Dutton government—under the leadership of the opposition, we're opposed to this. We are opposed to this. We will take a clear policy to an election, and during our term in government we won't break an election promise on superannuation like the members of the Labor Party are doing right now. There is no argument about the importance of the stability of our retirement system and the importance that it has in ensuring that future Australian governments don't have increasing levels of welfare. We want every Australian to be able to have the support they need and to be able to fund the decent retirement that they need. The stability of that system is being undermined by the Albanese Labor government, and the trust of governments is undermined when prime ministers and politicians break election promises, and that is what this is about. The Prime Minister said one thing before the election, and he's doing a very different thing now that he's in government. It's not good enough, and I'll leave it at that. We'll be voting against the bill. 16:52 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I speak in support of the raft of reforms included in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 brought by the honourable member for Whitlam. I note the member for Petrie's contribution. I did not hear him commit to rolling back this legislation should they win the next election. He must've forgot to mention that in his 30-minute wandering diatribe, but I'm sure he'll be able to fix it up later. I congratulate the honourable member for Whitlam for bringing this bill to the chamber. As a brief aside—I'm sure the Prime Minister is not listening—I would just say to the member for Whitlam: How about those Dragons on the weekend? Wasn't that magnificent? They are now equal ninth on the NRL table with five from ten. That's a good pass when it come to the Dragons of late. Anyway, returning to the legislation, the Albanese government is committed to strengthening and safeguarding Australia's world-class superannuation system. It was Labor who designed and implemented the superannuation system, and through the years Labor has protected and strengthened it to ensure that Australian workers are set up for a dignified and secure retirement. It was the Keating Labor government back in 1992 that made superannuation compulsory. This necessary and responsible measure took the pressure off the pension system, and, thanks to that, Australians have saved a total of $3.3 trillion and counting—an amount that is amazing when you think of the number of people in Australia. The Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 focuses on legislating the objectives of superannuation. It ensures that future policies must be compatible with the objective of safeguarding the retirement futures of all Australians. We knowthat we won't see what happened during COVID, where we saw the coalition urging hardworking Australians to raid their superannuation in order to make ends meet. That's what happened under the Morrison government during the pandemic—$38 billion in private stimulus, effectively. That will cost the people that had to raid their superannuation about $85 billion by the time it comes to their retirement, because they miss out on the magic of compound interest. And what did they use it for? We know from research that it was spent on things like bull bars, trips to Bali, boob jobs, lap bands and back decks. My understanding is that those things will not give you a long-term financial return—not in the way that compound interest does. We have made sure that superannuation is protected. We've heard from those opposite the idea of people using their superannuation funds to help them buy their first home, and we know the problems that could have for an already overheated property market. Superannuation is not designed to be a second bank account. Its purpose is 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way'. That's what superannuation is about. Today the Albanese government seeks to strengthen our superannuation system with targeted and responsible reforms which will make the system fairer and more equitable. The $3.3 trillion—and counting—invested in superannuation is not evenly shared amongst Australians; of course it's not. Those who are nearing the end of their working lives obviously tend to have much more substantial balances. A significant number of these people have benefited from different contribution caps throughout the years. As it stands now, about 0.5 per cent of the population has a superannuation account of more than $3 million. Now, $3 million is not small change, and that ain't the half of it. As we saw with the positive changes to the stage 3 tax cuts—with all working Australians benefiting from the cuts, not just the wealthy—the Albanese government is committed to making changes for the better. The change that we are proposing to make to our superannuation system is all about making it sustainable and fairer. This bill introduces a modest change that will affect, as I said, less than 0.5 per cent of all Australians—those lucky, no doubt hardworking, 80,000 people who have a superannuation account with a balance of over $3 million. This is a responsible change for Australians and for the budget. It's the focus of this government to implement changes to ensure that the generous superannuation tax breaks are better targeted and more sustainable. Currently, earnings from superannuation in the accumulation phase are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent, so obviously there's a tax incentive to save. This will continue for the 99.95 per cent of Australians whose superannuation balances are below $3 million. From 2025-26 the concessional tax rate applied to earnings on superannuation balances above $3 million will be 30 per cent. For the first $3 million, no problems; for each dollar over $3 million, you'll be taxed at 30c in the dollar. These accounts are beyond what is necessary to fund a comfortable retirement, as judged by the ASFA Retirement Standard. The small group of people affected by this reform will continue to benefit, as I said, from that generous rate of 15 per cent on earnings for balances below the threshold. The first $2,999,999.99 will still be taxed at 15c in the dollar. Furthermore, there will continue to be no limit on the size of superannuation account balances, beyond the constraints of those annual contribution caps. This targeted reform is predicted to generate about $2 billion of revenue in its first full year, unless those 80,000 people rearrange their financial affairs. This change will assist in easing the pressure caused by spending on necessary and valued government programs. As one of my constituents said: At a time when we have huge demands on our country in aged care, health care, the NDIS and security to name a few, it is clear that money could be spent more wisely elsewhere. Labor governments are dedicated to protecting working Australians, and a key component of that is ensuring that our superannuation system is equitable and sustainable. The bill also proposes a raft of reforms which support better regulatory outcomes. The first of these is additional power for the Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to make disclosures about new or ongoing investigations, minimising the risk of harm. This reform is the result of consultation with the charity sector to develop appropriate legislative safeguards. Currently the ACNC can be prevented from disclosing an investigation into alleged misconduct by a not-for-profit organisation. Enabling disclosure is an important reform which will build public confidence in the sector and the ACNC's role as an impartial regulator. Australians who donate to charities from their hard-earned wages deserve to trust that there is transparency in the oversight of the sector. The reform will assure both charities and donors—most Australians are very generous when it comes to supporting charities—that issues of public concern are being dealt with, building confidence in the not-for-profit sector, as well as ensuring trust in philanthropy, which is, as I said, core to Australian values. The bill will ensure further regulatory improvements, with changes to the review cycles implemented by the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority. It will increase the review cycle from two years to five years, supporting more comprehensive reviews of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The increased cycle length will enable regulators to implement recommendations between reviews and more meaningfully assess the implementation of new measures. The amendments also include a change to improve the ease of access for Australian and professional and wholesale investors to global investment opportunities. Up until now, this has been provided by an instrument of ASIC. The reform means that financial institutions and investors can access financial products and services offered by foreign financial services providers, diversifying financial holdings. It will improve outcomes for millions of Australians through facilitated access for superannuation funds and investment organisations. The reform also streamlines access by foreign companies by recognising the regulation of comparable foreign regulators and exempting certain foreign companies from undergoing aspects of assessments when applying for a standard financial services licence in Australia—that double regulation. Schedule 9 of this bill also provides safeguards to address the risks posed by new and emerging technologies, by updating the payment system regulatory framework. The Reserve Bank of Australia will be able to regulate all participants and payment systems, including digital wallet providers and buy-now pay-later service providers. It further protects Australians by giving the Treasurer the new designation powers that allow the minister to designate payment services that present risks of national significance and then implement additional regulations. The extensive measures included in these amendments are important to safeguard our superannuation system. They promote confidence in the not-for-profit sector and improve outcomes for hardworking Australians. I commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 to the House. 17:03 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I understand and support the intention of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, but there are problems with it that mean I will not be voting for it. I want to outline both why I support its intention and why I can't vote for it in its current form. Superannuation tax concessions should be fair and reasonable. We need a superannuation framework that allows and incentivises Australians to set themselves up for a dignified retirement and reduced reliance on the age pension. This is not only good for individuals; it's also good for the country. We need tax concessions to encourage contributions to superannuation and to compensate people for locking away their money for a long time. I understand the concern that these concessions are currently being used beyond the purpose of a dignified retirement, as a wealth management tool. When you hear that one person has $544 million in their superannuation account, it's hard to say that that that's what's actually needed for a dignified retirement. I appreciate that, beyond a certain level—and we can debate what that level is—tax concessions on superannuation effectively subsidise wealth accumulation. There are some things about the structure of this change that I do like. Under the change, the higher tax rate of 30 per cent will be paid only on the proportion of balances that exceed $3 million, so any part of your super balance that's less than $3 million will continue to be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent. The vast majority of people have less then $3 million in their super accounts—even in my relatively wealthy electorate of Curtin, where our average super balance is double the national average. The average super balance is just over $500,000, even in the wealthiest suburb of Cottesloe and Peppermint Grove, and this is a sixth of the $3 million threshold. For balances under $3 million, the effective tax rate paid by retirees is typically closer to seven or eight per cent when you include franking credits and capital gains tax discounts. It's my view that paying an effective tax rate of seven or eight per cent up to $3 million and a tax rate of 30 per cent for part of your super over $3 million still creates a pretty strong incentive to contribute in the interests of the individual and the country. The proposed change affects only 0.5 per cent of all Australians who have superannuation accounts. I want to be clear that this is a small number of people and they are probably going to be fine, but I have some serious concerns about the structure of the change which makes it impractical and potentially unfair, even if this does affect only a small number of people. As a matter of principle, we need to ensure that changes we make are consistent with commonsense approaches and fairness. I have four main concerns with the bill, and if these concerns were addressed I would support the bill. They are: taxing unrealised gains; double taxation; not indexing the threshold; and there being no transition period. Taxing unrealised gains will create liquidity issues for taxpayers. It is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to fund a tax liability that relates to the appreciation in value of an asset when they haven't sold the asset and received money with which to pay any tax liability. Even as far back as 1975, the Tax Review Committee, when considering the topic of taxation of capital gains, commented that the impracticality of taxing capital gains as they accrue is universally recognised. The tax can only attempt to deal with realised gains. The taxing of unrealised capital gains leads to unacceptable problems in the periodic valuation of assets and generates severe liquidity difficulties for taxpayers, as well as compliance costs. It would disproportionately impact self-managed super fund holders and those with a large illiquid asset like farmers. Assets fluctuate in value, and an asset that eventually gives rise to no gain may nonetheless have given rise tax liability. The government's proposal would go against these longstanding principles of tax law that only realised capital gains are taxable. It will create an undesirable and inappropriate precedent for future tax proposals. It could also disincentivise investments in long-term assets, instead incentivising a short-term approach to reduced liquidity risk. University of Adelaide analysis showed that 13 per cent of self-managed super fund holders would not have had adequate liquidity to cover this new liability if it had been introduced in 2020. A more workable alternative to taxing unrealised gains must be found—to defer payment until the asset is sold or to calculate tax based on a self-managed super fund's actual taxable income. I will be supporting amendments to this effect. If this issue is not addressed before the bill passes, it will reflect very poorly on this government's financial nous and willingness to listen to genuine and practical concerns. The intention of the bill can be achieved without taking on this ridiculous impracticality. My second, and related, concern is that this bill creates a situation where people can be taxed twice. If the paper value of a property increases in one year, under this bill tax is payable on that unrealised gain. If the property is then sold in a future year, capital gains tax will be payable on the actual gain realised, so you pay twice. It seems wrong that this could be the intention of the bill. Even worse, if the paper value of an asset increases and tax is paid on that unrealised gain, and then the value decreases before the asset is sold, it looks like the tax paid on the gain that was never realised cannot be recovered. I've submitted questions to the PBO about this scenario but in this busy budget week haven't yet had this clarified. If this is the effect of the bill, I urge the government to address this unfair situation. Taxing the same gain twice goes against fundamental principles of taxation and would be very disappointing. The next issue is the lack of indexation of the threshold. Today, $3 million seems like a lot of superannuation, but $3 million in 2064 won't look like it does now. It's been submitted that, for a 30-year-old today, this cap is effectively more like a $1 million cap, in today's dollars, by the time they retire. Indexing these sorts of thresholds allows the intent of a policy to continue into the future, instead of gradually ratcheting down the benefit of superannuation saving over time. Not indexing the $3 million threshold has the potential to embed further intergenerational inequality. Younger people have a hard enough time as it is without being disincentivised to save for their retirement. The same issue arises with indexing almost any threshold, including income tax brackets. Not indexing is a sneaky way of effectively changing the policy year by year. Setting this up properly from the outset would include safeguarding its intention into the future by indexing the threshold. The last issue relates to transition. I recognise that most people—59,000 of the 80,000 affected nationally—are of retirement age, so they can restructure their financial affairs before the change comes into effect in 2025 if they can find a more tax-effective approach than the new rate of 30 per cent for the proportion of their balance that exceeds $3 million. People have made financial decisions based on the current tax treatment, and they may not have made them had they known that this change was coming. Because superannuation laws lock up people's own money, we need to be extremely cautious about making changes without permitting people to rearrange their affairs accordingly. Any change to superannuation makes the system less predictable and therefore disincentivises people from making voluntary contributions. Allowing a transition period would mean people could change their financial arrangements to prepare for this new set of rules. Everyone should be able to plan their financial affairs in light of the current regulatory environment, rather than being caught out and unable to adjust. A number of constituents have contacted me with concerns about this change. For example, Michael Travaglione said: My family and friends are up in arms about the super tax changes—not because it hits super investors (who have saved funds in super for over 50 years) with more tax, but rather because it breaks an existing tax principle in taxing unrealised (or paper) gains (that may NEVER be realized). It will become a fee fest for accountants, lawyers & an army of time wasting valuers/advisers that will further reduce Australian productivity. I initially told constituents that I would support this change, subject to a number of issues being ironed out as part of the short consultation process. The failure of this government to listen to stakeholders and experts on this issue means we'll end up with an impractical, complicated and unfair version of what could have been a perfectly acceptable policy. I have no problem with putting a cap on superannuation tax breaks above a certain level, but it has to be practical and fair. I'm disappointed that these issues have not been resolved through the consultation process, so as a result I will be supporting appropriate amendments, and, if they're not accepted, I will not be supporting this bill. 17:13 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey As a first principle, we should never forget that superannuation is your money. It's not the government's money; it's not the superannuation fund's—it's your money. It's your money to deliver quality of life in your retirement. It's not a piggy bank for the government to tax and spend or to direct into priorities that they determine it should focus on. It is you forgoing your wages today to save for the future, and it is money that is taken from your wage without your choice. We all agree to that social contract; everyone supports that principle. However, what we're doing with superannuation is asking Australians to make decisions today on their retirement plans—to forgo money today—that will impact them in 20 and 30 years time. We need to provide them with certainty when they make that decision, and that certainty is a key part of the superannuation social compact. It's disappointing and unfortunate that the Albanese government has chosen not to provide that certainty for the Australian people. When this policy was announced last year by the Treasurer and those opposite, there was a moment in question time that really summed up either the lack of understanding or the lack of care of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and those opposite when it comes to people's superannuation. We on this side asked a question about a young person that would be impacted in 30 years and the percentage of Australians who would be impacted. I remember it clearly: the reaction of those opposite was to laugh at that question—an important question because, if you are 20 years old today, if you are 30 years old today, the decisions we make in this House today will impact you at that time. I appreciate, I understand and I remember well my early 20s, where you're not thinking about your superannuation and you're not thinking about the future. That's our responsibility—to make decisions today on behalf of the Australian people today and into the future. So for this government to laugh at young people's futures in 30 years time reflects poorly on them, and I hope the Prime Minister will take a moment to think about his behaviour because quite often he's happy to laugh at those doing it tough and those that need their superannuation. Let's be clear. Let's be very clear. This is a broken promise by this Prime Minister, by this Treasurer and by this government. Australians are sick and tired of the Albanese Labor government continuing to tell Australians one thing and then do another. It's just so clear that they have the wrong priorities and a strong track record and consistency—it's just about the only thing they're consistent on—for broken promises. The PM, when he was opposition leader, talked the talk, but it's clear that he cannot deliver in government. He's all talk and no answers. Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, was elected on a promise to reduce electricity bills by $275. Instead, electricity prices are soaring. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to 'make life cheaper and easier'. Instead, grocery prices are increasing, housing costs are rising, and there's no end in sight for Labor's cost-of-living crisis. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to honour the coalition's stage 3 income tax reforms that fought bracket creep for hardworking Australians. He told the Australian people, 'My word is my bond,' and then he broke his word and he broke his bond with the Australian people. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to leave superannuation alone, explicitly ruling out changes to superannuation. Instead, now his broken promise on superannuation taxes means that, with soaring cost-of-living pressures, Australians will be worse off today and into the future. At a time when Australians are struggling with high inflation, a GDP per capita recession, a record increase in interest rates and soaring energy prices, the message these super changes send is clear: Labor wants you to pay more. But it's not just another broken promise; it undermines confidence in our superannuation system. As I said previously, the long-term nature of superannuation savings means that confidence in the entire system is undermined when ad hoc changes are made and promises are broken. Labor's changes to super and their failure to index these changes will punish young Australians, and it's those Australians who will pay the price in their retirement. It's very much the two-card trick. They know that many young Australians, as I said previously, in their early 20s and 30s aren't thinking about their superannuation, so they're happy to play around and not index this knowing that they can get the tax revenue moving forward. But it's the reality that it's the young people of Australia who will be impacted in the future by these changes and the decisions made today. Analysis from the Treasurer's own Treasury department shows that a 20-year-old today earning an average wage over their lifetime will pay higher taxes under this scheme. Analysis by the tax office and census data reveal that more than two million Australians who are under the age of 25 today will be slugged in their retirement with Labor's latest tax grab. That's assuming that between now and their retirement there are no other tax grabs on superannuation from Labor. Given the Assistant Treasurer has called superannuation a honeypot, I think it's extremely likely that there'll be more changes and tax grabs, that this is just the first step in this broken promise and they'll continue to raid superannuation. One of the submissions on the draft bill and around the lack of indexation was from Australian Super. They said: Indexation of the threshold at which the measure applies would lead to greater certainty and promote stability and confidence in the system. This is important, given the long-term horizon of superannuation savings. This is important as members who are complying with the purposes of superannuation have a right to know how the earnings on their superannuation will be treated for tax purposes while it is compulsorily preserved. …   …   … Thresholds in the superannuation system that relate to an individual's balance or their contributions are indexed. This includes the transfer balance cap, the concessional contributions cap and the non-concessional contributions cap. So there is no reason why the government couldn't index this other than that they want to bank some savings, moving forward, to continue their tax-and-spend budgetary agenda. They're also throwing conventional tax wisdom out the window, because this change will tax unrealised capital gains, meaning that Australian retirees will face tax bills on money that they haven't even earned yet. The government are going to tax you on money you haven't even earned. This is going to hit small-business owners, farming families and self-managed super funds the hardest. It's going to apply particularly to farmers. In its submission to the Treasury consultation on the exposure draft of the bill, the National Farmers Federation gave examples of how the proposed new tax would affect farmers who have placed family farms into a self-managed super fund and who use lease payments from the next generation as their retirement income. Let's be clear: in my community we have many family farms, many of them where mum and dad are in their 70s, 80s or 90s and are retiring. Their children and grandchildren want to work on the farm, but the money required to buy the land isn't practical for anyone, so they'll put the farm into the superannuation fund to look after mum and dad and rightly pay a commercial lease to fund their retirement. Ms Tink 300124 So sensible. Mr VIOLI 300147 It makes a lot of sense. It's so sensible. It allows generational change in farming. But this decision is going to change the rules. It's going to say to a family farm in my community and many other communities across the country: if the land value of your farm is $2.8 million today and next year it goes up to $3.2 million—and that's a paper value, not money in the bank; it's not a realised asset but a paper asset—you're going to have to pay tax on $3.2 million. But guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? It's worse than that. If there's a drought and the value of land drops, and the value of your farm goes back to $2.8 million or $2.9 million—anything under $3 million—you don't get that money back from the Albanese Labor government. So you've got to sell the asset to pay for this, and if its value goes down you don't get it back. How can any of those opposite think it's fair-minded to do that? Are they so out of touch with the Australian people? Are they so out of touch with how communities like mine, farming communities, operate and small businesses operate? They're going to wave this through because they don't have the ability to analyse for themselves the decisions of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister; they just follow the line. It's so frustrating, because this is going to have a tangible impact on so many communities who are just doing their best to get by—just so the Prime Minister can bank a fake saving. Let's be honest: it's a fake saving. What's going to happen is most of those people that are using this will just rearrange their tax arrangements to move it to another vehicle. Those that are really using this because they genuinely need to for their superannuation will be punished, and those that are taking advantage of the system—I'm sure some people are—will work out another way around this. But it's okay because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have banked their fake savings so they can talk about their surplus and pretend they're being responsible economic managers. But it's the impact on communities that makes me so angry. This government talks about consultation, but it's a sham. Every time, it's a tick-box process. In their submissions to Treasury, several stakeholders criticised the taxation of unrealised gains: the Business Council of Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, CPA Australia, Deloitte, EY, the Financial Services Council, the SMSF Association and the Tax Institute. Surely those opposite—I know there are economists in the room here—would know that taxing unrealised capital gains isn't practical and isn't worthwhile, but they are going to wave it through because they need their fake savings. Meanwhile, farmers in my community cop it in the neck because of this out-of-touch government. EY concerns have been summarised: … the taxation of unrealised gains will result in: volatility issues—where fluctuations in the value of assets may not be able to be predicted as reliably as income from those assets liquidity issues—individuals may be forced to dispose of illiquid assets to cover the tax on earnings with transaction costs incurred But in many cases these assets are the family farm, where people live. These are people's homes. These are people's small businesses that those opposite are telling them they need to sell, because of a paper gain. EY also raised: poor fund outcomes—the timing of the disposal to realise assets in time to meet the tax due may adversely impact the value of the fund increased tax calculated on a year-by-year basis compared to taxing the ultimate gain on disposal. To be clear: this legislation will force people to sell their assets based on paper profits, and it's a disgrace. We talk about super and we talk about allowing people to retire. Well, this government is cutting the retirement out of farmers and small-business owners in my community. It's making their lives harder. Those opposite—economists—know that it's not practical to tax unrealised capital gains, but they'll wave it through. They'll support their Treasurer and their Prime Minister because they don't want to rock the boat. Let's be really clear about this: the Treasurer is making these changes so he can get some paper savings in the budget and spend it somewhere else. We all know that those paper savings are not going to be delivered, because people change their tax arrangements, but those opposite are prepared to throw Australian farmers and small-business owners under the bus for their own needs. They've got two options: either they're out of touch or they don't care. Both reasons are an absolute disgrace. (Quorum formed) 17:31 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney While people in my electorate of North Sydney broadly support the intent and principle of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, they're also very concerned that the legislation is being poorly executed and will create a dangerous precedent within our taxation system. They are also concerned this legislation is really a trojan horse, designed to put an end to self-managed super funds and instead preference the large commercial superannuation—sorry, Deputy Speaker. I call your attention to the state of the House. There is not a quorum in this chamber at the moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I'm not too sure if you can call one straight after another or if there needs to be a period of time between the two. If the member would just indulge me, the Clerk's going to get advice on it. Continue with the speech, and I'll interrupt you once the Clerk comes back to me. Ms TINK 300124 They are also concerned this legislation is really a trojan horse, designed to put an end to self-managed super funds and instead preference the large commercial superannuation entities, as those can better be influenced by the government of the day in terms of priority areas for national investment. At this point, I need to declare a deep personal belief that the money held in superannuation vehicles belongs to the person who has put it there. To me, the superannuation structure introduced in our nation over 30 years ago was established to significantly decrease the number of people who would be reliant on the age pension in later life. To this end, the system introduced then and modified since offers preferential tax treatment of the funds to compensate people for forgoing immediate access to earnings of the present day. With all of that said, I recognise that this legislation proposes to rein back generous tax breaks for super balances that are beyond what is currently perceived as necessary to fund a comfortable retirement, and generally I'm comfortable with that idea, even if in its execution it's inelegant. However, both I and my community believe the mechanics proposed in this bill are poorly conceived and will result in unintended consequences and that the government's complete refusal to enter into constructive discussions about how this legislation could better work only adds weight to the arguments that this legislation is about much more than large balances. Currently, investment earnings in superannuation funds are taxed at 15 per cent, and this is clearly well below the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent on ordinary taxable earnings. As I have already said, however, the concessional treatment was originally designed as a way of encouraging people to save for their retirement. I agree with the government that the treatment was not intended to assist people in accumulating excessive wealth, nor was it designed to enable wealth transfer between generations. In this context, people across my community of North Sydney understand the intent behind this reform and generally support it. But in attempting to address this issue, which applies to very few Australians across the board at the moment, the government is seeking to introduce legislation which could have far wider implications. It's these implications that my community is concerned about. We must absolutely address fundamental inequity in our society, but it is not reasonable for the actions we seek to take to achieve that outcome to set a precedent that could be used to completely reshape the way in which unrealised gains are currently dealt with in our tax system in Australia. The proposed measures will undoubtedly add further complexity and cost to what is already a complex legislative framework, and it's hard to not see this legislation as a direct assault, specifically on people's rights to self-manage their super funds. The following issues are of particular concern. Firstly, the $3 million threshold is currently not indexed. Secondly, the calculation of earnings, including unrealised gains, sees people taxed on money they may never actually see. This approach is unprecedented, not only here in Australia but around the world. There are the cashflow and liquidity issues this bill will cause for those with illiquid assets held in super and, finally, the effect on individuals in defined benefit schemes. Dealing with each of these in turn— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 If I can just interrupt the member: I gave advice earlier that I'd come back to you once I'd got advice from the Clerk. The Clerk has advised that whilst there is a standing procedure for a 15-minute interval to transpire before a second one can be called, because you're looking to call a quorum on yourself, you can do that. But the Clerk advises that your clock and the available time allotted to you will continue to go, so you'll just be cutting into your own time. I hope that gives advice to the member. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The advice was that if you call a quorum the clock will keep on clicking and it'll just be eating into your time. Ms TINK 300124 Thank you. Dealing with each of these in turn, firstly, the lack of indexation on the large balance threshold amount means that over time this measure will impact many more ordinary Australians who have done nothing more than they are required to do under law in terms of meeting their superannuation payments. The government has told us that from the 2025 financial year the concessional tax rate applied to future earnings for balances above $3 million will apply to around 80,000 people. But modelling by the Financial Services Council shows us that if the cap remains unindexed then the true number of people impacted in their lifetime will be closer to half a million, including more than 200,000 Australians under the age of 30. One of the purposes of indexing the superannuation cap would be to ensure that each generation receives the same benefits and outcomes from the system. The example provided by Financial Services Council is I think particularly powerful. According to them, a 25-year-old IT professional earning $100,000 and with a current superannuation balance of $35,000 should reach the $3 million threshold by the time they retire at 65. They would then fall foul of this new legislation, having done nothing more than what was required of them during their working life. How can this be considered fair? I don't understand why the government has to this point in time rejected the calls of many to introduce indexation on this legislation. And I fear that the omission is deliberate and that the government is indeed seeking to claw back more tax over time while claiming that their initial policy affects just a few. As it stands, the lack of indexation is also incongruent with our current accepted tax principles. Everything else in our super system is indexed: contribution limits, the transfer balance cap, and lump sum benefits. So why would the large superannuation balance threshold not be similarly indexed? When I talk to people in my community about this bill, even those who support it wholeheartedly see the lack of indexation as absurd. Secondly, the taxation of unrealised capital gains means people will be taxed on money they may never see. This is deeply problematic and a significant and concerning departure from most of the income tax regime, where taxes are assessed only on actual, realised gains. It also violates generally accepted tax principles across most OECD countries, where capital gains tax applies only on realisation. Concerningly, there are no refunds available for tax already paid when earnings turn to the negative. Sure, there would be loss to carry forward against future taxes, but that's of no use for people who take their money out of super to cover the cash shortfall. I note that while many of the people impacted by the reform proposed in this legislation likely use a self-managed super fund structure, it's not only that cohort that will be affected. In fact, members of APRA regulated funds with large account balances will face potentially more significant consequences due to their lesser control over the timing of realising capital gains. There are further issues with the calculation basis for earnings on balances in excess of $3 million. They include that, as it currently stands, gains made on assets held for over 12 months are subject to a reduced tax rate compared to assets disposed of within 12 months of application. Meanwhile, investment losses are not refundable and can only be used to offset future gains. Thirdly, those with defined benefit superannuation funds will also have their annual pension added to the balance of their super, likely pushing them up and over the $3 million threshold. This includes the pensions payable to retired judges, their widows, widowers and spouses. Indeed, retired judges of federal courts have recently said that they're particularly concerned about this outcome as they do not control any capital amount upon which the proposed tax on their pension may be notionally calculated. Finally, self-managed super fund owners with illiquid assets such as property are likely to face difficulties under this bill, as taxing unrealised gains assumes investors have the necessary cash reserves to cover any tax liability. This is obviously not always the case. This proposed legislation then offers no redress for individuals impacted by genuine liquidity issues, such as an option to pay their liability through a deferred debt account. This will be particularly disruptive to small businesses and farmers, with many of them currently holding their business premises or farm in their super fund. The additional tax applied to unrealised capital gains within the superannuation fund, as proposed by this legislation, will mean some small business owners and farmers will struggle to pay their annual tax bill on land assets without selling the land itself. Indeed, according to recent research by the University of Adelaide, over 10 per cent of self-managed super fund members affected by this reform would not have had sufficient liquidity in their fund to cover the tax liability if this bill had been introduced on 1 July 2020. The solution is not just as simple as selling these assets. Considerations including transaction costs, market timing and macroeconomic factors make selling illiquid assets far from easy; not to mention the fact that holding them in super in the first place is all about the income they may generate upon retirement. You can't have income from something you no longer own. Ultimately, this government has displayed little appetite for true community engagement around this legislation, and certainly has not appeared to be interested in considering any of the alternative design models presented. Ultimately, the alternative designs were sensible, appropriate, well-designed and would have significantly improved this legislation. Yet the government has chosen to ignore them and not engage in any meaningful way to come to a more sustainable and reasonable position. This brings me back to my initial concern that, despite all the rhetoric around this reform, this agenda is not just about taxing the rich. It's about trying to shut down the self-managed super fund option. Ultimately, there are substantial issues in this legislation that should concern far more Australians than those that are just unfortunate enough to be deemed wealthy by this government. The people who will be affected by these issues have done nothing wrong. They haven't engaged in dodgy tax practices or aggressive tax planning. They have, however, made long-term choices between superannuation and other options, based on the reasonable assumption that the restrictions placed on accessing super represent the trade-off for long-term tax concessions. They've complied with the superannuation rules to date and have been told for decades to hold any assets they don't need until retirement in their super. Now these people will be adversely affected. The people of North Sydney agree the super system should not be used to avoid paying tax. Currently, the system provides concessional tax arrangements for the accumulation of retirement savings, but reforms to make the super system more sustainable and equitable must be sensible and measured. The bill before us is not sensible and it is not measured. I'm left wondering: are we shaping into a conversation around the taxing of unrealised gains in other asset classes including our own homes? I do not believe I can vote in favour of this legislation as long as it contains this power. In closing, I'd like to move the amendments as circulated in my name. This reform can and could work, but it will not work in its current form. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Daniel 008CH I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:44 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Recently I spoke in this place about the objectives of superannuation. My belief is that the purpose of superannuation is the provision of an adequate income such that all Australians can be sure of a comfortable standard of living in retirement. In that setting, superannuation can supplement or substitute for the age pension. Preservation, retirement income, equity, sustainability and a dignified retirement should be at the heart of our superannuation policy. I also recently addressed my concerns that the opposition are waging a war against superannuation by floating a policy to allow Australians early access to superannuation for housing. Flying in the face of good sense and good policy—and the opinion of many respected economists—the conservatives have suggested that allowing Australians to raid their super could improve housing affordability and help first home buyers enter the property market. Under the opposition's proposed scheme to withdraw $50,000 a person, people would need to have superannuation savings of $125,000. That is a sum that the average Australian does not accrue until they're well into their 40s. It begs the question: who is this policy supposed to help? Many people who are genuinely struggling to buy a home have so little super that allowing them to withdraw it early would make absolutely no difference to them. But, paradoxically, allowing people to withdraw their super for housing would increase the purchasing power of those who have a high income and, often, a relatively high super balance as well. In fact, they're the group who are already most able to buy. Giving them access to faster capital will push up home prices across the board. It'll make it harder for those who are already struggling to get a foothold in the market. We actually have a useful model for the financial effects of asking young people to raid their super to buy a home and, in effect, sacrifice their future for the present-day aim because help is not otherwise forthcoming from their government. This model is provided by the COVID early release of super scheme, which cost this country more than double the amount forecast by my predecessor as member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg. His COVID raid on super has been forecast to cost this country as much as $85 billion by the end of this century. The generation of young people affected by that will face a double whammy—it's a generation with a greater reliance on the age pension, on top of its lower tax revenues from superannuation. Industry Super Australia has modelled that, for every $1 taken out of super early during COVID, the taxpayer will ultimately pay $2.50 more in age pension costs. That means that all of today's 20-year-olds will pay at least $3,000 more in tax to cover the higher pension bills caused by this scheme. A 30-year-old who withdrew the maximum of $20,000 from their super during the pandemic will be $93,600 worse off at retirement, plus they'll have that extra tax to pay for the age pension. While the erosion of superannuation balances via an early release scheme is a real and, in my view, damaging policy development for taxpayers in the country, at the other end of the spectrum superannuation has increasingly become a wealth creation opportunity in this country, and today's debate concerns that development. Since the early 1990s, when compulsory superannuation was introduced, there have been increasing concerns over the generosity of the tax concessions that apply to superannuation balances. The current government has determined that those generous concessions should be better targeted and sustainable, and they have attempted to achieve that in the bills under consideration today. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, or the omnibus bill, contains amendments to a variety of acts set out across eight schedules. For the purposes of today's debate, I will focus on schedules 1 and 3. These address the main purpose of the omnibus bill, which is to reduce the tax concessions available to individuals who have a total superannuation balance greater than $3 million. The Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 will enact those limits. Specifically, it will impose a tax rate of 30 per cent on superannuation earnings derived from balances of an individual superannuation account that exceeds $3 million in an income year. The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services has stated that 99.5 per cent of Australians with a superannuation balance will actually be unaffected by this change. Or, put another way, in the 2025-26 financial year the change should apply to less than 0.5 per cent of all Australians with a superannuation account, which equals about 80,000 people. By the financial year 2027-28, it is expected that the reduction to the tax concession will increase revenue by over $2 billion. There are two key concerns in relation to these bills; both have been spoken to and will be the subject of amendments introduced in this place by my colleague the member for North Sydney. Briefly, the first concern, which has been raised from a number of quarters, including by many submissions to the Treasury consultation process—including from superannuation funds—was that the $3 million threshold ought to be indexed over time, and I will address that a bit later. The second concern was that the bill as proposed—and now as introduced—contains a measure that would result in tax being levied and payable on unrealised capital gains. Taxing people on money that they have not yet received is a departure from traditional tax treatment, which in this context presents some significant difficulties. For example, should an investment decline in value after a period of appreciation, it's quite feasible that, over time, any tax paid on the unrealised gains may never actually be offset by a realised investment gain—that is, a person may never actually receive a realised investment gain over the life of their asset, despite having been taxed as if they had. It's been suggested that people will inevitably have to hold cash or highly liquid assets in order to pay that tax on unrealised gains. This would be particularly unfair for farmers and small-business holders who may lack sufficient funds to pay the tax because of the illiquid nature of their assets. In its submission to the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry, the Financial Advice Association Australia argued that this reform would unfairly target such taxpayers and would discourage investment in illiquid assets. The FAAA submitted that, given the size and nature of illiquid assets such as farms or small businesses, they cannot be easily sold or otherwise liquidated to accommodate a superannuation liability arising under division 296. Further, they suggested that, in the long term, this will force more individuals to divest illiquid assets from their superannuation account and acquire more low-risk liquid assets such as stocks or government bonds. The 106-page Economics Legislation Committee report into the bills was released last week and has considered these issues in some detail. Many submissions to that committee noted that the bills would help restore the original intent of the superannuation system as a vehicle purely—or, ideally, solely—for retirement savings and that they were therefore a step in the right direction. For those who questioned the fairness of the reforms, it was noted that high-income taxpayers already carry a plurality of the tax burden and support a considerable proportion of government expenditure. In relation to the indexing of the $3 million threshold, the committee heard that some who were opposed to it, such as ACOSS, believed that the $3 million threshold was too high, given that it captures only a small number of people. In contrast, the Grattan Institute submitted that it did not go far enough and that it not only should not be indexed but should be reduced to $2 million. The Financial Services Council argued that a lack of indexation was 'intergenerationally unfair' and that it failed to provide the superannuation industry and individual account holders with the certainty that they require. The Business Council of Australia similarly objected to the lack of indexation. The inquiry concluded that it was appropriate for the parliament to be responsible for setting the $3 million threshold. In relation to the taxation of unrealised capital gains, the committee similarly found that, while understanding the views shared by inquiry participants, it believed that, on the balance of evidence, the approach taken in this bill is designed to be applied consistently across all superannuation funds in a sector-neutral way, making it the most appropriate way to reduce compliance burden and costs to funds and their members. The committee found that the provisions of the bills to give taxpayers 84 days to meet their tax liability, as well as the lower than general rate to be applied to unpaid debts, were relevant considerations. Further, while noting that taxation of unrealised capital gains may present difficulties for those with a high proportion of illiquid assets, the committee pointed out that all superannuation trustees have an obligation to keep sufficient liquidity within their account to meet their APRA obligations. I'm not persuaded that this legislation should provide for indexation of the $3 million threshold in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the related bill. Not all superannuation thresholds are indexed, and the evidence of Treasury was that it would be unusual for a young person today, on an average salary, to be captured by the tax even in 40 years time. Moreover, were this to materially change in the future, it would of course be open to a future parliament to change that threshold. However, I am not persuaded that the significant complications that will flow from the imposition of taxation on individuals' unrealised gains are reasonable. The significant and ongoing difficulties in managing cash flows and the financial and other pressures that this change will create, particularly for those with illiquid assets such as farms, seem to me to create unfair pressure on taxpayers. Ultimately, these bills do take important steps towards making the superannuation system more equitable and more aligned with the object of superannuation—that is, a mechanism for retirement savings and not primarily a wealth creation strategy. The fact is that most of the value of these tax concessions does flow to those who have above median incomes. Unaddressed, they will increase over time. That inequity does warrant urgent government attention. Better targeting of tax concessions, now, is a sensible way forward. It is, however, frustrating that this worthwhile move is conflated with a difficult and messy side issue: the taxing of unrealised gains. I call on the government to review this proposal as a matter of urgency. I commend the bill to the House. 17:56 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill is a terrible bill. It's a terrible bill for many reasons, but I want to touch on three. First, it's another broken promise. Just add it to the list of other broken promises: electricity bills would be $275 cheaper under Labor, mortgages would be lower under Labor, inflation would be lower under Labor, franking credits would not be touched under Labor, taxes would not go up under Labor, the cost of consultants and contractors would be cut under Labor and there would be no changes to superannuation under Labor. All of this was summarised by the big, overarching call that Australians would be better off under Labor. Instead of being a list of election promises, it is a list of broken promises and the failures of Labor to keep their word. I'm yet to find anyone in the community that I serve, in Longman, that is better off under this Labor government than they were two years ago under the former coalition government. This bill breaks one of the promises I mentioned previously, as there will now be changes to super. We know that Labor sees super in a different way from the coalition. For Labor, it's all about getting people into industry funds, who then fund the unions, who then, in turn, fund the Labor Party. So it is in their best interests to make it as uncomfortable and costly as possible for those Australians who choose to put their money into a self-managed super fund, rather than an industry fund that funds unions and, ultimately, the Labor Party. Put simply: they see hardworking Australians' superannuation as their personal election campaign fund. In contrast, the coalition recognises that this is the Australian workers' money. It does not belong to any political party or any government of any political persuasion. It is there to help Australians fund their retirement and nothing else. Many of those with self-managed super funds have used these funds to purchase property that they may run their own business out of. Farmers may use these funds to purchase land. Both these cases are examples of people using their own super money to invest in property that frees up capital, which helps them run businesses that inject more into the Australian economy by employing more people, who, in turn, pay taxes and purchase equipment from other businesses that also pay taxes and employ people that pay taxes. But this legislation threatens this system. By taxing these funds with assets over $3 million on unrealised gains, many of these businesses will be forced to sell these assets to pay the tax bill on money they've never even earned. This means some employees will lose their jobs, and the purchasing of new equipment will slow dramatically to assist in paying this tax bill—not to mention what happens if that business is sold. Say a business was taxed for something being worth $3,200,000 and then sold it for $2½ million. What happens then? There's a $700,000 shortfall which has not been explained, but only Labor could not see this. When speaking to people who are in this situation, most tell me they are not over the moon to pay extra tax, but they'd live with it if it happened when they actually sold the asset and made the gain. It makes sense, as you'll actually have the money from the sale. Let's put this in perspective for the laypeople out there. Quite simply, if a panel shop or a hairdresser bought a shed or a shop 20 years ago in their self-managed super fund's name for $500,000, and the premises are now valued at $3,200,000, the self-managed super fund would have to pay tax on the paper gain of $2.7 million, even though they have not actually sold the asset and received the money. Hence the reason that, in many cases, they would need to sell this asset, as I just outlined. How would you feel if the government said your annual salary next year will be $80,000 and they need you to pay the tax before you earn it? Of course you'd be angry, and rightly so. Labor are again using the old Robin Hood MO, of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's a great headline but a misleading one that, as usual, leaves out the details and the true consequences of their policy, which is simply a vote grab. The problem is that this possibly affects a low- to middle-income worker even more than the so-called rich. It is these people who will lose their job and then have their home repossessed when they can't pay their mortgage. It will be these people who will be evicted when they can't pay the rent, because they've lost their job so their employer can pay this unfair tax bill. It hurts the very people they're supposed to be helping but are in fact deceiving, which is reprehensible. It also hurts future generations of workers, many of whom will have more than $3 million in super, as wages and super contributions continue to grow. The second crazy part of this legislation is that it's not indexed. Labor are saying that $3 million in 2064 will have the same value in real terms as $3 million in 2024. Analysts at the ATO and census data tell us that more than two million working Australians under the age of 25 today will be subject to this unfair tax, as in the future they will have over $3 million in super. Research has revealed that, when it comes to super, Australians trust themselves first, super funds second and government last. We must empower Australians to make decisions about their own financial future first, not governments. We need economic policies that support small-business aspiration and entrepreneurship; that reward work, not more welfare; that contain growth in government spending and government overreach; that deliver an incentive based tax system that returns bracket creep and supports lower, fairer taxes; and that exemplify the coalition's long-held mantra of allowing Australians to keep more of what they earn—which I note has been stolen in the last six months by the Labor party, which, of course, is the highest form of flattery. Australians need a government and policies that support aspiration and back business to create jobs, and this bill and this Labor government do the opposite. I will not be supporting this bill. 18:04 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Superannuation is designed to allow workers to save enough through their working lives to enjoy a dignified retirement. It's also designed to ease pressure on budget funding for the age pension. It is not, as I said in my earlier speech on the Superannuation (Objective) Bill, a bandaid that tries to patch up the structural housing policy failure of successive state and federal governments by encouraging people to deplete their retirement savings. That policy was the brainchild of my predecessor in Goldstein. I opposed it before the 2022 election, and I continue to oppose it wholeheartedly now. ANU researchers found that, because of the authorisation of the early release of super during the COVID-19 pandemic, an Australian who withdrew $10,000, the maximum permitted, may well have lost $120,000 by the time they reach retirement. As a result, more women, because they have smaller super balances than men and a more interrupted career path, will retire with less security, less independence and a less certain future. Whatever else it is, early withdrawal of super is not a housing policy. Superannuation is also not designed to encourage tax minimisation or outsized wealth creation. I support the principle behind these bills, but there are some details I oppose, and I will support the amendments being proposed by the member for North Sydney to address them. The most recent data from the tax office shows that, in 2020-21, 28 people had superannuation balances of more than $100 million and 107 had balances of more than $50 million. That's not saving for a dignified retirement; it's using the beneficial taxation arrangements for superannuation for wealth creation, or, as the Grattan Institute would put it, a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. It's simply not in line with the intentions of the superannuation system. Grattan estimates that the super tax breaks cost $45 billion a year—two per cent of GDP—and will soon exceed the cost of the age pension. Grattan adds that two-thirds of the value of super tax breaks benefit the top 20 per cent of income earners, who are already saving up for retirement and whose savings choices aren't much affected by tax rates. Much of the boost to super balances from tax breaks is never spent, says Grattan. By 2060, one-third of all withdrawals from super will be via bequests, up from one-fifth today. Some argue that tax breaks on super ease spending on the age pension. Not so, according to Grattan, which says that the cost of super tax breaks far outweighs the age pension savings that they produce, with the bulk of benefits going to higher income earners who would never receive the age pension. So I do support the principle of increasing to 30 per cent the concessional rate of taxation applied to future earnings of super accounts with balances above $3 million. I note that the existing concessional rate of 15 per cent will remain for balances below the $3 million cap. That is as it should be. A balance of $3 million ought to be sufficient right now to provide for a dignified, self-funded retirement. I've spoken to members of my community about this—Goldstein is arguably one of the communities where some constituents will have very high balances—and those I've discussed this with have said that this change is tolerable. However, there are two major qualifiers. One is the government's refusal to entertain indexing the cap. Not to do so is the superannuation equivalent of bracket creep. As time goes on, inflation is bound to reduce the real value of superannuation balances of $3 million. In turn, that will reduce the quality of life for those retirees who have legitimately planned for a dignified retirement without depending on taxpayer support. AustralianSuper, the country's largest superannuation fund, argues that indexation of the threshold would lead to greater certainty and promote stability and confidence in the system. Indexation is accepted as principle for several government payments. I've advocated for tax indexation, for example, to depoliticise bracket creep and increase certainty for taxpayers in regard to income tax. For consistency, much as these are very high superannuation balances, the government ought to agree to indexation of this measure. Therefore, I will support the amendment proposed by the member for North Sydney for the cap to be indexed. There's one other major problem with the legislation that's been raised with me by representatives of holders of self-managed superannuation funds and Goldstein constituents, and that goes to the treatment of unrealised gains. What the government is proposing is out of line with their treatment in other areas of tax policy, where capital gains are normally taxed on realisation, not accrual. The Grattan Institute, which others have outlined, doesn't think the legislation goes far enough and points out that taxing unrealised gains could create tax flow problems for some self-managed super fund members who hold illiquid assets such as property and who will be required to pay tax before realising those gains. The Australia Institute also notes that problems with accrual taxation include the fact that taxpayers may not have liquid resources to pay the tax. The SMSF Association commissioned research from the International Centre for Financial Services at the University of Adelaide. Their analysis was based on data from more than 700,000 self-managed super fund members from 2020-21 and 2021-22. The research found that the legislation could have a negative impact on up to 50,000 self-managed super fund members, who would suffer a mean additional tax liability of more than $80,000. This is a particular problem for people who are asset rich and cash poor. For instance, farmers who have placed their properties into their superannuation funds under existing law may now lack sufficient funds to pay the tax. The National Farmers Federation noted in its submission to Treasury on this legislation that, unlike salaried employees, farmers do not make regular superannuation contributions throughout their working lives; instead, their land asset is effectively their superannuation. The NFF estimates that as many as 30 per cent or more of farm businesses may have their land in self-managed super funds, pointing out that, as part of the successions planning process, land assets are commonly transferred into a self-managed super fund. The next generation then takes on the running of the business and makes a lease payment to the retiring farmer. This lease payment becomes their retirement income. The problem, according to the NFF, is that, while the value of agricultural land can fluctuate by as much as 20 to 30 per cent in one year, the lease value does not change at the same rate. In short, in a year where agricultural land values rise significantly so will the tax liability for the people affected, even though their modest income from the lease has not risen to match. That could leave farmers in such a predicament that they have no alternative but to sell the farm. Some small businesses could well be similarly affected if the premises are owned by a self-managed super fund because the owner acted in line with the existing tax treatment of superannuation accounts. The authors of the Adelaide University study also argue that maintaining existing tax settings for superannuation could yield more tax revenue for the government over the medium to long-term. The authors state that that is because this new tax will still be levied on capital gains but only when the underlying assets are eventually sold. Under normal asset price appreciation over time, the overall tax base will be greater. I support the second reading amendment proposed by the member for North Sydney on indexation, as well as her amendment on unrealised gains. I'm concerned that the government has not listened to consultation on these matters, appearing to have made rigid decisions about this legislation, even before consulting. So, on balance, while I do support the core principle of the bill, I am sufficiently concerned about these outstanding issues, particularly the precedent set by taxing unrealised gains, that I will not support it. 18:13 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi These bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023, are about making sure our superannuation system fulfils its objective of providing for people in their retirement. To fulfil this objective, I agree, as do many of my constituents, that excessively large superannuation balances should not receive generous tax concessions and that it is not the pure intention of superannuation. I support the objective of this bill. But, as it's currently drafted, it has the potential for some very serious unintended consequences. It must and can be improved, but I must say that, until these improvements occur, I can't support the bill at this time. These bills seek to achieve their objectives by imposing an additional 15 per cent tax on superannuation earnings where the balance of superannuation exceeds $3 million. It's estimated that only about 80,000 Australians have this amount of money in their superannuation savings—not many by national standards. I support the overall intention of this bill, and it's why I supported the government 's Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023, which was passed by this place earlier this year. I agree that the aim of our superannuation system should not be for it to be used as a vehicle to avoid tax, sometimes with the intent of building wealth to pass on to the next generation. Superannuation is about safeguarding Australians' retirement. That's what it's about. Unfortunately, past government decisions have not adequately considered the pure purpose of superannuation, leading to some damaging consequences. One such decision is the former coalition government's early-release-of-super scheme, introduced as an emergency measure at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This scheme allowed about three million Australians to withdraw $38 billion from their superannuation early, before their retirement. Modelling by the Super Members Council, the representative body for industry super funds, now shows that this scheme has serious long-term consequences for our economy. They've found it will ultimately result in more Australians relying on the age pension and lower tax being received from future superannuation. According to the Super Members Council analysis, a 30-year-old who withdrew money from their super under the scheme will be over $90,000 worse off when they enter retirement. This means more people are likely to rely on the age pension. To cover this shortfall, estimates showed that all of today's 20-year-olds may pay out about $3,000 more in tax. We also know that, under the early-release-of-super scheme, more women than men withdrew their superannuation, and this means that down the track women will be disproportionately impacted compared to men, reinforcing a problematic situation where already women retire with far less superannuation than their male peers. Government policies that treat superannuation as if it's cash on hand fail our future generations, and that's simply not good enough. It's why we as legislators must safeguard superannuation for its specific intention, and that is to safeguard a dignified retirement. While I support the objective of this bill, I have also listened very carefully to the concerns expressed about the form in which it's currently drafted. That's what an Independent member of parliament needs to do. I take my position as a conscientious legislator very seriously, and I've scrutinised this piece of legislation, as I do every piece of legislation that comes before me, on its individual merits. I've asked myself: what is the problem that this law is aiming to solve? I've looked out for potential unintended consequences and whether these can be mitigated, and I've asked: is this bill good for the nation, is it ethical, and does it demonstrate good governance? Specifically, I ask: what does this mean for the people I represent, the people in Indi? This bill ticks some of these boxes. As I said earlier, I support measures to ensure superannuation is setting up a dignified and sustainable retirement system. This is ethical and it is good for the nation. But I have two major concerns with this bill that suggest that it should be improved to achieve its objective and avoid unintended outcomes that really could be perverse for the very people whose futures we're trying to protect. Until these concerns are addressed, I will not be supporting these bills. First, many superannuation companies and tax experts are concerned that this $3 million is not indexed. We don't currently index any taxation—that I admit. We don't index income tax brackets. But, as we saw with the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill, the problem of bracket creep, of pushing taxpayers into higher tax brackets where they pay more tax without a material change in their income, is going to be very hard to address without applying indexation. It also creates uncertainty and instability for taxpayers—something that the Tax Institute of Australia is very concerned about. So we must put indexation of taxation on the table for discussion. This is a big, national debate we really need to have. That includes indexing the $3 million cap under this bill. The second concern that I have is that the bill in its current form is taxing unrealised capital gains. This raises some very genuine and serious concerns, and the member for Goldstein has just outlined many of them. I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences for a very specific group of people I represent. These are people who hold their family farms in self-managed super funds. This includes family farms from my electorate of Indi and, of course, family farms all over the nation. It's very common for farmers to not make regular superannuation contributions. Instead, their land is effectively their superannuation. In order to succession plan, the next generation then takes on the running of the business of the family farm and makes lease payments to the retiring farmer, usually their mother and father, which is effectively their parents' retirement income. These lease payments do not necessarily increase with an increase in property values. If this tax on superannuation above $3 million goes ahead, these farming families may not receive the lease payments or rental yields to meet the annual tax bill on their land assets without ultimately having to sell the land itself. This, dangerously and seriously, has very negative potential consequences for succession planning of family farms, and this is already a deeply challenging task for rural Australia and a deeply challenging issue right across my electorate. The two problems I've identified can be addressed, first, by indexing the $3 million threshold and, second, by excluding agricultural land assets from the calculation of total superannuation balance using the Australian Taxation Office's existing definition of 'primary production asset'. These, I believe, are reasonable and simple amendments that would not take away from the important intent of the bill: to make sure our superannuation system fulfils its objective of providing for people in their retirement. I'm disappointed that the government has failed to take on these recommendations, but I'm hopeful that they will in the Senate. These are reasonable amendments that are being put before the House. I think it is the role of parliament, after all, to debate, to improve and to pass good law that benefits all Australians. So until this bill is improved, I won't be supporting it in the House of Representatives, and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to make the changes necessary so that, ultimately, I can support it. 18:22 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Like the member for Indi, I represent a farming region. There has been a regrettable attack on agriculture by this government. We've seen it in many ways in the last few weeks, and in the previous few years as well. It's something I'm very concerned about. I don't think people on the opposite side understand agriculture, I don't think they understand how agricultural businesses work, and I don't think they understand the importance of agriculture to Australia's economy, and that is absolutely regrettable. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and a related bill, is an example of that. It's not the only thing, but it's a key reason I've got some serious concerns about this piece of legislation. Labor's superannuation changes are set to disproportionately impact family farms held in self-managed super funds if they exceed new thresholds. Let's face it: this legislation is just a superannuation tax grab that will allow Labor to tax unrealised capital gains on self-managed super fund held farms across regional and rural Australia. The very real danger is that farmers may not have the cash flow to pay the tax on the unrealised capital value in their property that was part of that self-managed super fund. The general concept of taxing an unrealised capital gain is a flawed piece of policy. It's a first in Australian superannuation policy, and it has the potential to create cashflow issues for taxpayers. It is absolutely unreasonable for people to fund a tax liability for an asset that has gone up in value while they have not sold the asset and received the money with which to pay the tax. That just doesn't make any sense, and anyone who's run a business or worked in private enterprise should understand that. Taxing unrealised capital gains exposes superannuants to market volatility, and they'll be worse off if the value of their investments has significantly declined when it comes time to sell. Taxing unrealised capital gains denies the benefits of compounding, which is critical to good retirement outcomes. Compounding was what superannuation was all about. When what I would regard as a competent Hawke-Keating Labor government—I think that was probably an aberration—first put in superannuation, the compounding effect was the key part of it, and many people have managed to have a dignified retirement, including people in my family, as a result of the changes that were put in, and I congratulate that government for that. But to start trying to raid it the way the current Labor government is—a very different government to the Hawke-Keating government, I might add—is just not on. This tax will reduce investment, because superannuants will direct investments to less volatile financial products. Now, for those opposite, who, by their constant legislating of policies that are anti-farming and have perverse and detrimental impacts in the regions, let me explain how farming works in many cases. Many families and farm owners, including the wonderful fruitgrowers, vegetable growers, and dairy farmers in the seat of Nicholls, have set up self-managed super funds as their future retirement savings. It's good financial practice. But these people did so unaware that a Labor government was going to get in and come for their assets with more taxes. As many people understand—including the member for Dawson, who has been a farmer, and myself, who has worked in farm management—farming is a risk-reward business. But the reward is not guaranteed. Returns fluctuate. In a bad season the return might be just enough for a cropping farmer to buy seed in order to take the same risk the next season and plant a crop—and bless the people who have the guts to do that in Australia's interest. Often there's no return. I've had some fruitgrowers in Nicholls, growing clean, healthy Australian fruit, and I've talked about them in the past and about what they do for this country and what they do to make sure that there's a great, healthy Australian product for our children—the risk they take for that. Some of them have been hit by hailstorms two years in a row. That's pretty tough, because you lose a crop. Not only do you lose a crop, but sometimes the hailstorm is so severe that you can get reduced yields in the years succeeding that. The previous coalition government sought to look after those industries through a subsidy on hail netting. It's one of the practical things the coalition government has done, back when we had a government that looked after farmers. The farmers are working through that, but they haven't got the money to do it all, so some of them have lost significant amounts of crop from hailstorms. Taxing unrealised paper assets in agriculture when the cash flow is seasonally dependent is setting a dangerous precedent. It's bad policy and, like so many policies from the government, it's going to have adverse consequences for regional businesses. And it attacks productive industry. This is what I've been going on about. Since the budget was delivered the other night—and it's got a lot of anti-agriculture stuff; it's also got a bit of anti-mining stuff in it—it really does redirect industry support away from what we've been good at in the past, that is, agriculture, and directs funds towards things that are more ideologically attractive to the current Labor government. It really makes it more difficult for people to do the things that have grown Australia's wealth. And one of the key things that has grown Australia's wealth has been agriculture—so incredibly, effectively done in the seat of Nicholls. You can see probably why they want to do it. In 2027-28, the first full year of receipts collection, the measure is expected to increase receipts by $2.3 billion. An extra 15 per cent tax rate, from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, will be applied on the earnings of super accounts worth more than $3 million. There has been a lot of feedback from concerned industry and farming groups, but the government has ignored that. A good government listens to stakeholder groups, because a good government understands that MPs and people who work for departments in Canberra don't know everything. It may come as a shock, but they don't know everything. When you get out there and talk to the people who have taken the risk and run the farms, run the mines and work in private industry, you get a really good perspective and you get better policy outcomes—newsflash. The government has ignored the feedback from concerned industry and farming groups and is pushing the legislation through, despite not being able to identify, with its Treasury modelling, how many primary producers or family business owners would be impacted. The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services said, in his second reading speech, that this bill 'ensures that concessions are better targeted at amounts that deliver income for a dignified retirement'. Actually there's no change to the tax rate for amounts that deliver a dignified retirement. All it delivers is higher taxes for those with larger superannuation accounts. Everyone knows I'm a first-term MP. I've enjoyed watching question time, because there have been a lot of interesting precedents that I've noticed in question time. One of the most interesting question times I've sat through was when the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services was asked questions about how this policy would roll out and what would be some of the consequences. What happens if the unrealised capital gains fluctuate either side of $3 million? Does a farmer have to sell part of their land to try and pay the tax bill, even if they've had a bad year? The minister could not answer those questions, and it's the first time ever I've seen the opposition leader get up and offer him another three minutes to have another go. I think that that proves that this legislation was undercooked then, and I've seen nothing, since reading it, that suggests to me that it's not undercooked now. What will Labor do with the additional $950 million that they collect over the five years from 2022-23? Take your pick of the greatest hits: more destructive policies like the excessively rapid transition to renewable energy, which is damaging landscapes in parts of regional Australia, including my electorate of Nicholls; vehicle emissions targets that'll make it harder for farmers and people for whom electric vehicles aren't appropriate to buy the vehicles that they need; or funding—and this is the worst bit—of destructive water buybacks. I think I've been pretty vocal in this place about water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin. I believe there could be some pretty unpleasant stuff once we start trawling through the budget papers, but really, talk about productivity. It is one of the most productive food bowls anywhere in the world, and you want to take away what makes it productive—unbelievable! Labor's broken promise on super is a tax on the future of young Australians. I've focused a lot on the attack-on-agriculture component of this, but the next generation of Australian workers will be hugely impacted by Labor's extra tax take on superannuation accounts. This is because of the absence of indexing. It will compound the number of young workers captured over time by this tax. These tax hikes, which Labor promised it wouldn't impose, will affect so many people. Okay, in the sort of rich-poor class culture war that we have in this country, where you want to steal from the rich and give to the poor because you want to make a bit of a hero of yourself, $3 million is a lot of money. I don't mind that some people have worked very hard to build up assets to get that $3 million in superannuation. But the point is, because it's not indexed and because CPI is rising faster than it should have—and let's hope inflation gets under control, but with this budget I don't like the chances—it means that so many more people are going to be captured with superannuation balances of $3 million into the future. A young person now who's worked pretty hard—who knows? they might be in their 30s—might have a superannuation balance that's ticking on $600,000 or $700,000. If they keep working hard, as we want them to, if they keep earning more money, as we want them to, and if they keep their aspirations, as we're desperate for them to for this country's future, their superannuation balance is going to tick upwards of $3 million—and that's not going to be a huge amount of money in 20 years—and all of a sudden they'll be hit with a massive tax, because they did what we asked them to do. That's not the way an Australia that encourages aspiration should operate. This will have serious impacts on young Australians in the future and it will have serious impacts in regional Australia. As usual, there are some consequential changes that are positive. The Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission will be able to make disclosures about new and ongoing investigations where the disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. There's always something good in a bad bill, so people have got something to talk about—that's what I've noticed in my new parliamentary career. But it doesn't matter how many pretty ribbons you use to tie this up. This package has at its core a broken promise, because they said they weren't going to touch super, and a new and unfair tax. It's an attack on agriculture and an attack on the aspirations of young Australians, and I won't be supporting this bill. 18:36 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak, yet again, on another promise this Albanese Labor government has broken. This time it relates to superannuation. This is the money that Australians are forced to set aside for their retirement. Well, Labor have now decided that they want to get their hands on this money. With this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023, the Albanese government seeks to reduce the tax concessions on total superannuation balances that exceed $3 million. This package of legislation has three major flaws that must be discussed. The first flaw is the fact that these bills, as I've mentioned, represent another broken promise from those opposite. Those opposite went to the election in 2022 promising zero changes to Australia's superannuation framework, yet with this legislation they are proposing to double the superannuation taxes on one in 10 Australians by the time those people retire. Those opposite will pretend that this policy change will impact only the very wealthy—who, ironically, they now plan to help with energy price relief; maybe they do like the wealthy after all—but that couldn't be further from the truth. These tax hikes will affect people across so many professions—and these are people who are just starting out in their professional career—including tradies; police; nurses; accountants; FIFO workers, many of whom live in the Pilbara region in my electorate; and farmers. Maybe that's not today. It's maybe not today that they will have $3 million in their superannuation fund, but there is a possibility they will do, without a doubt. From a government that campaigned at the last election on a platform of trust and transparency, this package stinks of gross hypocrisy. But no-one around Australia should be surprised, as this is just the latest in a long line of broken promises. As we know, the mob opposite have got form. On over a hundred occasions prior to the last election, the Labor Party promised to follow through on the already legislated stage 3 tax cuts, yet according to recent reporting the Treasurer asked his department for advice on changes to the stage 3 tax cuts as early as June 2022, one month after the May 2022 election. So it appears those opposite were preparing to break this promise to the Australian electorate just one month after they'd made it. This Labor government wants taxpayers across the country to believe that the revised tax cuts are monumental and will make a real difference in helping to change and manage the cost-of-living crisis that those opposite are responsible for. Well, it's a nice story but it's a real shame for those opposite that the facts always get in the way of their rose coloured narrative. In reality, an earner on an annual wage of around $85,000 will receive just $15.46 more a week under the reforms. It might make a difference for some, but I don't think that it will make a huge difference to a lot of people. The OECD also recently released their Taxing wages 2024 report and, sadly, Australia's personal income tax burden grew faster than in any other advanced economy last year. How embarrassing is that? Funnily enough, Labor members failed to mention that to their constituents when highlighting their tax policy. Of course, the central message that Labor used at the last election was that life would be cheaper under them—that life would be better under a Labor led government. I'll admit that some of those on Labor's frontbench are pretty good spinners—they may be better than, or maybe not worse than, Shane Warne—but even they couldn't possibly say that Australians are better off than before they came to office. You would have to ask the average Australian on the street, 'Are you better off since May 2022?' Those opposite can't hide from the fact that everything has gone up under them: housing, rent, electricity, gas, insurance, petrol—you name it, and it's a fair bet that it costs more under those opposite. Of course, mortgage stress is causing massive pain for so many Australian families, including in my electorate of Durack. Despite promising cheaper mortgages, the typical mortgage for Australians is now more than $35,000 worse off. Getting homegrown inflation down and providing the conditions to enable the Reserve Bank to reduce interest rates should be the highest priority for this government. However, sadly, it looks like last night's budget won't deliver any lasting relief for mortgage holders. Steven Hamilton, an economist writing in the Australian Financial Review, described last night's as the most irresponsible budget in recent memory. He went on to say that during an inflation crisis, with the Reserve Bank on the precipice of a further rate increase, it was 'downright reckless'. Last night, the Treasurer announced $315 billion in new spending. That's $30,000 in extra spending for every Australian household. Not only will this be reckless spending which will keep homegrown inflation higher for longer but their spending addiction is the reason that Labor need to introduce legislation like this, which increases superannuation taxes. Here's another quote that no one will soon forget: 'My word is my bond.' Remember that? I'm sure everyone in this place and around Australia remembers that gem from the Prime Minister. Those opposite must absolutely cringe when they hear that. It pains me to say that the Prime Minister's word and bond are, sadly, about as reliable as my dear Freemantle Football Club! You really want to trust them; you wake up in the morning and you think, 'Today is going to be a good day,' but, unfortunately, they just keep failing to deliver on their promises. The second major flaw with this superannuation legislation is the disastrous impact it will have on younger Australians. The Albanese government has failed to index this superannuation penalty. According to analysis conducted by the Treasurer's very own department, a 20-year-old today who earns an average income will pay higher taxes under this scheme. Up to two million Australians could be captured by this by the time they retire. Why has Labor decided to harm so many younger Australians with this legislation? These are people who are just starting out on their careers today. To cut a long story short, Labor believe that they can take the youth vote for granted. That's why they can raise their taxes and not address the issues that matter to them the most. You could go out and ask any random group of young Australians what their priorities are and I think we all know we can guarantee that housing is right up there. And yet entering the market has never been harder, and those opposite have absolutely no credible plan to help our young people achieve the Australian dream of home ownership. I say that they have stolen that dream—those opposite have stolen the dream of home ownership. Last night's budget confirmed Labor are planning a migrant intake of 1.67 million people over the next five years. Young people are already struggling to find affordable housing, with rental vacancy rates across the country reaching record lows under this government. Labor's grand plan, however, is to continue their failed policy of immigration fast outpacing new builds. It's clear Labor is committed to a big Australia policy, no matter the consequences. Once we are back in government after the next election, we will return migration to sustainable levels and provide support for first home buyers to enter the market and finally achieve the Australian dream. One of the ways we are going to do that is through allowing access to superannuation. Our super home buyer scheme will allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home, and there stands a huge contrast between the approach of the coalition and those opposite. The coalition is open to allowing young people to access their superannuation to give them the best form of security for their retirement—that being, owning their own home. Meanwhile, the Labor Party is steadfastly opposed to this proposal but is instead fine with increasing taxes on those superannuation savings. The Labor Party should not count on the youth vote at the next election if they continue to fail to deliver on their main priorities. The final aspect of this legislation which deserves condemnation is the fact that unrealised capital gains are captured. What this means in practical terms is that many retirees and superannuants will face tax bills on money they haven't even earned yet. The concept is truly bizarre. This is, of course, going to disproportionately hurt Australians with self-managed superannuation funds. The Australian this week posed an interesting scenario that will be of particular interest to farmers within my electorate of Durack. Imagine a farmer whose super fund owns the farm. There are many thousands of families set up in such a way. He has a couple of good years, so he pays the unrealised gains. Then a five-year drought hits—not such a weird and wacky idea; it's possible in our country—and his enterprise is essentially worthless. Do you think Labor will support returning the unrealised gains to him, return them back to the farmer who is battling to feed his animals? Of course not. The National Farmers' Federation have raised their concerns, expressing: These reforms could be like a sledgehammer to succession planning for family farms. The nature of farming means the businesses are structured differently, so rather than making regular superannuation contributions, many farmers hold their homes and businesses in Self-Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSFs). In many cases, older farmers will hold their farm in an SMSF and lease it to their children, providing both retirement income for them while giving the next generation an opportunity to start farming. It's clear, between this targeting of self-managed super funds and the refusal to allow young people to use their super to purchase their first home, Labor is simply trying to bolster the industry super funds, the same funds that donate millions to unions across the country and ultimately to the Labor party. How are these donations supporting people in their retirement? To conclude, I will not be supporting these bills—how could you possibly? They do nothing to combat the cost of living, which is what the government should be focused on, and will disproportionately impact younger Australians—as if they are not doing it tough enough. They represent a terrible betrayal of trust and only serve to fuel Labor's unhealthy spending addiction. Things never change. Remember, when Labor run out of money they come after yours. 18:49 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023. At the outset, I will be opposing these bills. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 has the stated intention to reduce the tax concessions on total superannuation balances which exceed $3 million. In effect, this means that instead of paying 15 per cent, which is the existing rate on balances over $3 million, the tax rate will be doubled. There are three main reasons why I say that this bill should be opposed. Firstly, it represents a broken election promise—yet another broken election promise. Secondly, the $3 million threshold figure is not indexed. Thirdly, and lastly, it also taxes unrealised capital gains. I turn, first of all, to the issue that this is a broken promise from the Albanese Labor government. Australians save hard for their retirement. We did not hear a single word during the election campaign of 2022 that said that any changes were going to be brought to superannuation. As a matter of fact, the now Prime Minister and other ministers said that there would be no changes to superannuation. Superannuation is a long-term investment. Hardworking Australians go and receive financial advice. They go and see their accountants when they make decisions about their superannuation. They are entitled to do that based on promises made by an opposition going into an election campaign that there will be no changes to that superannuation regime. If we turn and look at the principles of superannuation, superannuation is Australians' money. It's not the government's money; it's our money. It's the money of Australians who have worked hard, saved and put aside some money. Some of it is compulsory, but there are also many Australians who have taken advice for years and have been aspirational. They have been told: 'Put aside some money now, and then you won't be on the age pension. You won't be a burden to the taxpayer when you get old, and it will also provide you with choice in the sort of retirement that you have.' When we have a government that comes in and suddenly starts taxing and changing the way that superannuation will be treated, this is a broken promise and a broken contract with the Australian people. On our side, we want to encourage people to put money into superannuation. We want to see Australians with more choice about how they can use their retirement savings. The tax hikes that are proposed in this bill will affect people in almost every single profession. They'll affect tradies. They'll affect our police officers, our nurses, accountants and public servants. These tax changes will hurt all hardworking Australians. Superannuation policy must reward work, particularly as we live in a country that has compulsory employer contributions. It must assist Australians to have choices in their post-work retirement life. Therefore, Australian governments should be extremely cautious about raising tax on Australian super and particularly introducing changes to superannuation that have come as a big surprise after the election of 2022. I say that these taxes, overall, will undermine the very principles of superannuation. One of the most contentious aspects of this bill is the lack of indexation. Almost unanimously, all submissions to Treasury, when this bill was placed in consultation, came back from stakeholders saying that the failure to index the $3 million is a major issue. It hasn't been indexed to take account of inflation, to say, 'Well, $3 million today is going to be very different to $3 million in 10 or 20 years when we've had successive years of inflation.' At this rate, the average 20-year-old today, who is earning an average wage, will pay this tax. If this tax is supposed to be directed towards higher income earners and people who have a much greater superannuation balance than the average Australian, why then is this government looking at slugging the average 20-year-old? It's simply unfair, and the indexation should be introduced. The other major reason that I will not be supporting this bill is that this represents a taxation of unrealised capital gains. This violates the principles of the Australian taxation system. Capital gains are always taxed on realised profits, not on accrual. This is particularly unfair to taxpayers who, under existing laws, have placed large illiquid assets, such as farms or business premises, into their superannuation fund and may now lack the sufficient funds to pay this tax. This was an issue that was particularly raised by the National Farmers Federation. They used the example that farmers are not on a wage, not on a set salary, so sometimes they will move a farm or a premises into their superannuation fund, and this will now be part of new, much higher tax regime. But the farmer may not have the funds available to pay that tax. So what will happen there? This is a completely unfair attack on farmers. Similarly, there are many small businesses that may move some business premises into their superannuation fund for exactly the same reason. Many businesspeople, small-business people in particular, do not earn a static wage, a static salary, and so they will look at other ways that they can save for their future, doing it by existing laws and under current advice from financial advisers and accountants. So, again, there will be many businesspeople impacted by this tax who had no idea about this tax going into the election in 2022. I mentioned the National Farmers Federation, and other stakeholders consulted on and responded to the draft bill. The comments of Mr Tony Negline from Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand were particularly relevant. He said: These changes will unfairly impact on people who are in or approaching retirement who followed the rules, and are also a tax trap for young players. That's not me saying it; that's the head of Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand. Then Mr Peter Burgess from the SMSF Association said: Taxing unrealised capital gains is a tax on market movements and changes in asset values, not income—an alarming precedent as it represents a fundamental change in how tax policy is implemented in Australia. I'll conclude by saying that there are three major problems with this bill. It's poorly thought out and poorly constructed, it represents yet another broken election promise and it's a fiscal attack on farmers and small businesses. Its failure to introduce indexation means that many Australian workers will be caught up paying this tax, having already made long-term financial decisions. Lastly, taxing unrealised capital gains simply flies in the face of Australian taxation principles. It will particularly impact farmers and our small-business people. For all of these reasons, I'll be opposing this bill. 18:58 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always enjoy rising in this place to speak about matters of superannuation. But I look at this bill and I rise to speak with a sense of trepidation. If we go through this bill there are a number of schedules, and some of those are quite innocuous, shall we say. But, as is the want of those opposite, as always, it is never the headline you look at with this government; it is always the detail, because, as the old saying goes, the devil is always in the detail. Tonight I want to focus on the first three schedules of the bill. As I said, the other schedules make some sensible changes, but the first three schedules of this bill are extraordinarily problematic. The reason they are extraordinarily problematic starts with the fact that, first and foremost, this government, in the lead-up to the last election, promised the Australian people they wouldn't make any changes to superannuation. This bill, as a consequence, with changes that are proposed—and it's good to see the shadow minister here in the chamber—is diametrically opposed to that. This actually makes a fundamental change to our superannuation system, and in making a fundamental change to our superannuation system it directly undermines the strength and benefit of it. My concern with this bill has been further illuminated by a comment that I will attribute to the assistant minister at the table about superannuation being a honeypot. This is not a honeypot. Superannuation is not a honeypot for the government; it is people's hard-earned savings. It is not a honeypot for industry super funds to support the Labor Party or undertake a variety of other activities that this government are pushing to now undermine the veracity and strength of the ASX through other bills that are before this place and other matters. Industry super is becoming like a leviathan with tentacles everywhere, being aided and abetted by this government to extend those tentacles through our economy to have complete and utter financial control. As we look at this bill, this is a clear indication that the government and those that back the government—that is, the industry super funds—have a pathological dislike for self-managed superannuation, because it is possibly self-managed superannuation funds and their trustees that are going to face the biggest consequences of the impact of this bill. At the very time when we are wanting people to be financially self-sufficient in retirement in order to minimise the cost on government—and our intergenerational reports have shown over a number of years the growing cost of age pensions with an ageing population—what is the greatest avenue for people to accumulate wealth in order to do that? It is superannuation. Yet we see here in this bill a direct attack on those people who have put in the time, effort, forethought and planning to accumulate assets in super to ensure that they are going to minimise—or completely eliminate, in this case—the need to draw an age pension. People with $3 million in super are not a burden on the taxpayer in retirement. They are not drawing the age pension. That's exactly what we want our system to be, and that is the incentive for superannuation—that you put your money in there during your working life and you pay a concessional tax rate because you will not have that money until your preservation age, such that at retirement you can access those funds and draw a pension or draw a lump sum, if you need to buy a new car or whatever the case may be. But the trade-off is that, in these cases, the people that this bill affects also are not a burden on the Australian taxpayer. So, not only have you done the right thing during your working life, in working hard and building wealth and building assets, and paying taxes along the way, but you have done the right thing by saving for your retirement such that you are not a burden on the Australian taxpayer. Is that not the system we want? Yet here we have a government that is trying to undermine that. They're trying to undermine it by introducing a punitive tax on people with superannuation balances above $3 million. In particular, the most egregious part of this bill is the component that taxes unrealised capital gains. Many in this place would know that, prior to being here, I had a life in financial planning. I used to talk to my clients, along with their accountants, and there was many a client who had a small to medium business and was maybe looking to purchase a property to run their business from or was looking to upgrade the property they were running their business from. In conjunction with their accountants, many of those people finished up with self-managed super funds that held the building assets that their business would operate out of. That was in the late 1990s and in the 2000s. I would suggest that, with the effluxion of time and the success of many of those businesses, those people would have well more than $3 million in their superannuation funds. But, as I said earlier, they've done the right thing by the Australian people. They've run successful businesses. They've employed people. They've paid taxes. They've also done the right thing by building an asset portfolio that will sustain them in retirement. Yet now they're in the situation where they have an illiquid asset in that fund. As the member for Hughes rightly pointed out earlier, this could apply equally to farmers and a whole range of people who have illiquid assets in their superannuation funds and who have a good year. Now, if they have a substantial number of illiquid assets in the fund, which is not against the law, it's their responsibility as a trustee to ensure that they generate the best returns possible for the members. They might have to sell that illiquid asset to fund a tax bill if they've had a good year and that asset has gone up substantially in value. There is no other place in our tax system where we tax unrealised capital gains. If they buy shares in a listed property trust, which would have the same profile of investments maybe, or a listed property trust that has investments in a range of commercial properties in one of our local industrial estates, do they have to pay tax at the end of the financial year on their unrealised capital gains? Mr Broadbent MT4 No! Mr VAN MANEN 188315 No, they don't. They don't, as the member for Monash has quite rightly points out. So why are we in a situation here where we are debating a bill that is going to disproportionately impact superannuation funds that have balances of over $3 million with a tax regime that applies nowhere else in our economy? It is an egregious impost on Australians who have done the right thing by our country over many, many years. They have secured their future and also have continued to provide for and support our Australian economy, since many of these assets in the super funds, particularly the unlisted assets, are wealth producing. If it's a farm, it is producing food, cattle or other produce for the health, wellbeing and prosperity of this country. Why are we then imposing an additional tax that could mean, possibly, that people will have to sell part or all of that asset to pay the tax bill if they have a really good year? It is the same for our small to medium businesses in the industrial estates that are spread across all of our electorates right across the breadth of this nation. What are we doing to those businesses? If they have a good year or, as we have seen over the last few years, the yields and values of those assets increase significantly, what does that mean now? Do they have to sell the business premises that they operate out of? Where do they go, and what do they do then if the new owner doesn't want them to be in that shed? These are businesses that employ Australian people. They pay payroll tax, superannuation and a whole range of things. They contribute to our society and generate wealth, and we are creating an unnecessary burden on them because their owners have spent the last 10, 15, 20 or 30 years doing the right thing by our country and accumulating assets to provide for themselves and their families in retirement so that they don't have to be a burden on the Australian taxpayer. It is a complete and utter disgrace. This bill should be opposed by every single person in this place because it is a travesty that we are seeing the government singling out a group of people who've done the right thing by our country and, as a consequence, are being penalised. These people have done and are doing the very thing that we, as successive governments of all political persuasions, have encouraged and supported them to do. And for what benefit? For the Treasurer to be able to stand up last night and manufacture a budget surplus off the back of work that previous governments have done. What is the value and purpose of the budget surplus they produced last night when they are stitching up Australian people who have worked hard their whole lives and imposing a punitive tax regime on them because they have had the temerity to be successful? As I said earlier, there will be a disproportionate effect from this. I can go out and invest in a listed property trust or any other listed asset that has illiquid assets in it, and the managers of that fund don't have this burden. That is a complete and utter disgrace, and the government should hang its head in shame. I am proud that as a coalition we are opposing this bill. 19:12 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash The first thing I want the Australian people to know is this: we have the actual minister responsible for this bill at the table, we have one Labor member and perhaps another one coming in that is on duty—maybe swapping over—but there's not one member here from the ruling party of Australia prepared to defend this legislation in the House tonight. That's why you're getting a running commentary from coalition members in the opposition. There were three things that happened before the election campaign. Firstly, the then Albanese opposition said: 'You have nothing to fear from electing a Labor government to this country's leadership, because we are not going to change the stage 3 tax situation at all. We're not going to change the tax.' Secondly, they said: 'We won't touch your superannuation. We won't go near your superannuation.' Thirdly, they said, 'In regard to COVID, we will have a royal commission into our COVID response.' What happened when the Prime Minister became Prime Minister? He failed on all three. There is no royal commission; he changed the superannuation arrangements, which he said he wouldn't change; and he changed the tax arrangements. I'm not here to argue with the Deputy Treasurer about whether this is fair, right or wrong. I'm only saying that they broke the trust of the Australian people, which they asked for before the election campaign. People voted for the Labor Party in good faith, in the full belief that there wouldn't be a change to superannuation. You may say, 'But this is only a change for wealthy people.' No, this is a change for people that have worked hard. I'll come in a minute to farmers and how this affects them. The important thing is this: when politicians present themselves to the Australian people and say, 'Here is our plan; if you elect us, this is what we will do,' we, the Australian people, expect they will do what they said they would do, not change the basic fundamental arguments that they raised within the election campaign. I'm not saying they're broken promises; they're broken trust agreements with the Australian people. Trust in politicians, in this nation and around the world, is at an all-time low. Go and talk to people in the street about what they think about politicians. I've been in and out of this place since 1990. I've faced 13 election campaigns. Sadly, four of them were unsuccessful. But I'm here, and I have a memory of Labor governments that took away from single mums their parental payment to care for their children. They cut the maximum age for it from 12 years of age to seven years of age. Then the Albanese government comes in, raises it from seven to 12 and says: 'Pat us on the back. Look what we've done for single mothers.' I was here when you took it away. I raised, time after time, that it's right that, when a child turns 12 and can get themselves off to school, mum can get out, get a job and get on with life, but, when children are seven years old, I think mums are very protective of them, especially single mums, and they have to make special arrangements if they're working. I said I'd talk about farmers, and I don't want to run out of time. Every time you're in the chair, Deputy Speaker Vasta, I tend to run out of time on very important issues, and I don't intend to do that tonight. From a farming perspective—and I'm from a farming electorate—many farmers use their self-managed super funds to secure and protect their assets, or whatever it is in their business, and pass them on to future generations. These are assets that have been built up over many years of hard work. Often these farmers have started out as share farmers on dairy farms. They've finally paid for their herd, and, after that, they started looking for an opportunity to put a deposit on a dairy farm. It's very difficult. It's very hard work, seven days a week, non-stop, with the whole family involved. I pay tribute to every farmer tonight, but, more importantly, I pay tribute to dairy farmers. If you drive up my driveway, Deputy Speaker—and I hope you do one day—and you just get near the house, you will notice two milk cans. Those milk cans aren't there because they're pretty; they're rusted, old and rotted in the bottom. But, every time I drive up my driveway, I remember that I come from a dairying community and our businesses, which were the original grocery store and then the drapery store, were born out of the money made on dairy farms. In those days, you could have a 40-acre dairy farm and buy a Holden every two years, and hopefully you shopped at Broadbent's. Having said that, I am reminded that, every time I drive up my driveway, my wife says, 'Get rid of the milk cans.' I can't get rid of the milk cans, because they're part of who I am. I come from a dairy community. Yes, those assets have been built up over many years. I commend the member for Nicholls, who spoke today on this bill, for his words of support for farmers in his electorate. I would have to echo the same sentiment so that we don't take for granted the sacrifice and risk that farmers and their families take to feed the nation. As the member for Forde said, they put food on the table. Milk doesn't come out of cartons and bottles; it comes out of cows. It comes out of sweat and hard work. Beef comes from grass-fed cattle, if you can afford grass-fed beef anymore. The cost of living is really putting some pressure on that. We haven't quite got to the stage of having a $100 leg of lamb, but, by gee, we're not far away. I remember the statement from the member for New England. This bill, like other policy themes under the Labor government, discourages farmers from doing their honourable work on our behalf. Worse, it disproportionately poses a serious threat to the next generation of farmers, which I'm sure the member for Forrest will bring up too. There's now enough of the next generation of farmers who don't want to continue on the farm because they know what their mums and dads have been through to get them to that point. They have always helped out on the farms, as all kids on farms do. They're helpers on the farm. It's been a family commitment. But, because they have seen how hard it is to make money on a farm today, they want to be doctors and lawyers and all those sorts of things, as the song goes. They don't necessarily want to be farmers. So you haven't got the family coming through saying, 'I want to be a farmer.' Under this proposal, if you make it even harder for farmers and the next generation, they're going to walk away. The next generation of farmers that do want to farm already feel abandoned by the government through policies such as committing to closing the live sheep export businesses. It sends a message: 'It's live sheep now. It's live cattle next. We're coming after you, and we're coming after farmers with all sorts of environmental restrictions that the previous generations never had to deal with.' The biosecurity levy is another one where the government is passing the buck on to farmers. Biosecurity is a responsibility for all of us, not just for farmers—every one of us. I've been through a stage where we had disease on farms and you couldn't walk onto a farm without washing your boots and you couldn't take your car onto the farm, just in case. You couldn't transfer tractors from one property to another, just in case you picked up something and took it onto the farm. Biosecurity is absolutely important. That's why I was against the importation of apples from New Zealand when there was a disease over there. We railed against it and pushed against it. What happened? The disease just snuck into Australia by chance. Now it's here, we have no objection to importing the apples from New Zealand. We should never have imported apples from New Zealand, and we should put up barriers for our own protection, our bioprotection, because what protects our food and our farmers protects us. What we eat is very important for our children. When I and other people my age were growing up, all the food that we ate came from within, probably, 10 kays of where we lived. You might have had some canned food now and again, but not a lot. There wasn't a lot around. Our food was seasonal, healthy and good for us. Milk didn't come in bottles; it came in a billy at the front gate, straight from the farm. Our bread was delivered by the bread man. It was a wonderful time to be alive, eating the freshest food created and grown on the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp. You couldn't ask for a better food source than the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp. I know that today all of you are still eating the asparagus that is grown in the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp and the potatoes that are grown in the rest of my electorate. That next generation of farmers are going to be offended by this. To put forward another position to the Deputy Treasurer: if you change the rules, you have to compensate the individual who is affected by that change of rules. That's called trust. You can say, 'Righto, if you've invested in your superannuation fund and it's over $3 million, we're going to change your taxation arrangements,' but at that point you should allow anybody to withdraw their funds from their superannuation and invest them in any way they would like, no matter what age they are, because you have changed the rules. If they want to invest it in property, in shares or in other forms of investment, do the right thing and let them. They said, 'Oh no, you can't do that,' because who's dominating? The big union superannuation funds are directing what they can and can't do. This government does not want self-managed superannuation funds. The big superannuation funds do not want self-managed superannuation funds. Those of us who do have a self-managed superannuation fund are being forced to have a digital identity. If we don't do it by 22 December last year, we will be fined $1.1 million. Really, why do my wife and I have to have a digital identity to run our own self-managed superannuation fund? It's crazy stuff. I can't imagine the regulation that is being put on this generation that previous generations never had to deal with. I mean, since the early eighties we have been paying capital gains tax. We're now paying land tax that we didn't pay before and that is increasing exponentially every year. I know that isn't a federal tax but it is affecting everything the federal government does because we have a rental crisis in Australia. Why do we have a rental crisis? Because landlords are selling their properties to people who are going to live in that property, so there are no rentals left. I have estate agents in country areas who are losing as many as 150 landlords every three months, then we have a rental crisis. Why do we have a rental crisis? Because state government policies are good for the renter and they establish the rights of the person renting the house. I grew up with caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. Let the Australian people make their own decisions on their own behalf. If you don't want to rent at that price, don't rent at that price. Rentals are being taken off the market, caused by government policy and only government policy. Look, it is sad where this nation is headed by people making regulations around our farmers, around our community and around superannuation that are not backed by common sense. It isn't until you have dirt under your fingernails that you would understand many of the issues that I'm talking about tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to address this parliament and the people of Australia. 19:27 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to commend the previous speaker for his contribution and also that of the Opposition Whip. What we have here is what they have both spoken about, another of Labor's broken promises. It is a very serious broken promise, as we have just heard from the previous speakers, because it actually undermines people's confidence in our superannuation system. What this does say to people, especially young people who are currently saving their superannuation, is don't bother adding to your super because successive Labor governments over the years will keep changing the rules whenever they choose, like they have done here. You can have no confidence in that superannuation system or what is currently on the table. If they are doing it now, they will do it again. Even the Prime Minister, as we know, said before the election, in very grave and seemingly sincere tones, 'My word is my bond.' Clearly, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Australian people when he gave that commitment because there has been a litany of broken promises. This is one and it is a very serious one. We saw the $275 cut and power bills based on the amount people were paying for power at the 2022 election. We saw so much said about cost of living and what those opposite would do about it, and what have we seen? The absolute opposite. The Prime Minister promised absolutely no change to the tax cuts. He also said he would retain Operation Sovereign Borders but remove the temporary protection visas, and reduce maritime and aerial surveillance as well. As I said, there is a litany of broken promises. We've heard Labor members in this chamber saying, 'The broken promise doesn't really matter; it only hurts a few people, so what does it matter?' Well, it does matter, and trust—or the lack thereof—does matter. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 106 ADJOURNMENT Budget 106 19:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Labor's betrayal budget is your cost-of-living pain. Labor is boasting about a surplus while people skip meals to pay the rent. So much for no-one being left behind! Labor's budget betrays renters, mortgage holders, students, disabled people and everyone doing it tough. Labor could have put in place a freeze and cap on rents; instead, they're leaving renters to rot in housing hell, offering only a quarter of renters up to an extra $1.30 a day, while average rents are set to go up by $46 a week. Three-quarters of renters get nothing but unlimited rent rises and a fraction of renters get only an extra dollar a day in rent assistance, while this budget gives the country's wealthy and property investors $1,290 every second. Labor could have ended tax handouts for wealthy property investors that are stopping renters from buying their first home; instead, there's $174½ billion in tax handouts for the wealthy and property investors. Labor could have made billionaires and big corporations pay more to fund dental into Medicare, make child care free and cancel all student debt, but to do so Labor would have had to have the guts to take on big corporations, and they simply don't. Instead, Labor decided to give every politician in this place and every billionaire a $4½ thousand dollar a year tax cut, while everyday people struggle. It is getting harder and harder to tell Liberal and Labor apart. People have every right to be angry about a budget that finds $764 billion for Defence but can't find a cent to raise the rate of JobSeeker or youth allowance. There's new money for tax cuts for politicians this year, but there's no new money for frontline services for women fleeing family and domestic violence. There's no new money for protecting the environment, and Labor is spending almost $50 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. There's money for the bad guys and bandaid answers for you. The Greens will move to amend the budget to stop the direct handouts to coal and gas and oil, handouts like the billions of dollars that Labor is a spending on the Middle Arm precinct in the Northern Territory—a big new gas factory that Labor is hell-bent on backing. What does this Labor government expect people to do—genuinely, what is it? What is a renter who's been slugged with another out-of-control rent increase supposed to do when Labor won't freeze rates? What is a student with a completely unaffordable HECS debt supposed to do when Labor won't wipe it or make uni free, like it was for the Prime Minister? What is a single mum, trying to escape a violent partner, supposed to do when Labor won't fund the critical frontline services for people experiencing violence? The crises that we're in—inequality, housing, climate—are caused and fuelled by Liberal and Labor, by their actions in government and their refusal to take on the billionaires and the big corporations. They're throwing people to the wolves to face the consequences, and when people ask for help what do they get? They get spin or scraps or nothing. No wonder people are fed up with politics. It's the government's responsibility to deliver a budget that makes our lives better. That's what we vote them in to do. Right now Labor could be making the choices to improve our lives, and once again they're choosing not to. We could have frozen rents, stopped the handouts for property investors and used those billions to build public housing, which everyone wants to live in. We could have taxed the big coal and gas corporations and used that money to deliver free child care while fully funding dental and mental health care as part of Medicare. Instead of handing billions of dollars to Defence corporations for nuclear submarines, while millions of people around this world are marching for peace, we could have lifted those on JobSeeker and youth allowance out of poverty. And that's not even mentioning the $4½ thousand a year tax cut that Labor handed politicians and billionaires, while everyday people skip meals just to pay rent. The housing, rental and cost-of-living crises are breaking people. We can't afford more of Labor's bandaid answers that make the problems worse. It's time to take on the big banks, the big corporations and the billionaires; to stop the price-gouging; and to make unlimited rent rises illegal. Steel Industry 106 19:35 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'm here to tell a concerning story from Whyalla at the moment. The residents are in consternation. There is an outage at the blast furnace at GFG Alliance's steelworks. I have been contacted by businesses that are concerned, because they were burnt by the collapse of Arrium some seven years ago and lost money. I've sought and received a briefing from GFG Alliance. They assured me they are committed to restarting the furnace as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the month, and getting it back into full production. They are, I have to say, in the best position to fix their furnace. They are experts in the field. Those others who have been offering advice to them probably will heed the fact that there is probably no better advice around than they can give themselves. However, there was an announcement from GFG today that the startup date for their replacement electric arc furnace has been pushed back by two years. That will unsettle the community. It absolutely underlines the importance of getting the current furnace back online. For the record, Australia produces 5.7 million tonnes of steel a year. Whyalla produces 1.2 million tonnes, or about 20 per cent of Australia's output. We import 2½ million tonnes of steel a year. So we are, while not self-sufficient, largely self-sufficient. The important point here is that Whyalla is the only steel platform in Australia that produces billet and heavy long products. By 'heavy long products', I mean structural steel—huge beams for bridges, multistorey buildings, stadiums, new docks, high-grade rail lines, skyscrapers. Whatever it is you want to build that's made of solid steel, that steel comes out of Whyalla. COVID and regional instability have, if nothing else, highlighted the absolute importance of us in Australia retaining sovereign capacity in a number of important areas, and steel is one of those. That is where Whyalla is essential to Australia's future. The population of Whyalla is 22,000. Its workforce is 8½ thousand, 5½ thousand of them permanent. Steelworkers make up 1,100 of that number, and with a multiplier effect of, say, 2½ or three to one, you can see how this industry is essential to the city. But it is not only essential to the city; it is much more than that: the Whyalla steelworks are essential to Australia's future. They must not only survive but thrive. We shouldn't kid ourselves that making anything in Australia, let alone steel, is easy at the moment. We have rampant electricity and gas prices. We have rising labour costs. We have the safeguard mechanism for major industries like steelmaking. We have increasing demand for employers to fund non-work-related benefits. Most of these imposts are driven by government policy, it must be said. The Treasurer talks about our rosy manufacturing future. Green steel in Whyalla is part of the story the Treasurer tells us about. But this is today's story, and today's story is of the here and now. Just so we know in this place: if traditional steel does not continue in Whyalla, then there will never be any hope of green steel getting out of the blocks. That's how important it is that this smelter be brought back online. I'm not suggesting that GFG Alliance will not bring it back online or that it will be beyond them, and I'm also not saying that governments should rush in and do something precipitously, but let me tell the chamber and the Australian people and the people of Whyalla that governments at every level need to be paying very close attention to what is going on in Whyalla at the moment with the steelworks. We need to keep our eye on the ball. I see the Assistant Treasurer at the desk nodding in agreement. He understands the steel industry. So it is important, and I'm here to tell the people of Whyalla that we here in Canberra will be keeping our eye on the ball. There is a lot of the budget that I don't like, but I am heartened by the announcement within it that there is $100 million to upgrade the rail from Tarcoola heading towards Kalgoorlie from 47 kilograms per metre to 60 kilograms. It won't be enough to do the whole job but it will do a substantial amount. AUSTRAC have always brought their rail out of Whyalla. Lingiari Electorate: Community Services 107 19:40 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari It gives me great pleasure to talk about the important work being done in my electorate, particularly by Bosom Buddies NT. Formed in 2001, this Alice Springs based cancer support group has worked tirelessly across my electorate of Lingiari to promote breast cancer awareness and to improve access to breast-screening services, particularly for Aboriginal women living in the Northern Territory's regional, remote and very remote communities. Research shows that regular screening is the most effective way to detect breast cancer and to improve survival rates for women aged 50 to 70 years. While survival rates continue to improve in Australia, the harsh reality is that breast cancer remains the most common cancer experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. It is the second-largest cause of death, after lung cancer. Access to mammography-screening services in my electorate is limited due to the vast distances many women must travel. Women in my electorate living in remote communities shouldn't be deprived of quality health care because of where they live. In 2011, Bosom Buddies NT worked with my predecessor Warren Snowdon to secure much-needed funds to purchase and fit out a mobile mammography-screening unit. The screening technology used in this unit was upgraded in 2020 with new digital radiography equipment, to ensure that high-quality screening services continue to be available to the most vulnerable members of my electorate. My office is now helping Bosom Buddies NT to secure funds to replace the truck and its accessories, which have come to the end of their asset life after 10 years of service. I have to acknowledge the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, and his office in terms of the productive conversations that we've been having on that. Since commencing operations, this unit has screened over 9,600 women Territory-wide through the communities of Belyuen, Warruwi, Maningrida, Galiwinku, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Jabiru, Katherine, Mataranka, Elliott, Tennant Creek and Wadeye. Accessing this vital service would have been so much more difficult had this state-of-the-art mobile unit not been in place. I commend to the House the important work of Bosom Buddies NT, and place on the record my deep appreciation for the critical support this group provides to Central Australian residents, particularly those affected by a diagnosis of breast cancer, through health education health education and cancer prevention. There's another organisation doing so much in my electorate. Often, we can stand in this chamber and there's a lot of doom and gloom, but I want to quickly touch on an organisation in Katherine, Kalano Community Association. Kalano is an Aboriginal owned organisation doing fantastic work and providing many great services. Recently, I visited them with Minister Linda Burney and my colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. It was a pleasure to visit Kalano. It does a wide range of work in the community, including case management, supporting young people needing help with health, legal, family, employment, finance or accommodation issues. They're also supporting people to tackle alcohol and drug use issues, and those managing depression and anger to do so in healthy ways. They're teaching young people to cope with the daily stresses of everyday life, to begin a new journey and to prepare for re-entering society and returning home. I certainly want to acknowledge the CEO, Alan Mole, and all the staff. They are providing an amazing array of services. When I went with Minister Linda Burney we saw young kids making swags who were going through a police diversion program. They were starting to re-engage and to have productive lives. What we need to do with a lot of our young people in some of our regions is to try and divert these young men and women to employment activities to be able to lead productive lives and to earn a living. That's part of what is happening in Kalano with the Real Jobs program that Minister Burney is rolling out, and I think it's offering hope to young people, particularly in communities like Katherine. They're just two examples of organisations that are doing a fantastic job in my electorate. Budget 108 19:45 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser It's often said in this place—and I believe, accurately—that budgets are about priorities. This budget reflects this government's priority, which is to provide people in the community with assistance in relation to the cost-of-living pressures that they're experiencing. This government understands that people are expressing cost-of-living pressures across a range of fronts. I understand that as a local member who hears about these concerns every day. The centrepiece of our measures to deal with cost-of-living pressures is the set of tax cuts that will benefit every single taxpayer in the country. If you look at somebody on $45,000, the amended tax cuts, as taken to the parliament through this budget, will give an $800 benefit, compared to what had previously been a zero benefit. If you look at somebody on the average income of just over $70,000, they will benefit by $1,500 through our tax cuts, which is more than $800 greater than the tax cuts that would have been the case. Eighty-seven per cent of taxpayers in my electorate will be better off, and they need this assistance. Another major benefit that this budget provides is $300 to all households for their energy bills. But there are many, many other elements as well, which I won't have time to run through. There's fee-free TAFE and cheaper medicines. Over $1.8 million has already gone through cheaper medicines to people in my electorate. Then there are HECS debt benefits, which will benefit more than 25,000 people in my electorate. So there are many measures that will provide people with cost-of-living relief. But budgets aren't just about priorities. Budgets are about delivering priorities in a way that is responsible and sustainable, and that's what this budget does, building on two previous budgets in the same vein. If we look at the trajectory of inflation over the last two years, we inherited inflation with a six in front of it, and it was inflation that was rising. Inflation in monthly terms peaked at a level just above eight per cent, but since then, since late 2022, it has been tracking steadily down and now has a three in front of it. So inflation has come down materially, and that is helping the people in my electorate and right around the country. Importantly, while the reduction in inflation has been achieved, we have seen a strong labour market. Unemployment has remained lower than many had feared, and that is absolutely critical for maintaining the welfare of households. But all that we have achieved, all the cost-of-living benefits that I outlined earlier, is being achieved in the context of a very strong budget position. We have delivered a second budget surplus in a row, $9.3 billion. It's the first time in almost two decades that consecutive surpluses have been delivered. Our responsible economic management has seen the budget position improve by a forecast $215 billion over the six years to 2027-28 compared to the time of the election. This is serious structural reform being achieved at the same time that we are delivering much needed cost-of-living relief. It comes through in practical ways that households understand. There's going to be an $80 billion reduction in debt payments from the Commonwealth over the next 10 years. These are dollars that can be devoted to our care economy and investing in the future that otherwise would have been devoted to one of the fastest areas of government expenditure under the previous government—a waste under the previous government. It's something that is being tamed under the serious, sensible and methodical economic management of this government. Savings have been achieved through careful budget work by all of our economic team and the government as a whole. Again, if you look at the achievements of this government, they stand in stark contrast to those opposite. There is $27.9 billion in savings and reprioritisations in just this budget alone, compared to zero dollars in the final budget of the previous government. And finally, budgets aren't just about economically responsible management today; they're about a vision for the future. Again, this budget provides that in spades. It provides serious investment in our clean energy transition. It provides serious investment in supply chain resilience. It provides serious investment in green hydrogen, in moving up the value chain of critical minerals. So on all of these accounts—having the right priorities, being sensible and having a vision for the future—this budget ticks all of the boxes. Live Animal Exports 109 19:50 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise this evening to discuss the government's announcement last Saturday to put a closure date on the live sheep trade, which predominantly emanates from my electorate in the seat of O'Connor. Many members here, and probably you more than most, Mr Speaker, over the last couple of years would have heard me talk, like a broken record, about how important this industry is to my electorate, to my people. I'm sure you are thoroughly sick of hearing my opinion on this, so tonight I thought I'd relay the opinions of the Western Australian Premier, Mr Roger Cook, who was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying: I have been clear right from the start: their plan will negatively impact our regional communities in WA. Our position has been consistent. Their announcement today is simply not good enough. That was Mr Roger Cook, the Premier of Western Australia, in the Sunday Times. Moving to today's West Australian, the story here is: 'State Agriculture Minister Jackie Jarvis blasts Murray Watt over live sheep export ban in scathing letter'. The story says, 'The relationship between state agriculture minister Jackie Jarvis and her federal counterpart Murray Watt appears to be in tatters, with Ms Jarvis telling the Queensland senator his decision over live export "has not been in the interest of Western Australia and it is difficult to see how we can work together collaboratively".' She goes on to say: 'I believe your announcement has added to the negative sentiment of the WA sheep industry at the worst possible time. Given your decision and subsequent package is not in the interest of WA, it is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively.' That was the Western Australian agriculture minister—a Labor agriculture minister for those who aren't aware. What Ms Jarvis would have been referring to there is the fact that the Western Australian seasonal conditions have deteriorated considerably since we were last here in this place five weeks ago. The state minister stood up a drought response committee and there are serious issues developing on farms. We have had some patchy rain over the Western Australian Wheatbelt and Great Southern and down into the South West regions, but certainly not enough to say that we have got the season off to a good start. There is no rain forecast for the next seven days, and things are getting quite desperate on farms. The reason the live export trade is critical to this particular issue is that it is an outlet, it is a safety valve for Western Australia farmers to remove large numbers of sheep from their properties at times like this, when they desperately need to get rid of those sheep. Supplementary feeding prices, grain prices have gone through the roof. Abattoir capacity is fully booked. And those lightweight sheep that Western Australia farmers would normally put on a boat will not be able to be shipped as we come up to the moratorium. The WA ag minister has requested, as have I, that Minister Watt extend that shipping period from 1 June for a few weeks to let us get one, maybe two more boats out. That's 100,000 sheep. That would take a lot of pressure off. A constituent of mine sent me a text message the other day: there were 11 road trains at the Northam roadhouse loaded with sheep that are being trucked to the east coast. That is how we're currently desperately trying to get rid of sheep out of Western Australia. These are very desperate times for the WA sheep industry, and, along with Minister Jarvis and Premier Cook, I do condemn Minister Watt on the timing of his announcement. It could not have been more insensitive, making this announcement at a time when the Western Australia sheep industry is on its knees. Now, unsurprisingly, this has provoked absolute outrage among the Western Australia growers. I know there are many farmer groups, farmer organisations, who are mobilising themselves to oppose this particular policy. They seem to be coalescing under the hashtag #keepthesheep. This campaign is being run by some of the farm organisations in WA. I know that they're standing up quite a sophisticated campaign which will target members of parliament who do not support the live sheep trade out of Western Australia. So I foreshadow that, over the next little while, people will hear the slogan or the phrase, 'Keep the sheep,' over and over again. I'll be repeating it in this particular place as often as I can to remind people that the Western Australian sheep industry are on their knees but they are prepared to stand and fight and they are prepared to put the hard yards in to either change the government's mind or, if that's not the case, change the five seats that the Labor Party won in Western Australia at the last election. So #keepthesheep. Australian Sheep and Wool Show, Bendigo Easter Festival 110 19:55 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I have just a quick note for the member of O'Connor. Some of the sheep from his electorate have arrived in my electorate, and they are being very well looked after. We also have sheep in my part of the world. We, in fact, have the Australian Sheep and Wool Show, at which I'm sure this will be a topic. What I really wanted to speak about today was our Easter festivals in Bendigo. We have some of the longest continuous Easter festivals in central Victoria. The Bendigo Easter Festival celebrated its 150th year a few years ago. It's a great long weekend that we have in Bendigo. Ever since we've had an Easter festival, we've had the involvement of our Bendigo Chinese Association and our much loved dragons. This year at our Easter Festival, we had a very special celebration. We celebrated the 150th anniversary of Australia's first women's cricket match. That's right—the first women's cricket match happened in Bendigo. It was part of the Bendigo Easter fair. This year was the reenactment of that very special first event. The teams were called the Blues and the Reds, the Blues being captained by Barbara Rae and the Reds being captained by her sister, Emily Rae. The Blues ended up winning the day, and their captain, Barbara, was a top scorer. At the time, women's cricket, as you can imagine, 150 years ago did cause controversy, not just in the town of Bendigo but throughout Victoria and Australia. Barbara was to be presented with a special bat that evening, but due to the mixed reaction of the community she didn't attend. This year on Good Friday, I'm proud to say, on the 150th anniversary, her great-granddaughter Diane Robertson was there to receive the special bat on behalf of her ancestor 150 years later. It's a true testament to the women who re-enacted the match—the T20 game between Bendigo and Ballarat. It was a real moment to acknowledge how far we've come in women's sport and to celebrate that all men and women can play cricket if they choose to. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the City of Greater Bendigo and the Bendigo Historical Society to make this event happen. We are so proud of our history in Bendigo. At every Easter festival, we always find something new to celebrate, and this was, very much, well worth celebrating and enjoyed by many. The other thing I wanted to mention today is our much loved dragons, who are always the grand finale in our Easter parades: Loong, who is over 120 years old; Sun Loong, who is the longest imperial dragon in the world, paraded for 50 years; and our newest dragon, Dai Gum Loong. Generations have cheered on and celebrated our dragons. I was there this year with my partner, his father and my children celebrating the dragons. Geoff Emond has been going to the parade since he was a boy in Bendigo. He went there with his grandparents and parents, so that is five generations of our family who've enjoyed the dragons. But I have a very sad note to report to the House. People in this place know how much I share the love that Bendigo has for our dragons. Sun Loong was vandalised earlier this week. People came into the Golden Dragon Museum, where he lives, and sprayed an oily substance onto this heritage dragon. The police are investigating, but they estimate the damage to Sun Loong, which is a heritage dragon—one of a kind in the world—and other artefacts to be close to $100,000. We're also not sure whether the damage can be reversed, and we do hope it can. We know that the police are investigating and they're looking at all angles as to why people would be motivated to target not just our dragons but other monuments, statues, temples, artefacts and stoneworks within the Golden Dragon Museum. I know that this news is quite shocking not just to the people of Bendigo but to the entire Australian Chinese community. Generations of Chinese Australians have made the pilgrimage to Bendigo to be part of our Easter celebrations. So we stand together to condemn this act of vandalism and do hope that police bring about a swift arrest in this case. We also say to the Golden Dragon Museum: we stand with you and we will see Sun Loong parade again. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 110 NOTICES Presentation 110

Wednesday, 15 May 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 112 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Energy: Taxation 112 09:30 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong One day our children and grandchildren will look back at how we have taxed fossil fuel companies in Australia and see it as the complete joke that it is. Our main fossil fuel tax collects $88 per person per year. In Norway the fossil fuel tax collects $16,500 per citizen per year. Australia collects more from its beer excise than it does from its fossil fuel taxes. We spend way more on subsidies to coal and gas companies than we collect from the PRRT, our main fossil fuel tax. Australian taxpayers are now subsidising fossil fuel companies to the tune of $14.5 billion every year; that's an increase of 31 per cent even just from last year. As taxpayers we help multinational fossil fuel companies more than they help us. This is happening while those companies are making record profits from our country's natural resources. Petroleum revenue has grown in real terms from $10 billion in 1990 to $49 billion today. But our fossil fuel intake has more than halved in real terms. According to last night's budget, last year we made $1.1 billion from our PRRT. The gas industry used to pay more than a third of its income in tax and in royalties. It's now one-fifteenth of that income. All the while, climate change is accelerating. April 2024 was the hottest April on record. March 2024 was the hottest March on record. So too was February 2024. In fact, for the last 11 months every single month has been the hottest on record ever. Climate scientists tell us that opening new fossil fuel projects is disastrous. Eighty per cent believe that we will not escape global warming beyond three degrees. We should be leading the world in our investment in solar farms and in wind farms, but instead this government is approving new coal projects and new gas fields. This government is listening more to coal and fuel lobbyists than to climate scientists, and we are failing our future generations because of that. It is a national embarrassment. It reflects a short-sightedness that would devastate our country, and it is an issue that we have to address as a matter of urgency. Anzac Day 112 09:33 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt On 25 April we gathered across Australia to honour the spirit of our Anzacs. It is a day etched into the fabric of our collective memory—a day of remembrance, reflection and reverence for the sacrifices made by the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force. As we stand here united, we pay homage to those who courageously defended our freedom, our democracy and our way of life. On the morning of Anzac Day I had the privilege of attending the dawn service organised by the Hampton Park Progress Association. This service, borne out of a small group of passionate community members, has blossomed into a moving tribute to our fallen heroes. The dawn service commemorates the stand-to in which troops would be woken so that by the first rays of dawn they were in position in case of an enemy attack. The service was imbued with poetry, speeches from esteemed community leaders and a heartfelt stand-to by our local cadets. I was deeply moved to sing our national anthem and recite the ode, honouring the sacrifices of those who have gone before us. I later joined the midday service hosted by the Dandenong-Cranbourne RSL. The parade down High Street Cranbourne was a steering display of unity, with banners held high by representatives from across our community. It was heartening to witness the presence of so many young faces from across my electorate, standing shoulder to shoulder with us in remembrance. Their participation underscores the enduring significance of Anzac Day, ensuring that the torch of remembrance is passed on to future generations, for it is through their understanding and appreciation that we ensure the sacrifices of our fallen heroes are never forgotten. I concluded Anzac Day in the southern reaches of my electorate, in Tooradin, on the invitation of Tooradin football club and Warrant Officer Cameron Devenny of HMAS Cerberus. Here, amidst the echoes of artillery and the solemn ranks of military personnel, the crowd at Tooradin football club reaffirmed our commitment to honouring the legacy of our ANZACs. Anzac Day is only one day of the year, but let us carry forward the ANZAC spirit in our hearts, cherishing the values of courage, mateship and sacrifice. Lest we forget. Hughes Electorate: Local Industries 112 09:35 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My electorate of Hughes has some fabulous local industries operating in an innovative and entrepreneurial way to address our current pollution and environmental sustainability challenges as well as support our construction sector. I will speak, first of all, about Cleanaway at Lucas Heights. Lucas Heights is one of the three major landfill waste sites in Sydney. It services red-bin waste for almost the entire Sydney area, processing around 970,000 tonnes of waste per year. When at capacity, the landfill site will eventually be transitioned and repurposed into parkland. Environmentally innovative, Cleanaway is capturing about 90 per cent of the methane gas from the landfill site. The methane gas is then being processed into electricity on site by EDL. That's right: at Lucas Heights, we are doing waste-to-energy conversion. This is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and providing energy to around 25,000 households per year. Shire Steel & Fabrication at Kirrawee commenced operation in 1999, led by one of our locals, Russell Lewis. He now employs more than 30 people between his factories at Kirrawee and also down in Coniston in the Illawarra area. He has recently brought on an additional six apprentices. The company has an in-house draftsman and does the fabrication, welding, drilling, prime painting and delivery of any steel product needed by the construction industry as it builds the houses of the future. Russell particularly supports our local industry, but his business is also known as the steel supermarket of Sydney. Shire Steel & Fabrication is one of the many courageous small businesses within my community employing locals, with Russell putting his own capital on the line and demonstrating again why small business is the backbone of our community and our country. Tacca industries at Moorebank is a business that started over 30 years ago. It's a family business, and I recently met with the CEO, Damian Tacca. Tacca manufactures plastics particularly for food packaging. Arnott's Tim Tam trays are a particular favourite. It also supplies containers to Woolworths, My Muscle Chef, the Cheesecake Shop and Darrell Lea. Tacca has a great history. It started manufacturing trays for peaches for a local peach orchard and continues to supply mum-and-dad businesses as customers—local bakeries, for example, who need small quantities of trays for cakes. It employs 100 people in Moorebank and has a factory in the Philippines where it also employs over 100 people. More importantly, in days when the plastic industry often has a challenging reputation, Tacca has been innovative, focusing on recycling plastic material for its products. It now recycles almost 80 per cent of its plastic products. To conclude, Cleanaway and EDL, Shire Steel & Fabrication and Tacca industries are three great innovative businesses. Einfeld, Emeritus Professor Stewart 113 09:38 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Last week in Campbelltown, in my electorate of Macarthur, I attended the dedication of a sensory room to Stewart Einfeld, emeritus professor at the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney. The sensory room is in the infant, child and adolescent mental health service, where many children with complex mental health problems are seen. The room was funded by donations, mostly raised by the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation. The dedication was attended by many of my health colleagues, and it was a great day. Emeritus Professor Einfeld is a friend and colleague who, over many years, has provided help and support in the management of children and adolescents with intellectual disability and complex mental health disorders. Stewart has research and teaching interests in child and adolescent psychiatry, developmental disabilities and their genetic causes, and autism. He has many publications and is the co-developer of the Developmental Behaviour Checklist, which is widely used around the world in clinical and research settings and has been translated into 21 languages. He's the co-investigator of the Australian child to adult development study, the ACAD study, which is a 20-year project funded by the NHMRC and is widely recognised around the country as a wonderful research project. Stewart is retiring from clinical practice, and I express my gratitude for the help and support that he's provided to my patients and their families over many, many years. Some of these patients are among the most difficult cohort of children to manage in paediatric practice, with problems like genetic disorders such as Prader-Willi syndrome, fragile X syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, severe intellectual disability and non-verbal autism, autism with self-injury, and aggressive and violent behaviour in people with intellectual disability. Stewart's advice was always measured, accurate and compassionate. He well understands the social determinants of health and is always supportive of families with huge burdens upon them. I express my utmost gratitude to Stewart and wish him well in the next phase of his life. I will forever remember his advice and his very cogent help for some of the very distressed families that I have seen with children that are incredibly difficult to manage. I don't think that I've ever met anyone who has been as compassionate and as supportive as Stewart in managing some of these extremely difficult children and adolescents. I will miss his really wonderful support to these families and wonderful support to my paediatric practice, as will many of my paediatric colleagues. No-one has given support to us in this field like Stewart Einfeld, and he is a real icon of child and adolescent psychiatry in this country. He well understands the intersection of intellectual disability and autism and other genetic disorders, and I thank him for his help. (Time expired) Shelly, Ms Brooke 113 09:41 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Today I rise to highlight a shining example of professional excellence and commitment to regional health in my electorate of Mallee. Brooke Shelly, from Mildura, has been awarded the 2024 Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, PSA, Monthly Index of Medical Specialties, famously known as MIMS, Credentialed Pharmacist of the Year award. Brooke was also recognised as a finalist in the 2023 Victorian Rural Health Awards. As it happens, Brooke also works at my husband's general practice in Mildura, and the large team at the Ontario Medical Clinic have been very aware of her capability since she began as the in-house pharmacist as part of the GP pilot program. Brooke's dedication exemplifies the critical role pharmacists play in our healthcare system, particularly in rural areas where healthcare professionals often wear many hats and are the backbone of our health care. Brooke's work, which focuses on regional communities and multidisciplinary approaches, underscores why pharmacists across Australia, especially in the regions, need better funding and support. While the achievements of individuals such as Brooke Shelly are impressive, last night's budget has offered not one sign of sustainability to her and others like her. Recently, the Nationals successfully campaigned for an additional $3 billion in funding for Australian pharmacies—a testament to our commitment to strengthening healthcare services across regional, rural and remote Australia. Labor's original policy and myopic pharmacy dispensing change failed to consider the profound consequences it would have on regional communities in the thin markets and workforce shortages. As the shadow assistant minister for regional health, I see the crisis in healthcare access in regional Australia. By doubling the dispensing interval, Labor's policy threatened the viability of local regional pharmacies—sometimes the only point of medical contact for locals. As I applaud the achievements of Brooke Shelly, the government needs to support pharmacists with policies that help her and everyone like her serve their communities. The Nationals have demonstrated their commitment through action. It is high time the Labor government did the same. Rabey, Ms Natalie, Chisholm Electorate: Rinoldi 114 09:44 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I'm here today to pay tribute to Natalie Rabey, a selfless and fierce community advocate who passed away on 16 March. Natalie was a wonderful, generous woman. She was devoted to helping others and was a dedicated volunteer in the Chadstone community. Natalie was a founding member of the Ashburton, Ashwood and Chadstone Public Tenants Group and had served as its chairperson since 2012. She was a board member of the Victorian Public Tenants Association, and she was on the committee of the Power Neighbourhood House in Ashwood. Natalie was an incredible advocate for people in public housing. I was inspired deeply by her tenacity, kindness and real care for our community. She was a true leader in our community. She made an incredible contribution to the lives of so many people in Chadstone, Ashburton, Ashwood and the surrounding suburbs through her strong advocacy. My love and thoughts are with Natalie's family at this difficult time, including her children, Penny, Michael, Leah and David; her grandchildren; and her many friends in our community. Natalie will be greatly missed. Vale, Natalie. For those cooking pasta for dinner tonight, they may just be adding a little bit of Chisholm to their dish. Rinoldi pasta was founded in 1878 and is located in beautiful Mulgrave. Rinoldi pasta continues to operate as a family business, employing locals and creating amazing products, such as Vetta pasta, made from 100 per cent responsibly-grown Australian durum wheat. Rinoldi is more than just a pasta company, though. They have a long history of giving back to the community and engaging in sustainable farming practices. I'm so proud to have them in my electorate. I recently visited the factory, and I'd like to deeply thank Bill Quayle and his amazing team for showing me around the facility and giving me a glimpse into what home-grown manufacturing looks like and what a future made in Australia looks like. Of course, our government will always back Australian industry and good local jobs in the food and other industries. Our government understands that businesses like Rinoldi are core to not only creating great pasta—and, as someone of Italian descent, I know great pasta—but also creating secure, well-paying jobs for Australian workers. It was wonderful to meet so many local workers when I recently visited Rinoldi in Mulgrave. Cyclone Debbie 114 09:47 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to highlight a fantastic event that just happened in my electorate of Dawson. With swords drawn, with bayonets fixed, with drums beating, with the band playing and with banners flying high, 150 soldiers from the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Trotter, marched down the main street of Airlie Beach to exercise their right of entry to the Whitsundays. They were challenged by the police officer in charge, Simon Wiley, who checked the warrant and allowed entry. They marched on past Brigadier David McCammon, who took their salute; marched on further; conducted a parade; and then dispersed throughout the community. We then listened to a fantastic address by Mayor Ry Collins from the Whitsunday Regional Council and spent time with the troops. On 28 March 2017, Tropical Cyclone Debbie made landfall just north of Airlie Beach. It was a high category 4, with gusts reaching high category 5. It was Queensland's most costly cyclone, and, because it was so slow moving, it was ever so devastating. The emergency service personnel, the SES and the council did an amazing job; a fantastic job. However, there was so much damage that we needed more help. So, 48 hours later, Brigadier Chris Field and Lieutenant Colonel Jen Harris arrived with the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment—fantastic support. The office helped us with logistics, and the troops started cutting their way into things. We had no water, no power, no sewerage and very little in the way of communications. The 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment moved debris and cut down trees so we could get in and fix those valuable assets. Such was the job they did that my council—I was the mayor of the Whitsundays at the time—supported by the whole community, ordered that the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment could have the freedom of the city, freedom of the Whitsundays. They were granted that on 10 November 2017 and they exercised that right just recently. It was an amazing event. To all the people from the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment: thank you so much from the bottom of my heart and from all the communities of the Whitsundays. You're always welcome. We salute you. Meals on Wheels 115 09:50 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Just recently in this building we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Meals on Wheels. I was very proud to co-sponsor the event with my parliamentary colleague and co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Meals on Wheels, the member for Parkes. The Speaker and many members of parliament attended the event to honour Meals on Wheels. We all have Meals on Wheels in our electorates. We know how hard they work and how important they are to our community, and it was great to commemorate this significant milestone. Meals on Wheels eagerly helps and assists people. In many cases, when they deliver someone a meal it is the only contact that person will have that day or for the next couple of days. They do great work in our community and have been doing that great work for many, many years, obviously. Rooted in a tradition of compassion and dedication, Meals on Wheels was founded by Doris Taylor MBE over 70 years ago, and countless individual volunteers around the country have fuelled its mission over the decades. The team's collective vision and passion have guided and shaped the organisation's impactful presence in the lives of many. A couple of weeks ago I met with the South Australian Meals on Wheels team in my electorate and spoke to them about their efforts and what they're doing in my neck of the woods. They're doing very important work, and they want to do more work through diversifying as well. Most importantly, they provide a service to people who for whatever reason can't provide a meal for themselves. As I said, sometimes it's that person's only contact, so it's not just a meal that's being provided but also the contact with another human being. Often they're the first port of call if something has gone wrong and someone doesn't answer the door. We have all gone out with Meals on Wheels in our electorates—I can see members here nodding—and seen firsthand the great work that they do. Recently, I went out with the Meals on Wheels team in my former electorate of Hindmarsh, which covers the CBD. We did a morning of rounds, and I saw how cheerful people were to get the knock on their door, have a chat and get their meal for that day. Spending the day with the team reminded me what a difference this service makes to people's lives. Many constituents I've spoken to in the past are either beneficiaries of Meals on Wheels or volunteers with Meals on Wheels. They provide such a great service. I look forward to supporting Meals on Wheels, as does everyone here, in South Australia in the future. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 115 09:53 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson May marks Domestic Violence Awareness Month. This is a time when we come together to shine a spotlight on a pervasive issue that affects the lives of far too many people in our community. Domestic violence is an issue that affects every single one of us. Whether it's because of the impacts personally or because of the impacts on a family member, a friend or an acquaintance, it's something that affects every single one of us. This is a problem that Australians must come together to solve. In our own backyard the reports and statistics on domestic violence are sobering. Tragically, many, many women have lost their lives over the years. I should say that women are not the only victims of domestic violence; there are men who are victims of domestic violence as well. However, the overwhelming number of people who are affected by domestic violence are women. But the solutions are equally applicable, in my view, to both men and women. For every single life that has been lost, there is a family that has been shattered, a family that will not be able to recover, and a community that has been torn apart. This is definitely something that I believe is beyond politics, and there is a requirement for all of us to come together to try and resolve these issues. One of the most pressing issues is that of coercive control, which is a prolonged and sustained form of domestic abuse, often that no-one else sees. It's very complex in its nature, and no two cases are generally the same. I understand that in a meeting of the Council of Attorneys-General last year, it was agreed that legislation was required to combat its effect, and a number of the states and territories have actually already taken action to deal with this very insidious crime. But it's something that we must continue to work together on. There is not a simple fix for it. It is an issue that is going to take a long time, and it's something that we need to continuously take steps to deal with. On the Gold Coast, I recently met with Simone Patterson who is the founder of the Sanctuary Women, Children, and Pets Refuge. The sanctuary don't receive any government funding. They rely very heavily on donations from the community. They are in the position now where they have had to turn away people because they just do not have the facilities to take them. This is actually quite a unique facility because it takes women and it takes boys over 12 years of age and it also takes pets. I call on us all to support doing all we can to solve this problem. (Time expired) Budget 116 09:57 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to supporting families in Melbourne's northern suburbs. We've been listening and we are acting, making a difference today and working to secure a fairer, more prosperous future, including through the Schools Upgrade Fund, which has been delivering $48 million in vital infrastructure projects to Victorian public schools, like Findon Primary School in Mill Park. I was so thrilled to announce over $400,000 to upgrade toilet facilities at Findon, having met often with school leaders who have been diligently advocating for this change for some time, including writing very persuasive letters to their principal, Anita, to the state member and to myself. I want to thank them, those students past and current, for all of their efforts and say how proud I am of the leadership they have already demonstrated. I've also had the chance in recent days to visit Norris Bank Primary School in Bundoora, where they've received more than $900,000 to upgrade playground equipment, surfaces and shade sails. I look forward, later on, to visiting Merriang Special Developmental School to announce a significant investment there, again of nearly a million dollars. This school is doing great things to support people with disability in our community. We recognise that we need not only a first-class education system in terms of outcomes but also one that's equitable in every respect so that all young people get the best opportunities in life. With that in mind, I was so pleased in last night's budget to see the investment in our early educators and carers, who play such a fundamental and foundational role. This was part of a budget that the Treasurer released which really is for all Australians, with a clear focus on helping everyone with managing the cost of living, such as through increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistant, which will mean over 6,000 households in the Scullin electorate will benefit. These cost-of-living measures are carefully designed and calibrated so that we are taking the pressure off families while also reducing inflation, as with the $3.5 billion in energy bill relief for all Australian households. The people in Scullin will be receiving a rebate of $300. By tackling the cost of living, we are also tackling headline inflation. This is, again, a budget that will see people through difficult times, staring down the challenges and ensuring we seize the opportunities of the future. Again, this is a government that's committed to helping every Australian with the pressures of the cost of living. Our tax cuts will mean that every worker in the northern suburbs will have more money in their pocket come tax time. In the Scullin electorate, nine in 10 people will be better off under these tax cuts, compared to those proposed by the Liberals. This is a critical part of an economic plan for Australia and for every Australian, particularly those in Melbourne's north. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the minister. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 116 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Yixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ashlee, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 116 10:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for giving us this opportunity to talk about something that happened about a month ago now at the Bondi Junction shopping centre. While it's in the electorate of Wentworth, the shopping centre serves the electorate of Sydney and the people who live there as well, and it really does feel like these events of a month ago impacted our whole Sydney community. The deaths of these shoppers as they were just going about their ordinary lives, out on a Saturday doing the sorts of things that any Australian would be doing on a Saturday—doing the grocery shopping, picking up a gift, going to work—really have brought home to so many of us the fact that life is precious and life is uncertain and that any one of us could face an extraordinary event like this with no warning. As the member for Wentworth said yesterday in her contribution, all of us will remember exactly where we were when this news began to come through. I remember seeing the first reports about a stabbing at Bondi Junction shopping centre. The fact that it was a woman made me think immediately that perhaps there was an element of domestic violence to the attack. As it turns out, it was a much more complex situation than that. In fact, a number of lives were lost—Yixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia, Ashlee Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young; all of them lost their lives—and many others were injured. Inspector Amy Scott rushed to the scene and, uncertain whether she was facing a single attacker or a coordinated attack from multiple attackers, confronted and shot the perpetrator in what can only be described as a heroic act of bravery. There were the incredible actions of bystanders who rushed to keep others safe, putting their own safety at risk by providing a physical barrier to stop this attacker from moving through the shopping centre. There were others who provided immediate medical assistance. In particular, French nationals Damien Guerot and Silas Despreaux and security guard Muhammad Taha rushed to keep others safe. I wanted to reflect for a moment in particular on the parents who lost their lives in this attack, because it really made me, as a mother, think at the time—as would a father—that your whole appetite for risk changes. People who used to think it was a great idea to go skydiving for their birthday suddenly understand that it's their responsibility to drive safely, look after their health and reduce the risks in their lives because they want to be there to see their children grow up. To have Ashlee Good, the mother of a nine-month-old baby, killed in this way, her final act to protect her baby; and Jade Young, mother of two children, to lose her life in this way just doing the most ordinary thing that you can imagine—going to the shops on a Saturday—is particularly, particularly heartbreaking. Every death here is a tragedy. I know that my community have felt it very keenly. Many of my constituents went to the candlelight vigil, as I did, to express their horror at this senseless attack. But I'm particularly thinking of those children growing up without mothers because of the actions of this absolutely senseless attack. The final thing I wanted to say to the family of everyone of the people who lost their lives in this attack is that the thoughts and support and love of our whole Australian community goes out to you. The fact that the Australian parliament can express that to you, I think, is important for the nation. We do that on behalf of the nation. But particularly to those children who are going to grow up without a parent because of this, I really am thinking of you and all of our hearts go out to you. 10:07 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I just wanted to rise very briefly to add the coalition's sentiment to what the minister just outlined in terms of this condolence motion for the very sad events that occurred at Bondi Junction a short month ago. As a former Sydneysider myself, I spent a lot of time in Bondi and in the Wentworth electorate. I have many, many friends there. I've shopped at Bondi Junction myself—a thriving community in the eastern suburbs of Sydney—and I didn't want this motion to end without having a final say in terms of thoughts from the coalition and from the good people of the Gold Coast as well. I'd like to add our thoughts and sentiments to the families that are left behind to grieve this terrible loss, but also to commend those who were so brave to move forward and to protect those who were just going about their daily business in Bondi Junction, as the minister outlined—just shopping, about to be married. It's very sad when you think about those people who are left behind that now have to grieve, and our thoughts and prayers are with those and the community of Wentworth, in Bondi Junction in particular, who have lost loved ones. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 There being no further speakers, I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the Federation Chamber. 10:09 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 118 BILLS Digital ID Bill 2024, Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 118

Digital ID Bill 2024

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 118 10:10 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise today in support of the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill as brought to the House by the honourable Minister for Finance. This bill is part of the Digital ID Bill package. This legislation is long overdue. Way back in 2014, the Australian government's financial system inquiry raised concerns with the lack of a cohesive approach to identity verification. It also recommended the establishment of a federated and regulated model of trusted digital identification. The former coalition government, under prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison, ignored those recommendations and actually did nothing to develop a digital ID system. What was the result of this? While the coalition government dithered and sent faxes to each other, our world became more digital. From social media to GPS directions in our car, we're more connected now than ever before. Many of us shop online, we listen to music online, we do our banking online and we access government services online. We each have an extensive personal digital footprint, and this needs to be private and secure—now more than ever before. There's a stark contrast between the former coalition government's terminal procrastination and the actions already taken by the Albanese Labor government. In under two years, we've held broad consultation on digital IDs, we've established an expert panel, we've drafted legislation and we've introduced these bills to the House—removing the digital road block and getting on with the job. With the bills, the Albanese Labor government strengthens and expands Australia's digital ID system by developing a framework of robust legislative and regulatory safeguards to sit behind digital IDs. Labor is committing more than $145 million over four years to support the digital ID system, including the implementation of independent regulation and oversight. If you have a digital ID, you have a secure and convenient way to verify your identity when using online services. A digital ID takes the place of identifying yourself via traditional methods such as your birth certificate, your passport or your driver's licence. It's safer because then there aren't multiple copies of your personal identification information being stored by different organisations—organisations that may be susceptible to cyberattack. We remember the Optus data breach in 2022 that affected up to 10 million Australians. Past and present Optus customers had their names, their birth dates, their home addresses, their phone numbers, their email contacts, and their passport and drivers licence numbers stolen. It was an administrative nightmare for customers to resolve and it also led to great uncertainty and fear amongst those affected. One of my constituents told me after the breach: 'I am now living with the constant worry that my identity will be stolen and loans will be taken out in my name. I've taken all necessary precautions against this; however, I'm still extremely concerned. This should not be happening to all of these people who just signed up to a mobile or Internet plan, which are basic essentials in today's society. Our personal data is our livelihood and should be protected as such.' The digital ID bills are part of the Albanese Labor government's response to the worrying number of cyber attacks on businesses. They'll give both businesses and consumers confidence that their personal data is secure. For Australians with a digital ID, it will decrease the possibility of their personal data being stolen, as they won't need to submit numerous copies of ID documents to numerous different businesses and organisations. This then reduces the need for these businesses and organisations to retain the data. In fact, it's estimated that digital ID could save more than $3 billion per year in identity fraud costs for Australians. So what does the digital ID look like? It is not a new card to carry around and, thankfully, it's not a new number or associated password to remember, unlike in many other countries. We are designing the system to operate in Australian conditions, and a person's digital ID will be verified against the existing credentials. Australians will be able to verify their ID online against government-issued ID documents—the obvious ones being their birth certificate, their driver's licence, their Medicare card or their passport. We've already seen a significant take-up of digital IDs—10.5 million Australians now have a myGov digital ID, which enables access to more than 135 different government services. Under the proposed legislation Australians will have the choice to select a Commonwealth, state, territory or industry digital ID provider. However, it's important to note that participation is fully voluntary. People can decide if they want a digital ID, when to create it, when to reuse it and when to discontinue it. This means that Australians can continue to access government services on the phone or in person if they do not have a digital ID, ensuring that we recognise that not everyone is able to access the digital world. Some people don't want to, and some people might actually go down that road and say, 'No, that's not for me.' We want to have freedom of choice. The approach of the Albanese Labor government is inclusive. It ensures that a digital ID is available to everyone who elects to use one while it also ensures that people can continue to access government services or businesses, as they currently do and have done for many, many years, either over the phone or in person. I have some constituents who love having a conversation with people about government services. They don't want it to be quick and easy. They actually want to have a chat to people—like having a talking lane in a shopping centre. Beyond this, we are planning a whole-of-economy rollout. The Albanese Labor government will work in partnership with the states and territories so that people can use their state digital ID to access federal government services—the cross-pollination that comes with federation. We'll also work with private sector businesses to expand the use of government digital IDs so that it becomes more secure for people to do their online banking, to get that mobile phone plan or to hire a rental car. Again, it's reducing the need to share personal ID documentation across a range of businesses and to cart around birth certificates, passports et cetera. Another crucial benefit of having a digital ID is that it's always accessible and ready for use. In recent natural disasters, such as in February 2022 when my electorate was flooded, people with a myGov ID were able to quickly access support payments through Services Australia without having to locate the originals of their personal identification documentation, which can be hard to do when your house is under water or affected by a bushfire, or when a cyclone is imminent. It's also important that we have chargers for our phones in disasters, which is something that I know Minister Murray Watt is working on. We need easier access to financial support during disasters. It means one less thing for affected people to worry about. Digital IDs can also be useful for women who are escaping domestic and family violence and are unable to retrieve their identity documentation when they run out of the house but, with a digital ID, are able to verify themselves for services and payments immediately. That's a big decision, particularly if there are children involved in a violent domestic household. The bills put in place four measures that ensure Australians are in control of their digital IDs and that their digital IDs are safeguarded. Firstly, it strengthens the voluntary accreditation scheme for digital ID providers. Public and private accredited providers will have to meet strong privacy protections and security safeguards. This ensures that Australians using accredited providers can rest easy knowing their personal information is private and secure. This includes confirming that a deactivated digital ID cannot be used or reactivated without the person's consent. Secondly, it legislates for the expansion of the Australian government digital ID system so that protections are in place across the country. Thirdly, it adds to the privacy protections already in place in the Privacy Act. Lastly, it provides a strong foundation for the governance of an economy-wide digital ID system through independent regulation, initially through the ACCC. There are further measures to ensure privacy, with people's information to be deleted when it's no longer needed. They don't need to have a copy of your birth certificate forever from that car hire from 20 years ago. It also further restricts digital ID service providers' data-profiling activities. The Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill supports the principal bill by making arrangements to ensure smooth transitions from existing unlegislated frameworks. The Trusted Digital Identity Framework will be replaced by the new Digital ID Accreditation Rules, as laid out by the principal bill. Participants in the unlegislated Australian government digital ID system will be transitioned to the new, legislated system. What this means in practice is automatic accreditation in the new system for entities that were accredited under the old system. There are provisions to make rules, after the commencement of the bill, to take future complex information technology infrastructure changes into account. This bill also amends key security and administrative Commonwealth legislation to ensure the principal bill works as intended. The acts to be amended are the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Privacy Act 1988. The Digital ID initiative is just one of the ways in which Labor is keeping Australians safe online, alongside the National Strategy for Identity Resilience; funding for the ACCC's National Anti-Scam Centre, which is doing incredible work; the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023; and continued reforms to the Privacy Act and the Cyber Security Strategy. These two bills work together to implement the transition to a legislative framework for an economy-wide digitised ID system. At the core of these bills is the fact that Australians with digital IDs can have added reassurance that their personal identification documentation is not being stored by multiple service providers and businesses and that their digital ID remains secure and private. I commend the bills to the House. 10:21 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Digital ID is a proud coalition reform. The Australian government's first digital identity, myGovID, was part of a $256 million investment, called the digital business package, as part of the 2020-21 budget. Digital ID stalled under Labor despite the program first receiving funding in the 2015-16 budget. Digital ID has the potential to be a game changer for citizens and industry by saving time and making it easier to complete various transactions. In government, the coalition spent over $600 million developing the Australian government ID system, and over 10 million people already use this service via myGovID. I'm one of those, Madam Deputy Speaker. We also released draft legislation in 2021 to further regulate digital identity, because of the important efficiency and productivity benefits it could deliver. Digital ID needs to be efficient and productive, and it can add to those things, but there also need to be privacy protections. The draft legislation would have reduced the amount of personal data held by businesses about their customers, in turn reducing the risk to Australians from the kinds of data breaches that we have seen with companies like Optus, Medibank Private and Latitude Financial. However, this digital identity legislation, the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, is very different to the draft bill that the coalition released. The government's legislation has many serious weaknesses. The coalition put forward amendments designed to fix these weaknesses, and I congratulate Senator Hume and other senators for their work on that. Our amendments included stronger guarantees that a digital ID would be voluntary—no Australian would be required to have one—and that someone would not face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional, paper based identity documents; removal of the phasing provisions so that the private sector could be involved from the outset; and a clear requirement that changes to the Privacy Act must be made before the legislation came into force. That amendment—the changes to the Privacy Act to give people further protections—was very important. The government, certainly to my regret and to the regret of the opposition, refused to accept our amendments in the Senate. Reaching a better outcome wasn't helped by the debate in the Senate being guillotined. It never is. Labor is ramming these bills through the parliament, and the concern is that serious issues with these bills won't be addressed. How can Australians trust Labor to manage digital ID when they won't even allow the sort of parliamentary scrutiny that would have happened had there been a proper debate in the Senate? Let's work through these concerns. We don't believe Labor's bills adequately ensure that this bill is truly voluntary, because every Australian deserves to receive the same quality of services regardless of how they're accessing them, be it through digital ID, face to face or however else. Amendments put forward by the coalition and rejected by this government would have provided greater certainty and protection, and would have established a stronger guarantee that having digital identity would be voluntary in the future—that no Australian would be required to have one and that, as I explained, the lowest quality of services would not exist should they choose not to have a digital ID. The amendment about the changes to the Privacy Act was also very important. This parliament's been left in an impossible position because of how the government has proceeded with these bills. It is the decision of the coalition, supported by me certainly, that we will not support this undercooked legislation. There is too much at stake when it comes to digital ID, privacy concerns and concerns about whether it's voluntary or not. Evidence provided in submissions made by multiple industry stakeholders has pointed out that large organisations such as banks, shopping chains and telecommunication companies are often subject to hundreds, if not thousands, of cybersecurity 'attempts' per day—that is, attempted cyberattack or cyberfraud. According to the ASD cyber threat report 2022-23, the average cost of a cybercrime, per report, was up 14 per cent in 2023. ASD also found that it cost a small business an average of $46,000 in total losses per reported cybercrime. Digital ID is an important tool to protect Australians by limiting the need to share key identity documents online. Instead, a trusted digital identity can be used and accepted as proof of identity without the supporting identity documents being shared with the service you're accessing or being stored on a database that could be targeted by hackers. A digital ID won't be for everyone, which is why amendments were proposed to ensure a service offered online requiring digital confirmation of your identity was also offered offline, without discrimination, to those who have chosen not to or cannot take up digital ID. For many months, members' offices have been bombarded with emails, letters and phone calls about the digital ID. In fact, we get bombarded by emails and letters about a range of issues, which I'm sure everyone here understands. Concerns have been expressed to me via these emails, but also, as I was standing at a wonderful event called the Seymour Alternative Farming Expo recently, I had a lot of people express concerns to me and want to talk through the issues. The concerns expressed and the feared outcomes go far beyond the concerns of the coalition. To be fair, they go beyond the concerns I have. But there is one point where they intersect, and that is the point of trust. We live in a democracy where different people have different fears, different needs, different concerns and different perspectives on how these things should work. In that free democracy, and with the liberty that we have, we believe that we should respect those differences. Trust should be a cornerstone of a secure and inclusive digital identity system. To be honest, the more people trust it, the more people are going to use it, and that's what we want. We believe this trust has been eroded by the Albanese government's management of the passage of this bill, the lack of scrutiny and the unwillingness to accept sensible amendments proposed in good faith to improve it. And that's what the amendments would have done: they would have kept the core of the bill, but they would have improved it. Trust has further been eroded by the decision to proceed in haste with these bills prior to reforming the Privacy Act. Trust has been dealt another blow by the failure to lock in state and territory governments. There is only one agreement from the Data and Digital Ministers Meeting, and that agreement is: … to work together toward a National Digital Identity and Verifiable Credentials Strategy to inform an update of the National Digital ID Service Transformation Roadmap. We think it needs to be a bit stronger than that. If states and territories are unable to sign up to a national strategy, what confidence can this parliament and the Australian people have in this government's ability to manage the Australian government digital identity system? There's a word doing the rounds; apparently it was the word of the year either this year or last year, I'm not quite sure. It's joined the lexicon via the dictionary, and that word is 'omnishambles'. Perhaps in this digital age they might want to consider that the new double word of the year, or phrase of the year, be 'virtual omnishambles'. We oppose these bills with regret. I really believe debate, cooperation and compromise in the Senate could have led to much better bills. The efficiencies and productivities of a really good effective digital ID system, with people's privacy respected and with people's voluntary participation respected, and with people's trust—which would have led to more voluntary participation in the system—would have led to a much better situation than we have now and much better bills. With regret, we oppose the bills. 10:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution on the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023. From pandemics to natural disasters the past few years have shown us why governments must act fast to deliver support and services to Australians when they need it. During the pandemic many Australians familiarised themselves with myGov, which allowed them to access important federal government services from Centrelink to the ATO quickly and easily so that government could deliver all that vital support that was so needed. Now, almost 10.5 million Australians have a myGov ID—a useful, simple and easy way for them to verify themselves in order to access more than 130 government services. Whether it's filing your taxes or registering your business, myGov ID has become a vital form of ID verification. But there are limitations with the myGov ID system as it currently stands, and these bills will provide a framework to expand and strengthen its use. The bills before the House will ensure that the existing ID system has a strong legislative underpinning by strengthening the existing voluntary accreditation scheme for digital ID services, strengthening the privacy safeguards, expanding the use of digital ID to both states and territories as well as the private sector organisations, and establishing a digital ID regulator. The current accreditation scheme, the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, is an unlegislated framework. The bills will create a legislative underpinning for the scheme that will be used by providers of digital ID services in both government and private sectors to apply for accreditation. The scheme is voluntary, and those organisations that choose to become accredited will be able to participate and provide services within the Australian government digital ID system. Accreditation will be available for three kinds of digital ID services: attribute service providers, those that verify particular attributes of an individual; identity service providers, those that verify the identity of an individual, enabling the creation of a digital ID as well as the authentication of a digital ID; and identity exchange providers, those that manage the flow of information between other entities. The bills establish the requirements needed to meet the accreditation as well as the consequences for providers that fail to meet the high standards of accreditation. The Digital ID Regulator, established under this legislation, will be empowered to accredit providers as well as suspend, revoke and cancel accreditations should they fail to adhere to the rules. The bills will also provide the minister with powers to include new kinds of participants as providers, to account for the constantly changing digital landscape. The requirements that providers must meet and continue to uphold include strong privacy and consumer safeguards. We've seen large-scale data theft occur from Optus to Medibank, and it still continues. Australians are rightly concerned about the handling of their sensitive data. The digital ID should not add to these concerns. In fact, one of the advantages of digital ID is that it reduces the need for Australians to hand over their sensitive information. Digital ID will help Australians prove who they are more safely and quickly, but this advantage relies on digital ID having a strong and robust privacy framework. The bills before the House today contain within them a range of privacy protections to meet the expectations of Australians, the first being express consent. Digital ID for individuals is entirely voluntary. Those entities participating in the use of digital ID must provide an alternate method for individuals to access their services. Some exemptions will apply for those accessing services in a professional capacity or on behalf of a business. Accredited entities will also be required to ask for express consent from individuals to share their personal information and will be prohibited from data profiling and using personal information for marketing purposes. They will also be restricted from the use of biometric information and its retention. The bills prohibit one-to-many biometric matching, which is the comparison of a person's biometric data against a database of similar data. There are also provisions and safeguards surrounding the access of personal data by law enforcement. In the event of a data breach, accredited entities will be required to comply with state and territory notifiable data breach schemes or the Commonwealth data breach scheme, as detailed in the Privacy Act. This ensures that the regulator and Australians are notified as soon as possible in the event of a breach, and authorities as well as individuals can act fast to reduce their risk. Entities in breach of privacy safeguards may also be subject to financial penalties to ensure compliance with these rules. To ensure the proper and continued compliance of the bills, the ACCC will be established as the digital ID regulator. They will be tasked with overseeing the accreditation scheme and the Australian government digital ID scheme. Additionally, the Information Commissioner will be tasked with enforcing the privacy provisions of the scheme and providing advice on request regarding privacy matters. To ensure greater transparency and accountability, an annual report must be provided to the responsible minister and tabled in this parliament, and a statutory review of the bill will commence within two years. A public register will also be established for accredited entities with details of their accreditation status. Digital ID is a major reform. Australians are increasingly becoming accustomed to the use of digital IDs in various forms, the benefits of which are quite clear, but they also are becoming increasingly worried about their privacy. These bills seek to establish the digital ID scheme to allow Australians to access services more easily whilst ensuring their privacy is not compromised and instead enhanced. Digital ID will bring enormous social and economic benefits to Australians, and it is responsible of the government to ensure that there are systems in place to maximise that benefit. It is an important reform that must be done correctly, and I commend the work of the ministers and departments in putting together the legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 10:38 Mr JOYCE e5d New England One of the greatest things you have in a western democracy is the right to be anonymous. There are so many people for who the biggest thing they want is just to be left alone and to not have the government in their face. This is freedom. And the opposite of that you can see in totalitarian regimes, where they want to know everything you do every minute of the day in facial digital recognition. Once you know as much of what a person does, you can have greater control of their life. There's always some virtuous reason to have more control over a person. There's always a virtuous reason where you can say, 'Well, unless you're doing something wrong you've got nothing to worry about.' I just don't want anything to worry about at all. I just want to be left alone. Now we have the movement to take away cash and just have digital currency. We already have so much of our information that is held. In this bill, one of our concerns is section 74(4), where it allows business to require the use of digital ID if it's appropriate to do so, and, of course, the first people who think it's appropriate to do so are the banks. We already have banks who say, 'We're not going to lend to you because you're involved with the coal industry, you're involved with the gas industry.' This might be a boilermaker or a fitter-and-turner. They are already encroaching on the basic rights of people to participate in the economics of this nation. So they have proven by their actions that they can't be trusted. And you're going to give them even more powers, more oversight over your life, and as you do this, you hand away your freedoms. When the Banking Association went before the hearing in Canberra on 9 February this year, it was unable to give any level of assurance that it would not seek an exemption from section 74. So it could get digital recognition access to everything that you do. We've seen this creeping expansion over so many years from what is necessary to do their job to what is exceptional—to know as much as they possibly can about you. If you want people to know everything about your life then put a camera in your house—put a camera in every part of your life. They already track—and, of course, it's what the Chinese love to do. They love to hack your phones—they do—to find out where you go, to find out who you speak to, to follow your GPS. Why do they do this? Because the more they know about you—and, of course, it's not an individual watching this— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Mr JOYCE e5d In continuation, in country areas we have satellites watching us. Like everywhere, our engagement with government departments is being tracked. We have banks tracking us and wanting even more tracking of us, and, if they get exemptions from section 74, they will start to get more and more knowledge. We have banks that say there are certain industries they won't lend to. We've got the Westpac bank now saying they're going to start enforcing their climate policy on who they lend money to. Why are we protecting them—the four pillar banking policy? God only knows! They haven't done much in the protection of a lot of our industries. And now so many places in cities have digital facial recognition because they believe it's in their interests, and this is endorsement by the government. If you want people to follow you into bedroom, I suppose that's your business. If you want them to watch you in the bathroom, I suppose that's your business. If you want them to have control over your currency and what you can and can't spend money on, I suppose that's your business. But a lot of people don't want that, and it's not that they're criminals; they just want to be free. They don't like the idea that anyone can open up a computer and almost see whether their car was there or not the night before—to see exactly what's happening, to always look for the mechanism of possible incrimination or if they've acted against the zeitgeist of certain institution. One of the cruxes of this bill is: is it truly voluntary? Can people say, 'No, I don't want this to be a part of my engagement with the government or part of my engagement with private business'? The point is that the government did not accept the amendments to make it genuinely voluntary, and, as they didn't, it's involuntary. And, as it is such, it can't be supported. In everything that comes with the belief of the primacy of the state over the individual, where the state reigns supreme and the individual is a servant of the state, part of that process is encapsulated in what exactly happens here, in this bill. This incremental path to an Orwellian type of existence is precisely that—it's incremental. You can't see it when it arrives. You can't deal with it when it arrives. You've got to deal with it long before. One of the key factors that has us, on this side of the chamber, is the belief that the individual has primacy over the state. As the individual has primacy over the state, one of the great mechanisms to protect that primacy is the individual's anonymity, their capacity to say, 'The state's engagement with me is as little as possible, and its knowledge of me is as basic as possible and not something that can be used against me.' I hope that, as we move to an election—obviously we had a budget which is just an entree to an election. What the government did with that budget last night has told us all that we're not going to have another budget. So, as we head to an election, which will be sooner rather than later, I hope the government help themselves out by not leaving this on the table for us to belt them up over, because we will. I think that Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick's forensic examination of this is something that warrants so many people out there having a close read. Senator Canavan is not known for getting anything wrong, and, as a qualified accountant with many years of experience, neither is Senator Rennick. So, on the Senate vote on 30 November, the parliamentary inquiry was established. The submission process closed on 9 January. One month was provided, including Christmas, for people to submit. When the government start doing things like that don't you get a sniff that they're trying to ram something through? Don't you get a sense that not only do they want to remove your capacity to be free and anonymous but they're not even going to give you the capacity to properly ventilate your concerns and have them addressed? That is the nature of a government that have a motive beyond what they initially state. The banks, of course, will love this—the greater control. We also see the banks in their quid pro quo with the government. There was no better scene in the so-called Voice referendum than when the banks decided they had a role to play in support of the 'yes' case because it fit the social zeitgeist of, to be quite frank, the upper echelons of the executive of the bank. A formal quid pro quo is coming back right here—give the banks more capacity to have greater control over people. One of the things we put to the banks, especially in regional areas, is what their future engagement with us will be—and I note the member for Flynn is here. There are issues with allowing boilermakers, fitters and turners who are involved with mining getting access to finance. Farmers should not be impaired in their access to finance—and the great addition to that impairment and that understanding that is encapsulated in this bill. It is going to really show, as we run up to an election, maybe end of this year—they can't have an election when the Western Australian election is on, even though they probably won't win many seats there. It's unlikely they'll ever go to another budget. Around about November, I think, the flag will go up. I listened to the Prime Minister this morning, and the one thing he didn't do is deny that we're going to an election soon. So it will be interesting to see if they ram this bill through. It's an addendum to the whole socialist policy that underpins where the Labor has now arrived. They're a different Labor Party from Hawke and Keating. They're very much a socialist type of party, with a very strong left-wing view. Socialism inherently needs more control over the individual, and that's what we've got in this bill. In evidence to the committee, Chris Taylor, representing the Australian Banking Association, and Brad Carr, representing National Australia Bank, said they were unable to give any level of assurance that they would not seek an exemption from section 74. Furthermore, on questioning about ministerial powers to grant an exemption, or the grounds upon which the Digital ID Regulator could grant an exemption, the NAB—the National Australia Bank—and the Australian Banking Association agreed there needed to be greater charity in the bill to eventually articulate properly and quite narrowly the circumstances under which section 74 could be applied—this is the section where they can have an exemption and they can demand that the digital ID applies to you. As I've said, we've gone from a situation where I could go to the bank and give them dollar notes to them now wanting to move to digital currencies and have a digital identification of me. No doubt, that gets interconnected with other digital identifications. How many times have we heard: 'Oh, this will never get leaked. It's impervious. No-one will ever hack into this. No-one will ever hack into Medicare. No-one will ever hack into Telstra'? Of course, later on, we find out that they have and that our information is out there on the internet. In the Department of Veterans' Affairs, it was, 'They'll never hack into the benefits that veterans are getting,' and then, in a crossover with the University of South Australia, they did. As you give up more of your information, it can not only be used against you by the enterprises you're dealing with—banks et cetera—but also float out into the general public. No matter how good people's encryption is, there's a person who has designed that encryption and a person who is just as competent to unencrypt it. With the development of artificial intelligence and as we move towards forms of quantum computing, the coding that you put in that would take thousands of years for a computer today will take seconds for a quantum computer in the future. So the capacity to decode what was initially coded will also be quite apparent. In closing, I say this: growing up in the country has a lot of disadvantages: removal from services and a whole lot of things like that. One of the greatest things we want in the country and in remote areas, even where I live up in the hills, is to be anonymous. So many people like being anonymous. The reason they live there is the freedom of being anonymous. They're not criminals; they just don't want you in their life. They don't want you in their back pocket. They want to be left alone. But, more and more, we're creating a society where we have to know everything about people. People say, 'That's alright, because the government is good.' Well, not all governments around the word are good, and the actions of vindictive players are not good. And, as a general rule, when people know too much about you, that is not good—not because you may be a criminal but because they can use that information against you. But, no doubt, we'll hear from the socialists in a moment, and they will tell us how perfect knowledge about the individual and the primacy of the state is nothing but a virtuous outcome, and how, in this, you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong. I put this challenge to them in closing: if you truly believe that that is the case then why won't you accept the amendment to section 74 so that we can make this genuinely voluntary? 11:03 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson The Albanese government is not just providing for the Australia of today but also securing the Australia of the future. The Digital ID Bill will deliver a legislative framework for a secure, centralised network of digital identification that not only is going to be more convenient for everyday use but is going to protect millions of Australians from data breaches that leave them vulnerable. This legislation is significant reform that supports individuals, businesses and governments, and creates opportunities for economic growth. It's an approach for identification which encourages security, contrary to what we're hearing from those opposite, who would really like us to live in a romantic, rose-coloured, revisionist, rear-mirror view of the world where nothing ever has to change and where it's all going to be okay. The member for New England said that he was concerned about having cameras in the bathroom and in the bedroom. I can assure the member for New England that is not something that we want, especially not of him—or from anyone else for that matter. This legislation is important, because individuals will be able to prove who they are with their physical documentation, once, and then a digital representation will be able to be used. Businesses will be able to verify their customers with greater ease. This bill will deliver for Australians, providing privacy and security, and will strengthen policies and frameworks already established and accepted within the Australian public. I really would like to start with some myth-busting, after listening to the member for New England. In my electorate of Paterson, where 20 per cent of the population is aged over 65, there are some concerns that physical IDs may become invalid. There is some fearmongering going on and, quite frankly, some pedalling of absolute nonsense. People are being told that physical IDs won't be in existence anymore and that everyone will be forced to go digital. It's simply not true. Digital ID is completely voluntary. The Albanese Labor government is committed to giving Australians a choice, and this is no different. The digital ID will also be completely free to all individuals. There will be no costs and no hidden fees. There are also some who are suggesting that the digital ID exposes our personal information or destroys our sense of privacy. Again, the opposite is true. Digital ID enhances our privacy. I'll give an example: let's say a group of friends go out to celebrate an 18th birthday. We've all got young people in our lives and we know that they're all very keen to get to the pub for a drink when they turn 18. They go to the pub and they buy a round of beer and they hand over their physical ID. Now the bartender knows that they are of age—which is a good thing—but they have also shown their full home address and their organ donor status. This information is completely irrelevant when you're buying a round of beers for your mate's 18th. With digital ID we'll be able to limit what sort of information someone can see in that scenario, without oversharing information. I think that's particularly important for young people, particularly when they're going out to pubs and clubs and may not want to divulge their address to someone they have to show their ID to for security. What about that 100-point ID verification system? We've all been there and done that before—digging out passports and water bills and the like to make it to 100 points. Is the digital ID another layer of bureaucracy and government overreach? That's what we're told by those opposite. Of course it's not. The digital ID system allows people to undergo verification once, and then to use that ID over and over again across government and business services, without the services needing to store or file extra copies of their documents. I think that's a good thing. I don't want to have to dig out my birth certificate or my passport and give copies of those to numerous organisations. You'll be able to verify yourself once using your documentation and then, once your digital identity is established, that's what you'll use. It is going to be so much more secure and so much more convenient for people, rather than having to fetch around for all of these documents every time they want to go for a home loan or do these things. Some of these myths have really got no place. Another myth is that some are saying that the digital ID is risky because no-one has done it before, and yet there are innovative systems in countries across the world, including in some strong democratic nations like Singapore, Denmark and the Netherlands, who use systems like ours. In Denmark, in particular, over 90 per cent of the population use digital ID. Those good folk in Denmark are pretty switched on, especially with stuff like this, and I don't think that 90 per cent of their population would be voluntarily using it if they didn't think it was up to speed. In fact, private companies like Mastercard are already offering digital ID services to individuals and businesses. Some are saying that the digital ID system will be going unregulated—that's another myth—allowing personal data to be sold off and exploited. This is just completely false. Our legislation will introduce an appointed regulatory body independent of government that will approve and accredit services, and then ensure the services comply with the legislation and keep people's information safe. The Australian Digital ID Regulator is vital for a fair, transparent and compliant system. This bill is not being rushed, and it is not being moved without thoughtful consideration on how we implement it. We are putting in the hard yards now and we are getting this right. I'm proud to be part of a government that is delivering for every Australian. Whether you're a student, a senior, a small-business owner or anyone in between, the digital ID is a decision for you to streamline how you use your ID and how you choose to be part of a digital future. We want to equip Australians to be part of a digital future. This is coming. There is no point hiding under the bed covers like the member for New England projected on to all of us, saying: 'No, no, we don't want any of this. We don't want them coming for you.' What nonsense! No-one is coming for anyone. People are able to voluntarily give their own information, set up a digital ID and walk confidently into a digital world that they need to be armed and identified for—and, quite frankly, they want to be. They want to embrace technology. If it were up to the member for New England, we'd all stilling walking around with handheld lines and there'd be no mobile phones. Honestly, the troglodytes live under the bridges! Today I want to talk to you about the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act as well. It is very important that this bill be passed. It's something that we have to have. We just have to have the laws to go with the new technologies in our world. Here's another example: imagine you're applying for a government service and you need to prove that you're you. That's where the digital ID will come in handy. It's like a virtual version of your drivers licence or passport that you can use online. So much of our lives is happening on the internet. We need to make sure that these digital IDs are super secure, and that's where the powers act comes into play. The act is about making sure digital IDs are safe, easy to use and trustworthy, and it does a few things. There will be an accreditation scheme—this is like a stamp of approval for companies that provide digital ID services. The act makes it mandatory for these companies to meet strict standards to protect your privacy and security. Regarding expanding digital ID use, the act wants to make digital IDs more widespread so you can use them not just for government transactions but also for other online activities like shopping or banking. Privacy protections are so important. Your privacy really matters, and it matters ever so much more online. The powers act adds extra layers of protection to make sure your personal information stays safe when using digital ID. Regulation and oversight is another important thing. There are watchdogs in place, like the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to make sure people follow the rules and keep digital IDs reliable. Why does any of this really matter? Well, it is really a big deal. We are living in an ever more digital world, and we must have laws that keep up with the way that the world and technology are changing. Digital IDs will make life easier. There will be no more digging out your physical documents, no more raking around in the back of the wardrobe for your birth certificate and trying to sticky-tape it together. You'll be able to prove who you are online. There will be more security measures in place. You'll feel safer knowing your personal info is better protected from hackers and scammers and, believe it or not, there will be a boost to the economy from making digital ID a thing. It will make online transactions smoother, more efficient and more secure. Your data is valuable. The powers act aims to ensure your privacy is respected, giving you more control over how your information is used. So, what happens now? Well, the powers act is just the beginning—it sets the groundwork for a safer and more reliable digital world—but there is still more work to be done to put everything into action. As technology evolves and our online lives continue to grow, it's crucial to have laws like the powers act in place to keep up with the changes and protect us all. And that's what this government is doing. If we weren't passing legislation like this, we would be absolutely remiss. We would just not be up to our duty of governing. We have to have laws that protect people in an ever-changing world. Remember: your digital identity is just as important as your real-life identity. So we need to keep an eye on how the world is changing, and we need to have laws that fit those changes. You might really be wondering what all this digital ID stuff is about. I have heard people say that. They say, 'Meryl, what's all this ID stuff?' It is just really important that people have an understanding that it is about digital identity. It is like a virtual passport or a virtual driver's licence for the internet. And that is so important. It will mean safer online transactions and, when you're shopping online or accessing government services, the digital ID will be more secure, protecting your personal information from cyberthreats. Imagine not having to stand in long lines or fill out tonnes of paperwork every time you need to access a government service. Wouldn't that be refreshing! Well, that's the beauty of digital IDs. They will make it easier to prove who you are online and also in person, saving you time and a lot of hassle, quite frankly. Your privacy does matter. The Digital ID Bill includes measures to ensure that your personal information is protected online so you can feel more confident, knowing that your data is in safe hands, and it will boost the economy by streamlining online transactions and making it easier for businesses to verify your identity. So whether you're a student applying for government assistance or a small-business owner filling in their taxes online, Digital ID Bill is there to make your online experience safer, smoother and more convenient. One of the things about this piece of legislation that is ever present in my mind is that we hear constantly: 'We need to cut red tape. We need to make things easier for people, for businesses. Things should be more streamlined.' I've spent most of my adult life hearing that—'Cut red tape, cut red tape'—and we're actually doing this with this bill. This is a form of red-tape cutting, yet I'm hearing, often from proponents opposite—who I've heard the most over the years proclaiming that red tape should be cut—that somehow, now, this is not a good thing, this is not where we should be taking the Australian people and this is not how we should be setting up the Australian economy. The thing that would be absolutely remiss of us is not to set up the Australian economy and protect the Australian people. There is a very lively, vibrant digital world out there. If we do not have the laws enveloping our country to make it better, to put it on the right footing for this ever-changing world, then we are not the right government for the time. That is the thing: this is not about shrinking away from the world that is ever changing, this is about equipping ourselves well and providing ourselves with the tools that we need to be bold, confident and productive in an ever-changing world. This government is providing that for Australians. It will make life simpler. I know that for those opposite change is scary and technology is a thing of bewilderment. Well, we are embracing it. We are taking the Australian people forward with us, and we are saying that we want to be on the front foot and doing this for a vibrant, secure and technologically savvy Australia. 11:18 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on the government's Digital ID Bill 2024. I'd like to begin by thanking my coalition colleagues who have already outlined many of the concerns we on this side of the House have with this legislation. Trust me when I say that there are many. Over the last few months, I've received an overwhelming number of emails and inquiries concerning this legislation. Now, I'm sure that it's not just my Liberal or National colleagues and senators who have been contacted in such numbers. I'm sure those on the government's side have also had significant numbers of correspondence as well. During this time, I've taken into consideration many of the widely held concerns, particularly surrounding whether there are enough safeguards to ensure signing up for a digital ID is truly a voluntary decision. As the shadow minister for government services and the digital economy made clear this morning in the House, the coalition is not opposed to the many important efficiency and productivity benefits that an effective digital ID system can deliver. We acknowledge that. In fact, the coalition established the Australian government digital identity system following the 2014 Murray inquiry, which was commissioned by the Abbott government. In government, we spent over $600 million developing the Australian government ID system. We established the trusted digital identity framework and we created myGov, which is currently used by over 11 million Australians. In 2021, we released an exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. This legislation would have further regulated the Australian government digital identity system. As well as seeking to improve efficiency and productivity, the bill also sought to reduce the amount of personal data that businesses hold about their customers, which in turn would reduce the risk to Australians from data breaches. Data breaches, unfortunately, do occur too often, and more recently we've seen data breaches with the likes of Optus and Medibank. However, Labor's bill before us today is very different to that exposure draft, as it contains many serious weaknesses. When the legislation came before the Senate earlier this year, the coalition put forward amendments designed to fix these weaknesses. Our amendments included the following: a much stronger guarantee that having a digital identity would be voluntary, that no Australian would be required to have one, that someone would not face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional paper based identity documents, removing the phase-in provisions so that the private sector can be involved from the outset and imposing a clear requirement that changes to the Privacy Act must be made before this legislation comes into force. Unfortunately, the government rejected these amendments. They also guillotined debate, which was an interesting move from a government that ran on a platform of transparency. It's reasonable to ask: how can Australians trust Labor to manage the digital ID system when they chose to ram through these bills and deny proper scrutiny? As I've said, the main issue with this legislation that has been raised with me is whether this bill will provide for a truly voluntary system. Those opposite love to say that criticisms are just misinformation or disinformation, but these concerns aren't unfounded and they are already playing out. Take, for example—it's not a good example; it's probably a bad example—the WA Labor government's student assistance payment, which was announced earlier this year, in effect disadvantaged those without a digital ID. For parents to access the payment, they could either apply through the COVID-era ServiceWA app, which requires you to have a myGov digital ID, or through an alternative online or postal method. Not only did the government fail to properly inform families of the alternatives to ServiceWA, my submission is that they, indeed, hid that there were alternative ways. It's also my understanding that those who chose an alternative claim method were told they would expect to wait 30 days for their application to be processed. This compared to just seven days for those using the ServiceWA app. Politicians are consistently warned that trust in government is failing, so this is something that all of us in this place and parliaments across the country should be concerned about. I believe that one of the main reasons for this is because people feel like they're being coerced into making decisions that they don't want to make. Unfortunately, this latest WA Labor government example is a stark example of what we're actually debating here. It's undeniable that in the middle of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, many families are struggling. I think we'd all agree on that. In fact, under the Albanese government's budget to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off. This is before we even mention the rising cost of food, fuel, electricity, gas and insurance. But just think of the position some of these families will be in when the WA Labor government announces they will prioritise those with a digital ID. Do those Western Australian families—those hardworking families who all need a break—who might not want to sign up to the digital ID system but who are in desperate need of immediate relief have a real, genuine choice? I would argue that many of them do not. For it to be truly voluntary, those who choose not to sign up, whatever the reason, should not be disadvantaged. Every Australian deserves to receive the same quality of services. Certainty of quality should not be dependent on whether they have an Australian government digital ID. Now, this very bad example from my home state of Western Australia clearly demonstrates that we need to work more closely with the states and the territories to ensure that the system is a voluntary one. However, the states and territories have not yet signed up to the finance minister's so-called national digital identity and verifiable credentials strategy. It's frankly unacceptable that the government is proceeding with these bills without first having the states and territories fully on board with a consistent national strategy. In conclusion, it's time those opposite reconsidered adopting the amendments we put forward in the Senate. But until such time I won't be supporting this legislation, and I urge the government to take very seriously the concerns of my Durack constituents that I've outlined. 11:26 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Imagine not having to produce your documents to verify your identity over and over again to rent a place, to change bank lenders, to take out a new mobile phone plan or to take out one for your kids. What about not having to rifle through boxes or files underneath the bed or behind the wardrobe to find those original documents? A digital ID will allow Australians to verify their identities once and to use this for various government services, telcos and businesses, rather than repeatedly supplying paper or scanned documents for individual organisations. For decades, Australians have proven their identity when applying for government services, applying to rent a property or for a loan, starting jobs or opening bank accounts through the 100-point check. Paper documents or cards are provided and calculated to make up that 100 points. Photocopies and scans are stored in the systems of different organisations under varying standards of security—your local real estate agent versus a bank, for example. Scans, PDFs and photos are transmitted by email or phone. Real estate agents, accommodation providers, telcos and even loyalty programs all require that ID to be proven to some degree using hard copies. Renters, mortgage holders and people starting a business provide these documents over and over and over again. This legislation will reduce the need for individuals to provide such documents and for organisations to safely store them. I shudder to think of all of the times that I have hastily sent a photo of my driver's licence via email to prove my identity and of where this has actually ended up. The number of times we all have divulged personal information—and the many silos it is currently stored in—over time is staggering. Is it any wonder that identity theft and scams are growth industries? Digital ID in Australia is not brand new. It is currently available for government services through myGovID. More than 10.5 million digital IDs have been created using myGovID, which enables access to over 130 federal government and state and territory government services. Some private providers, such as Mastercard, are also accredited to provide digital IDs, but the current situation has limitations. It is not national, so the Commonwealth can only verify people biometrically against their passports, not against their drivers licences or any other ID documents issued by other governments. Also, it can only be used to establish identity for government services. It is not currently legislated and requires stronger privacy and security frameworks to be used in other sectors and domains like the private sector. Apart from the obvious security risk associated with having personal data sitting in multiple places under variable security arrangements, there is the red tape—delays and the associated cost of doing business, and your personal time, a finite but precious resource that should be closely guarded. This legislation before us aims to, firstly, strengthen an existing voluntary accreditation scheme for digital ID providers. It will ensure only trustworthy and reliable private and public sector entities are accredited to provide digital ID services to Australians. Accredited providers will be given a trustmark to build consumer trust and awareness of digital IDs, and there will be severe penalties for providers who breach the terms of their accreditation. These bills will embed privacy and consumer protections additional to those within the Privacy Act. Finally, they will strengthen the governance for an economy wide digital ID system by establishing a digital ID regulator, systems administrator and data standards chair. These are the structures to ensure privacy and consumer protections in the bills will be met. It is important to note that establishing a digital ID is voluntary and at no cost, as it is at present. Individuals will not be compelled to sign up to a digital ID; it will be entirely their own choice. Australians who choose to keep using paper documents to prove their identity will be able to do so. But, I must say, once this takes off the benefits of using a digital ID will far outweigh using analog and paper documents. It will be a step change in people's lives. Organisations will not be able to mandate use of a digital ID for individuals. People will need to consent to establishing a digital ID and will need to activate its use each time they wish to employ it. They can deactivate their consent at any time, and there will be no ID card or number. It is appropriate, however, to ensure that the privacy and security framework around the digital ID system is robust and that voluntary participation is futureproofed. This legislation proposes something quite simple but the legislation that underpins it is worthy of detailed consideration. Questions such as the access law enforcement agencies may have and whether profiling of individuals can occur through the system are important and need to be clear and strictly enforced—and they will be. Amendments that have already been proposed by a Senate report are being considered. The benefits are multiple. Privacy and security are enhanced as the need to provide documentation is not required over and over again. At a time when productivity is on everyone's minds, digital ID is an important economic and productivity reform. Quicker and more accurate identity provisions allow businesses and their customers to interact more efficiently. More speedily obtaining a tax file number or submitting a tax return will reduce the time individuals spend on annoying, life-sapping admin. Then there are the benefits to vulnerable Australians, noting that anyone is only a step or two away from vulnerability. A woman fleeing domestic violence, a family rebuilding after a natural disaster like a flood or bushfire, a young person filling in paperwork for their first job or to duplicate their data for those multiple rental applications—these people will know that verification of their identity is accessible digitally. Digital IDs enhance equality. Insecure housing, short-term or insecure employment and serious mental health conditions do not always allow secure identity document storage. When identity has been difficult to prove due to family estrangement, unregistered birth, unofficial adoption, living in a remote location, language barriers or any other factor, proving identity once digitally and having it accessible as needed can be invaluable. The digital ID could be the ticket to participation in that inclusive economy we all wish for. Wishing for it is good but voting for it is better. The world's richest people acknowledge the link between participation and productivity. According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in August last year: Digital IDs are an effective tool against poverty … If a person cannot prove who they are, can they take advantage of all the opportunities society has to offer? I commend these bills to the House as important planks in our progress towards a more secure digital future and a productive, streamlined and connected economy, and as a means of providing smoother access to services for all. 11:34 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I rise to express my strong opposition to the Digital ID Bill 2024. I've been contacted by many constituents regarding this legislation, and they've expressed their fears as to what it means for them, their family and their business. I believe the Labor government's Digital ID Bill is seriously flawed and a massive overreach. This is classic 'Trust me; I'm from the government' and simply doesn't pass the pub test. Labor are ramming this bill through parliament. For instance, they guillotined debate on this legislation in the Senate. How can Australians trust the Labor government to manage digital ID when Labor won't even allow parliamentary scrutiny? What has the government got to hide? In the Senate, the government had an opportunity to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and the many constituents who made submissions to the Senate, in addition to those individuals who wrote to all members about these bills. The coalition's sensible amendments, which were developed in close consultation with industry stakeholders, would have enhanced the privacy protections of the bill. The coalition's amendments sought to establish a stronger guarantee that having a digital identity would be voluntary—that no Australian would be required to have one—and that someone would not face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional, paper based identity documents. In addition, we moved an amendment that sought to impose a clear requirement that changes to the Privacy Act be made before these bills came into force. The opposition and other senators were unable to scrutinise these bills clause by clause, and we were denied the opportunity to speak to the amendments. More problematically, the guillotine prevented senators from scrutinising the government 's supplementary explanatory memorandum, their five pages of amendments and the four pages of Greens amendments the government allowed to be tacked onto the bill. Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne, who is based in Gladstone, needs to look her constituents around Central Queensland in the eye and explain why she voted for the Digital ID Bill. Maybe if she focused on the issues of the residents of Central Queensland and spoke to them about their concerns with regard to the Digital ID Bill, rather than engaging in culture wars, she might learn a thing or two. It's not good enough for bills which engage our most basic of human rights to be steamrolled through the parliament in this fashion. I have serious concerns about the Digital ID Bill and the threat of cyber breaches and hacking. Companies Canva, Latitude, Optus and Medibank all have had their data breached over the last couple of years. The Optus data breach was one of the biggest security breaches in Australian history. As Optus is the second largest telecommunications company in Australia, this security incident brought up questions about Australian data security policies and how companies handle them. It affected almost 10 million customers. Personal data in the compromised dataset included names, birth dates, addresses, phone numbers, passport information, drivers licence numbers, government ID numbers, medical records and Medicare ID numbers. How can the government ensure that the data of anyone who signs up for a digital ID will be secure? According to the ASD cyber threat report 2022-2023, the average cost of cybercrime per report was up 14 per cent in 2023. The Australian Signals Directorate, ASD, found that it had cost small business an average $46,000 in total losses per reported cybercrime. Accordingly, it is unfortunate that the government's rushed handling of these bills has materially weakened the quality of important provisions in the Digital ID Bill as they relate to cybersecurity incidents and fraud detection and prevention. As industry experts have raised in their submissions, the Digital ID Bill's definition of a cybersecurity incident, in clause 9, is inconsistent with commonly accepted definitions officially established by the government elsewhere—for example, the definition contained in the Australian Cyber Security Centre's Information Security Manual. As the definition of cybersecurity incidents includes 'attempts' and each attempt must be reported to the Digital ID Regulator, there is a concern that this definition, as currently drafted, will have the capacity to simply overwhelm relying parties and the regulator. As multiple industry stakeholders have pointed out in their submissions, large organisations, such as banks, shopping chains and telecommunication companies, are often subject to hundreds, if not thousands, of cyber security attempts every day. What this legislation fails to address or to consider is the lack of telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. From Gladstone to the gemfields, Moore Park Beach to Monto, Baffle Creek to Biloela, Alton Downs to Agnes Waters, or Woorabinda to Wondai, regional telecommunications would have to be one of the biggest single issues in the Flynn electorate, no matter where you come from. Many constituents have told me that banks and government departments have gone solely digital, and this legislation is another step towards this. Problems that arise are when customers try to complete transactions or documents online, as two-factor authentication is required. They are not able to complete these requests in regional Australia as often the two-factor messages do not come through. There is a further issue with the Labor government winding down the use of cheques across the banking system, with federal departments to use other payment methods by 2028. A goal has been to set the end of the use of cheques completely by 2030. What support is the Labor government going to provide to rural and regional Australia if the Digital ID Bill passes? The silence is deafening. What support is the Labor government providing or going to provide to older Australians if this legislation passes? According to the aged-care guide, older Australians are struggling to keep up with the growing digital divide, with more than 80 per cent of people aged 65 and older struggling to adapt to the changes in technology or learn digital literacy. One in four Australians are also classified as digitally excluded, whether that's due to a lack of digital skills or an inaccessibility to digital services like smartphones and computers. I've had countless constituents visit my electorate offices as they have had issues dealing with government departments and their mad rush to the digital age. This mad rush is leaving older Australians behind. The cornerstones of any trusted, secure and inclusive digital ID system are that there be strong, robust and voluntary safeguards. In the context of these bills, 'voluntary' refers to the legislated capacity for individuals to choose to use and create or not to use and create a digital identity when interacting with the entities within the AGDIS. These bills do not satisfy the opposition that the AGDIS will operate on a genuinely voluntary basis. As noted in the opposition's dissenting report, we're concerned that the AGDIS will fail to operate without causing detriment to those individuals who choose not to create a digital identity. The opposition is also concerned that the digital ID systems of the state and territory governments, which will form an integral part an expanded AGDIS, will not operate with the same voluntarist and inclusivity of safeguards required of Commonwealth entities. Let me be clear: the opposition is strongly of the view that any government, be it federal, state or territory, must be offering an alternative non-digital means to access government services. This condition must be satisfied and established in the legislation accordingly of any state and territory government which wishes to join and expand AGDIS. Failure to extend the exemption to state and territory government entities will have the effect of significantly undermining trust, choice, inclusivity in the AGDIS, and the opposition will not allow that. I wish to also quote Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick's additional comments regarding the Digital ID Bill: 1.2 The Government claims that the use of a Digital ID would remain voluntary under its scheme. However, section 74(4) of the Bill provides the Regulator with the power to allow businesses to require the use of a Digital ID if it is "appropriate to do so". While the Bill seeks to provide some examples of where a Digital ID may be required to be mandatory, there is no limitation on the Regulator's powers but the vague and open-ended requirement for a mandatory requirement to be "appropriate to do so." 1.3 In effect, the Government's Bill provides no protection against the creeping expansion of Digital ID requirements under the Regulator's powers. If the Government is serious about claiming that its Digital ID scheme is "voluntary" it is not clear why it cannot limit exceptions to its voluntary standard to a narrow, prescribed list of circumstances. 1.4 In addition, even for those businesses that do not receive an exemption, the Bill provides no requirement for an organisation to provide non-digital ID services on a similar basis. For example, a bank could very easily make it very difficult for someone that wants to use traditional identification documents to open account by making people wait weeks for an appointment, or through a variety of other methods. There are no protections in the Bill that would stop a business just making life hard for its customers that choose a non-Digital ID option. Many stakeholders have given evidence that the government's phasing model of the Australian government ID system expansion is misguided. The Australian Banking Association said of the lack of timeline for expansion required: publication of timelines against each phase as soon as possible to enable industry alignment with delivery timelines. These concerns were echoed by the Tech Council of Australia, who recommended the government: Provide greater clarity on the proposed timing of the phased expansion of the Australian Government Digital ID System and ensure swift integration of private providers The National Australia Bank provided this statement: With multiple private sector Digital ID offerings either in-market or preparing to enter in 2024, slowing the ability for the private sector to fully participate risks inhibiting innovation and uptake of Digital ID … Australian Payments Plus, who were accredited under the existing, trusted digital ID framework by the former coalition government to operate ConnectID said: AP+ does not however support the proposed phased approach to the sequential expansion of the AGDIS— the Australian government Digital Identity System. For the lack of clarity regarding the government's phasing approach, the Business Council of Australia recommended: The Government prioritise and clearly outline a timeline for private sector access to and use of the legislated digital identity system. The Commonwealth Bank, in their submission, urged the government to rethink the phasing, arguing the following: CBA does not support the proposed phased approach of the AGDIS rollout. In keeping with the design principle of citizen choice, consumers should have the ability to choose their preferred trusted Identify Provider … In conclusion, Labor's bill does not adequately ensure it is truly voluntary. Every Australian deserves the same quality of service, regardless of how they're accessing it, be it through digital ID or face-to-face. The government should not proceed with this bill until such time as they've reformed the Privacy Act. There should be simultaneous private sector participation in the AGDIS, ensuring that ID is a truly national whole-of-economy solution. The coalition has worked hard and in good faith to address the flaws in these bills by moving amendments in the Senate. Our amendments would have enhanced the privacy protections for Australians who choose to use digital ID. These amendments were not supported and, accordingly, I oppose the Digital ID Bill 2024 as I feel it will cause more harm than good, and this is nothing more than over reach by the current Labor government. 11:48 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Scams, including identity theft, cost Australians around $2.7 billion in 2023. There were more than 600,000 reports to Scamwatch, and that's probably the tip of the iceberg, because many who are victims of scams are too embarrassed to report it or may not actually realise they're being scammed yet. People over 65 make up around 25 per cent of those scam victims, and around 50 per cent were investment scams. Many, if not most, of the scams now occur online in some way—through social media, through direct emails or through SMS asking you to 'click this link'. Likely, every owner of a mobile phone or an email account has received an unsolicited approach asking you to 'click this link' or maybe asking you to update your details with your bank, your utility provider or a government service. Unfortunately, people—us—are the weak link here. I remember doing a cybersecurity course as part of a board I sat on a number of years ago. The cyber expert told us about a criminal group that had recently been broken up in Europe. The group consisted of a couple of PhDs in computing and four PhDs in psychology, because social engineering—the psychology of tricking you, convincing you to overcome your doubts and creating a sense of urgency or opportunity—is how the majority of these scams work. Last weekend, I spoke to a constituent, Elizabeth, who told me she was so frightened about being scammed that she refused to do anything online, which is increasingly difficult in an age where so many of the activities of daily life, from paying a bill to checking your bank balance and engaging with government departments, all occur online. Each of these services requires you to confirm your identity in exactly the same way the scammers get you to confirm your identity so that they can steal it. Of course, that's not the only way your identity can be stolen and used by criminals. Many Australians have been victims of major data breaches. Some of the larger ones were the Medibank and Optus breaches that affected millions of Australians. Details of identity were released and, in some instances, put up for sale on the dark web. Fraudulent use of identity is a major risk for us as individuals, as businesses and as government. That's where the Digital ID Bill comes in. The digital ID is a secure, convenient and voluntary way to verify who you are online against existing government-held identity documents, without having to hand over any physical information. Digital ID is not a card; it's not a unique number nor a new form of ID. This bill will help to address the challenge of identity theft. The digital IDs enabled by this bill will avoid the need for Australians to repeatedly share their documents and, very importantly, will reduce the need for government or businesses to retain those documents, because every time your data is taken and stored somewhere else by a company or organisation there is another point of vulnerability. This bill does four things to ensure that Australians are in control of their digital IDs and that their digital IDs are safeguarded. Firstly, the bill will legislate and strengthen an existing voluntary accreditation scheme for digital ID providers. Secondly, the bill will legislate and enable the expansion of the Australian government digital ID system, so protections for digital IDs are in place across the economy. Thirdly, the bill will embed in place privacy and consumer protections additional to those in the Privacy Act. And, fourthly, the bill will strengthen the governance for an economy-wide digital ID system by establishing a Digital ID Regulator, the System Administrator and a Digital ID Data Standards Chair to ensure privacy and consumer protections in the bill will be met. I know that some of my constituents will still be nervous about the notion of a digital identity. Some will still want to ensure that this works and is secure before they engage with it. Some, like Elizabeth, will decide that they do not want to have a digital identity and will still feel more secure engaging with entities in real life at branches and the like. Hence, importantly, this is a voluntary accreditation scheme. The voluntary accreditation scheme in the bill will enable more digital ID providers to demonstrate that they meet strong privacy protections, security safeguards and accessibility requirements. The bill will replace an existing, unlegislated policy framework for accreditation—the Trusted Digital Identity Framework—with a legislated accreditation scheme for public and private sector digital ID providers. The bill will ensure only trustworthy and reliable private and public sector entities are accredited to provide digital ID services to Australians. Accreditation rules made under the bill will set out a range of requirements for each type of service an entity can be accredited for by the Digital ID Regulator. The bill will ensure that there are real consequences for accredited providers if they do not meet the high standards of their accreditation. The powers of the regulator set out in the bill to suspend, revoke or cancel accreditations will ensure the accreditation rules, safeguards and privacy protections in the bill are adhered to. The bill will provide for a trust mark for accredited providers to build consumer trust and awareness of the digital IDs, imposing civil penalties on entities who falsely promote their services as meeting the strict requirements of accreditation. The accreditation scheme will give Australians who choose to create, use or reuse a digital ID issued by an accredited provider greater confidence that their personal information is being protected. Many of us are familiar with the existing myGovID system. The existing unlegislated Australian government digital ID system is well established, with more than 10.5 million myGovIDs—which can be used to access more than 130 government services. However, the current system has limitations: it is not national; myGovID can only be used to access government services; and private sector services can't currently use myGovID to verify their customers. This falls short of the vision for a national, economy-wide system. The Digital ID Bill provides a legislative base for broader use of digital IDs via a phased expansion of the Australian government digital ID system to include state, territory and private sector entities who choose to participate. Consistent with the phased approach to expansion, the bill provides for the Digital ID Regulator to manage arrangements for other matters, including statutory contracts between participants, liability and charging for providers and connected services in the future. The Australian government digital ID system is based on the principle that people can choose which digital ID provider they use to access any website, app or other service that is connected to the system. In the legislation, this is called the interoperability obligation. The minister will, however, have the discretion to exempt some government services from this obligation and only allow a single digital ID provider, such as the myGovID. Exemptions will only be granted in limited circumstances, such as for government services where there is potential for identity fraud to have a significant impact on the financial circumstances of individuals or businesses in Australia—for example, the tax system, the social security system and the NDIS. Additional privacy and consumer safeguards privacy protections in the bill are designed to ensure that digital IDs meet community expectations. The bill contains a comprehensive range of privacy protections that apply to the accreditation scheme that will operate in addition to existing protections in the Commonwealth Privacy Act. If the Commonwealth Privacy Act does not apply, the bill will ensure that accredited providers are subject to equivalent privacy protections. The bill includes measures that will protect Australians' sensitive information—such as their passports, birth certificates, driver's licences, Medicare cards and biometric information that they may use to verify their identities—by requiring express consent to create a digital ID and before information about them can be collected, used or disclosed to a service they wish to access; by requiring accredited providers to deactivate a person's digital ID if they withdraw their express consent at any time; and by prohibiting accredited entities from collecting particularly sensitive types of personal information such as a person's political opinions or sexual orientation. The bill addresses the risk of commercialisation and misuse of digital IDs in the economy by preventing data profiling or the tracking of a person's activities using a digital ID and by preventing personal information from being disclosed for marketing purposes. The bill contains safeguards over law enforcement access to digital ID information held by accredited entities. Access to this information will require a warrant, unless it is being disclosed with consent or disclosed for the purpose of an accredited entity reporting digital ID fraud and cybersecurity incidents. The bill includes measures to ensure the Digital ID Regulator will be notified of any breaches of accredited providers under Commonwealth, state or territory data breaches to facilitate quick mitigation of the risk or remediation of the breach. If there is no state based scheme, the Digital ID Bill requires the entity to report breaches under the Commonwealth scheme. To ensure these protections are meaningfully regulated and enforced, the bill will give the Information Commissioner a full suite of investigative and compliance powers. If an accredited entity breaches any of the privacy protections, they can be liable for civil penalty. Those less able or willing to get a digital ID should not be left behind. An essential safeguard in the bill is that digital ID will continue to be voluntary for individuals accessing government services through the Australian government digital ID system. The bill will require Australian government agencies to continue to provide alternative channels for people to access services. Where an individual is accessing Australian government services on behalf of a business or in another professional capacity, a digital ID may be required because digital IDs will address the increased fraud risk associated with some business services. The regulator will monitor and regulate the compliance of entities participating in the Australian government digital ID system and may impose civil penalties for any breaches. These safeguards will help ensure people who choose to create and reuse digital IDs they can be confident that their information is safe and secure and that their privacy will be protected. The bill will establish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as an independent digital ID regulator, with the responsibility of overseeing the accreditation scheme and the Australian government digital ID scheme. The bill will also provide for the systems administrator to perform day-to-day operational matters to ensure the performance and integrity of the Australian government digital ID system. Finally, the bill establishes a data standards chair to consult with industry and issue data standards. The bill will make sure the regulatory watchdog has teeth to enforce the safeguards, with a broad suite of monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers, including civil penalty provisions, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will advise and enforce privacy protections, provide complaint handling for breaches of the privacy safeguards and report on privacy aspects of and the exercise of its powers and functions under the legislation. Further transparency will be provided through public registers for accredited entities, including whether they have ever had their accreditations revoked or suspended. The regulator will be required to report annually to the minister for presentation to parliament on applications on approvals for accreditation or participation and fraud or cybersecurity incidents and responses. Further, a statutory review of the bill will be required within two years of commencement. The scope of the review would include any supporting rules and standards made after the commencement of the bill. The Digital ID Bill is about the safety and security of Australians and of their digital identity. We've all been horrified by the data breaches and the ensuing issues that come from them—with people being vulnerable to identity theft and scams. It's an entirely voluntary exercise, it has built-in security measures and it has a regulator to ensure compliance. I commend the bill to the House. 12:02 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney You know, the world's become such a complicated place. Often what's sold to us as something that's designed to make life easier does anything but. There was a time when if you had a paper copy of your birth certificate, which had probably been issued to you by the local magistrate, your identity was assured. But in an increasingly digital world, our legislation must not only keep up but, ideally, stay ahead of change. As we digitise we have a responsibility to protect the privacy and personal information of every Australian. And ultimately, our digital ecosystems must protect against major data breaches that expose millions of Australians to identity fraud and scams. Australians are increasingly transacting online and new cyber-risks are emerging. They do, in this way, highlight a need for a secure way to verify your ID online and use that ID to access trusted services. But as we work towards this, we must also ensure that we are very focused on protecting privacy and personal information as tightly as possible. There can be no compromise. We also need to ensure that we don't leave large segments of our community behind, nor fundamentally erase what I think is essential for a healthy, fully functioning society, and that's human contact. Digital ID systems do present an opportunity for improved convenience in accessing services and facilitating economic advancement through the use of such technology. Australians having access to a safe, secure and convenient way to prove who they are online, to enable them to access more services and businesses from the comfort of their own home, is a good thing, but it requires strong accompanying legislation that upholds privacy and other human rights, and there have been valid questions from right across our communities, particularly from mine in North Sydney, as to whether this bill achieves that. My community in North Sydney have expressed very real concerns about this bill. I've heard from my constituents that they're worried this legislation risks their personal freedom and privacy and provides institutions and governments with too much power and control over their personal information. Just a couple of week ago, with the support of the North Sydney ageing-while-working group, I hosted a scams awareness event, with Scamwatch and Lifeline, so my community of North Sydney could learn more about what's currently going on. What really struck me was the level of very real and deep fear that was evident across those from my community who attended that seminar. There weren't just questions like 'Who's scamming me?' More fundamental than that, there were anxious questions that related directly to: 'Who can I even trust to help me navigate this system?' During that forum my community learnt that last year the ACCC reported that a total of $3.1 billion—that's right, $3.1 billion—had been lost due to scams in the previous 12 months, and the over-65 age cohort accounted for around one-fifth of those total losses. Clearly, communities are increasingly vulnerable to scams, particularly our older population. An effective ID system, then, undoubtedly has the potential to provide convenience for users and enhance the security of personal information. For businesses, initiatives like this bill will in theory mean a simpler way to verify their customers, access to a market of accredited digital ID providers, and peace of mind for their customers. For entities offering digital ID services, the bill will provide a nationally consistent set of standards they can be accredited against and give them greater awareness and access to government agencies and businesses requiring identity services. For the government, the bill improves security and streamlining processes across agencies—or so it's argued—making it easier for Australians to access more government services and decreasing the risk of identity fraud. For individuals, the bill should extend privacy protections beyond those already in the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which in turn should strengthen the safeguards to protect personal information. But where data is gathered en masse there will always be a target for those that wish to abuse it. For example, any entity that becomes accredited for the scheme must adhere to additional privacy safeguards that go beyond those in the Privacy Act. Key among those safeguards are prohibitions on the use of single identifiers, a prohibition on disclosing information for marketing, and restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of biometrics and other personal information. Importantly, the Information Commissioner will have the power to make sure those safeguards are provided. I do welcome the inclusion of a maximum civil penalty rate for privacy breaches and liability provisions for cases of noncompliance; however, the privacy law provisions could be further strengthened under this legislation. The external oversight mechanism included in this bill is welcomed, as is the expert panel to provide independent advice on the system. These measures will contribute to the integrity and accountability of the digital ID system. For the user, it's encouraging that this bill enables choice. The decision to use digital ID is voluntary, and parties cannot require participation as a condition of service, but the voluntary nature of this system is critical and should not be understated. Concerns have understandably been raised as to whether people who choose not to participate will receive the same level of service as those who do and whether, over time, that option will be quietly faded into the background. This bill has great potential to be a positive thing for our community, but it must protect the best interests of the individual and uphold human rights. The amendments to this legislation made in the Senate have addressed some of the issues raised by my community, but there remain concerns, namely the gaps in the overarching privacy laws in this country and the ability for law enforcement to access personal information. Ultimately, the privacy provisions in this legislation are a continuation of the piecemeal and deeply unsatisfactory approach to strengthening Australia's privacy laws whereby bits and pieces are tweaked here and there rather than the privacy law framework as a whole being strengthened. At the international level the right to privacy is protected under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and this is enshrined in other human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. Yet, without decent human rights protection under domestic law, privacy in Australia is yet another area lacking adequate protection at the domestic level. The Attorney-General's Department review of the Privacy Act between 2020 and 2022 concluded that it's necessary to overhaul Australia's privacy laws, as many other countries have done, to ensure that our laws remain fit for purpose in the digital age. The government's response released in February last year committed to privacy law reform in Australia—reforms that would ensure Australians can be more confident that their personal information is being protected appropriately and that action will be taken where entities fail to manage personal information appropriately. Yet, despite a clear expectation that the government would act accordingly, no proposed amendments to the Privacy Act have been made public. Instead, extensions of privacy protections have been made under multiple pieces of legislation, including this one, when, ideally, reform of the framework at large would have come first. The Privacy Act overall is outdated, and it lacks the robust protections we need in today's digital landscape. Australia's privacy laws are fundamentally not coherent, with experts from Allens Hub at the University of New South Wales finding we have around 40 different privacy regimes across Australia, both federally and at the state level, with many carveouts within those laws. We need one strong Privacy Act, and ideally we would have had that act before these bills were introduced to ensure that all necessary safeguards were in place and that any potential loopholes were closed. I call on the government, therefore, to prioritise that reform. Do the big work before we start fiddling around the edges. Back to the specifics of the bills before us. Another aspect of significant concern to the community of North Sydney is broad access to personal information by law enforcement agencies. An enforcement body, as deemed by the Privacy Act, includes criminal enforcement agencies and other bodies such as the Department of Home Affairs and bodies with the power to issue civil penalties or sanctions. Personal information can be disclosed when an enforcement body has started proceedings against a person for an offence against the law, including minor penalties or sanctions. While this has been debated and amended in the Senate, it's still unclear when personal information might be disclosed to law enforcement. People in my community have literally asked me, 'Will my personal information be able to be accessed by the police if I have received a parking fine?' People are clearly afraid of adopting digital ID if it opens them up to law enforcement access for minor crimes or misdemeanours. I reiterate calls for law enforcement access to be restricted to serious crimes only and for clear messaging around what justifies that access. Additionally, the voluntary nature of the system raises concerns that will need to be addressed to ensure public trust in the system. Choice is only meaningful if there is an assurance that people will not be disadvantaged if they choose to retain current methods of identification. Those who choose not to participate or have limited ability to participate because they don't have access to wi-fi for two-factor verification must be guaranteed equal entitlements and access to services, because not everyone will have equal access to digital ID. This includes individuals living with disability, the Indigenous communities living in and around our rural and remote Australian regions, living without the financial means to access technological devices, and older Australians with lower digital literacy—just to name a few groups. I understand that provisions for accessibility are included in the legislation, but this point must be emphasised. It's crucial that service providers are held to account for the services they are providing and that assurances are put in place that no-one is being left behind, whether they choose not to participate in the scheme or they're not able to participate in the scheme for other reasons. The statement of compatibility with human rights attached to these bills states: 'The voluntary nature of this scheme ensures that the adoption of digital ID systems by service providers does not impede the accessibility of services for individuals. The choice to use a digital ID to access the service will not replace existing options, and that existing alternative channels such as the telephone need to be maintained as alternatives.' I say this is a positive thing. But it's also idealistic to rely on the trust in service providers rather than to have strong measures in place within the bills to ensure those measures are enacted and compliance is tracked. Where service providers, particularly government services, are already at capacity and are difficult to access—I don't know if those who drafted this legislation have tried recently to contact a Services Australia office—the sustainability and quality of these other services should be guaranteed under this scheme. These services must not reduce access to face-to-face appointments, nor to phone services upon uptake of a digital ID system. Ultimately, this bill does much to move us forward. But we need to move forward with caution, consideration and compassion. It is a significant piece of legislation that serves an important purpose in strengthening privacy safeguards, but the best interests of the individual must be paramount in the design of the scheme. The government has a responsibility to ensure the strongest-possible protection of personal information and privacy, and for personal autonomy to remain. It's crucial this bill is strong, it's crucial this bill is transparent, it's crucial this bill is future-proof and, fundamentally, it's crucial this bill is designed for the humans that it will impact. Thank you. 12:15 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I rise to speak on the Digital ID Bill 2024. We need greater online security. We've seen over the last few years now just how many internet scams are being experienced across the country. Criminal and sometimes malevolent state sponsored actors, or even state actors, have found ways to subvert and steal personal documents and identities, and sometimes phone numbers and bank accounts. The ACCC Scamwatch report shows that our seniors have been especially vulnerable, having not grown up with online cues that others perhaps are more accustomed to. They find themselves not only more susceptible to scams but also more targeted. The National Anti-Scam Centre reports that Australians lost $2.74 billion in scams in 2023 and $3.1 billion in 2022. That small decline is due to the strong action taken by the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Cyber Security since coming to office, but it is still a huge amount of money and we cannot be complacent—especially with the advent of commercial AI and the danger that it carries. Obviously, we're not even counting there the cost of the personal toll and stress this takes on any single person subjected to these scams. Yes, we've seen a serious number of data breaches in Australia across the corporate world. The Latitude Financial breach in 2023 saw 14 million customers affected across Australia and New Zealand, and Medibank had 9.7 million people affected by a breach in 2022, when a Russian based gang demanded a $10 million ransom. The Optus data breach in 2022 saw 9.8 million customers affected. These breaches don't just affect current customers but they also reach into the past. The Optus breach, for example, included personal information collected by Optus as far back as 2017. In 2018 the ANU suffered a breach which was not discovered until six months later. The information stolen included names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, emergency contact details, tax file numbers, payroll information, bank account details and even student academic results. Instead of having to provide identification documents again and again to all manner of private organisations, companies and departments—some of which, or their parent entities, reside offshore and are not always effectively or even directly subject to our laws—this legislation will enable us all to secure an ID and provide it once. We can then rely on that single government-ratified point of reference to satisfy ID requirements for all manner of purchases, memberships, contracts and registrations. It is a voluntary scheme, designed to allow all of us to more easily and securely protect ourselves in day-to-day dealings with government, business and other organisations which require proof of identification. I have received correspondence about concerns around the introduction of the digital ID—unfortunately, inflamed by some of those opposite trying to link it to various conspiracy theories. Some of those opposing the ID do so because they don't actually understand its purpose or its benefits to security. To explain, I can say that, where adopted, the system will make people safer than they are at present, as they will be providing their personal data to one highly secured repository, rather than to many different ones, some of which have lax security and some of which, as we have said, have data being held offshore. But those concerns that centre around privacy and the voluntary nature of the scheme are, in fact, legitimate, and I thank my constituents for raising these matters of concern with me. Being a responsible government, we've ensured that privacy is built into the legislation. Express consent is required to create a digital ID, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Guardrails are there to prevent the collection of particular types of information. This will prevent data profiling, tracking or the use of data for marketing purposes. I know we all use different platforms for different reasons, be they for shopping or banking. But even just to be able to book accommodation online you now have to offer up not just your drivers licence as proof of ID; you also have to take a photo of your face for facial ID recognition. This data is now being held by an overseas organisation and we've got no assurance as to where that data is being used or who it's being sold on to. We're interacting day to day with organisations that require us to produce personal identification in order to be able to access their services. It's these sorts of examples that go to the heart of this bill. It's intended to ensure that people can have a means of providing a single digital ID so that all that sensitive data that could potentially be misused or manipulated isn't held by people around the world. Digital ID is being embraced as an answer to online criminal activity all over the world. Germany has one, Hungary is launching its digital ID, India has a digital ID, Sri Lanka has a digital ID— Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Singapore has a digital ID, Malaysia has a digital ID, and many countries are developing one, including the UK, Ethiopia, Kenya and Bahrain. In Germany, in fact, for the member for Kennedy's information, reports indicate that 63 per cent of Germans are using it. They feel confident and comfortable with the fact that it's far better to have a single source of ID that's encrypted, rather than having to engage with every single business or entity and share their personal identity and information instead. They are voting with action by utilising their system. In fact, the previous government started looking at this as long ago as 2016 but, for whatever reason, was unable to finish it, because in their work between 2016 and 2022—six years—nothing was done. But perhaps, like many other portfolio areas, this was yet another case where there was division in the party room. But, as Minister Husic commented in regard to this issue in 2018, they couldn't keep track of all the projects that were going off the rails. In yet another example, the member for Bradfield spoke in this debate on the amount of time and energy it can take for any person in this country to prove their identity to a bank. He used the words 'long, cumbersome and painful process'. I can only agree. It's yet another reason why this legislation should, in fact, have been enacted a long time ago, and it's why we're getting on with it now. The member for Bradfield also described the proposed governance structure of the Digital ID Bill as 'fragmented' because different parts of that governance structure are responsible to different ministers. That is not a design fault; that is a design feature. Wholly reasonable concerns about privacy, probity and security need to be met by a structure that instils confidence, partly by ensuring that different parts of the governance structure are independent of each other. We cannot have public confidence if checks and balances are not built into the system. The member for Bradfield also had the gumption to speak of 'dither and delay'. The government of which he was part did little else on this and across so many areas. We are acting. We are catching up with the world. The bill is here and, given that the opposition were trying without success to put it together on their watch, they should be supporting it now and not pretending that they won't go out and register themselves for a digital ID as soon as they can, too. How are we showing our commitment to this digital ID? We're certainly doing it with a lot of money—$288.1 million has been allocated for the national digital identity program. The 2024-25 funding will be used to run pilots with the private sector and to develop the infrastructure, the regulation and the security. Businesses will be able to participate in the scheme within two years of the passage of this bill. Most of this funding—$156 million—will be spent by the Australian Taxation Office to upgrade the myGov platforms to allow users to securely access government services on behalf of a business using a digital ID. Another $23.4 million will be spent to upgrade the encryption of the myGov and myGovID platforms because we rightly expect that the security for this system will be of the highest order. In summary, the use of this digital ID will be voluntary. Organisations will need to provide alternatives for those who do not wish to use the system. It won't be difficult, as each organisation or government department already has a system for requiring and proving ID. This bill will reduce the need for people to share their personal and identification documentation and other information repeatedly with the many departments and businesses that now require it as standard practice. This bill will make people safer. It will make the holding of our personal identification more secure and convenient—and we'll ensure it's voluntary. I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the minister for her stewardship. 12:26 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy To the speakers supporting this bill: maybe the education system doesn't have Brave New World or 1984 on their reading lists. But in Queensland, up until the nineties, anyway, I can assure you they were on the reading list, and every child, every young person, in Queensland, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984. The characterisation in those books, as in all the movies that have been made about these two wonderful books, was: Big Brother is watching. You people are advocating Big Brother watching. These people will win the next election, and you'll see what it's like when they have access to every movement that you make. An honourable member interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 Unlike you, I happen to be a very strong trade union man. We've had to have discussions in situations that were very, very prickly. They didn't want to see, and I didn't want to see, anyone looking in on our discussions. But there's no privacy now. You've taken our privacy away. I sat in the room when we were assured that the gun laws would not interfere with your personal freedoms and your right to protect yourself in your own home. We're now putting before the Queensland parliament the Castle Law, which has been the law of the British tradition since Magna Carta—your right to protect yourself in your own home. The Liberals are not voting for it—they're too scared—and, of course, Labor is opposing it, as usual. You know the three famous assurances: 'I'll respect you in the morning'; 'The check's in the mail'; and 'I'm from the government; I'm here to help you. I'm from the government; you can trust me.' Under the gun laws, a government authority can walk into your home any time they like. Did we lose our rights to privacy, freedom and the idea that an Englishman's home is his castle? Of course we lost all those rights. On Telstra, I said: 'You've got to be joking, Mr Prime Minister. If you privatise Telstra, how the hell are we going to get services in our little towns, on our station properties, in our remote areas and in mining? How are we going to get coverage?' The former Prime Minister, John Howard, assured me—and he's a very good man and a very good Australian; please don't take my remarks as being critical—saying, 'No, no, no Bob. We are putting universal service obligations in there.' Go and tell that to people in Julia Creek or the people in the Gulf Country. What use are the universal service obligations? If you trust the government with your freedoms, you are a fool and you betray the people that you represent. Not one person in the ALP has had the guts to stand up on the issue, and I would suspect that many of them are not on side with this proposal. Having said those things, freedom is a real issue in Australia today. My grandchildren were coming up a few years ago. I said: 'Oh, beauty! I'll get out the air rifles and we'll shoot a few toads.' My wife informed me that boys below the age of 13 or 15—whatever it is—are not allowed to use any firearm whatsoever. 'Yeah, but this is a 70-year-old air rifle!' 'They're not allowed to use them.' So that freedom is gone for every generation of Queenslanders who live in a small town. He had his air rifle and, later on, his .22—well, that one's gone. I said, 'Alright, I'll set up the flying fox and—zoom, zoom, zoom—splash in the swimming pool.' She said: 'No, you'd have to take the panel off the fence. If you take the panel off the fence, that's illegal.' 'But they're not going to inspect it. We're out of town.' She said: 'They came and inspected it last week, and they informed us that our fence was 2½ centimetres below what it should be. They want the whole fence replaced'—at a cost of $3,500. That's not the end of it. I said, 'We'll start work on the second stage of the tree house.' 'Uh-uh. A kid fell out of a tree house in Brisbane two months ago. Tree houses are banned.' Tree houses are banned. Grandad's 70-year-old air rifle is banned from shooting toads. I'm not allowed to use the swimming pool. I said, 'Alright, we'll just go down the flat and boil the billy.' The most iconic Australian scene is boiling the billy. We should teach all our grandkids how to boil a billy and make a bit of damper. My wife said: 'No, you have to get a permit to light a fire in the open. It will take at least three months for the permit to come through.' A free country? You people in this place and in the state houses have never understood freedom. You've had such an abundance of freedom in this country that you have a cavalier attitude towards it. And you are paying a terrible penalty. When government officials can walk into my house at any time they like, I am already paying a terrible price for freedom. Every single school child in Queensland was made to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four because it is an important part of your understanding of freedom. That was why it was on the reading list for every single kid that ever went through schooling in Queensland's history. You people either don't understand it or haven't read it, because, when your party says to go ahead with some stupid, ridiculous, terrible infringement of our freedoms, you just do it—and you don't even kick up a stink! You're not even game to open your mouths in the party rooms. I was in a party room for 30 years. The people who I selected to go into the ministry in Queensland were the people who did stand up in the party room, because I knew that, when we went out in the public arena, they were going to stand up for the principles that they believed in. We were born and birthed in freedom in our country, and we never had to fight for it like the Americans. They had to fight for it twice: freedom for the black people and freedom for themselves from the pernicious rule of Great Britain. While I'm on the subject, I can't help but mention that we have a lot of growing up to do as a country. Any country that would put a foreign monarch on their coin says (a) you do not believe that all people are born free and equal, and (b) you do not believe that we're a separate country. You cannot put a monarch of England on your coin and say that you're a separate country. It is not Australian. And yet that's what you're going to do. And it's the same with freedom. You haven't grown up—you're not like France or America or even Britain. You can criticise Oliver Cromwell if you like. You can criticise the founders of the Magna Carta, or Archbishop Langton, the region of England—you can criticise them, but you enjoy those freedoms. Remember, every freedom that you enjoy has been bought with the blood of hundreds of thousands of martyrs, and you come into this place and just fritter it away until you've got no freedoms left. I use the example of my grandkids coming home. Freedom? Is this a free country! I would say that Queensland would be the most un-freest society on earth. Queensland is worse than the other states. We have had more government for a longer period than the other states. So I would say that. And if you are to fire me then you start the argument. You give me an argument. Here you are taking away our right to privacy, and to some degree I'd say it's the most powerful right that we still enjoy. Well, it's gone. Big Brother will be watching you every inch of the day in facial recognition. In China, the leader in this area—the great leader is China, a country that's noted for its freedoms and respect for humanity. They're the world leaders and you'll get their technology from them, and they'll have access to your technology. I stand up with a rage and fury in my soul. I lived in the freest country on earth, the state of Queensland, which had the great Theodore Labor government, for 40 years, outside of Brisbane. Take this point, you politicians: Theodore Labor outside of Brisbane won every seat, every election for 40 years. There's nothing like it I can find in human history, because he gave us great and wonderful freedoms. You could get a miner's right and you could go anywhere you liked in Queensland unless it was freehold land—95 per cent of the land in Queensland is pastoral lease, so you could go anywhere that you liked. And, all right, I might say that you let the cattle owner know that you're going on to his place, but that was an incredible freedom. You could just go anywhere that you liked, and what a wonderful country. I could carry my rifle anywhere I liked. And for those of you who say, 'That's a freedom you have to sacrifice for the security of the people!', in Queensland, we had eight deaths with guns when we had no laws at all. I walked into a sports shop to buy a pair of socks and I saw an AK-47 rifle so I bought the AK-47 rifle instead of my socks, and threw it in the back of the car at the Gold Coast over Christmas. I threw it if the back of the car and drove around all day with an AK-47 and 350 rounds of ammunition. We had eight deaths with guns. In New South Wales, if we had eight deaths, they should have had 16. They didn't have 16. They didn't have 26 or 36. They had 38 deaths with guns, with very strict laws. Victoria, with draconian laws had 54 deaths with guns. Taking away that freedom—what did it achieve? It achieved an increase in the number of deaths with guns. And that is the same in Europe—the same phenomenon occurs—and it's the same in America. I absolutely love the arguments. This is a story about freedom. That's what we're talking about here. In America, they say: 'Oh, it's terrible! Deaths with guns is horrific!' But have a look where they're occurring: in North Dakota and South Dakota there have been no deaths in the last two years. Guess who's got the highest gun registration in the world? It's North Dakota and South Dakota. Washington DC has the highest death rate, where guns are almost banned. You are taking away our right to privacy, our right to freedom. And I don't know about other people in this place, but I've had to have very delicate negotiations to head off some very harmful strikes, and in other cases to turn on some very harmful strikes to get rights for our workers and people that were working in very dangerous conditions. I don't want to have anyone looking in on those discussions. Matters are sub judice. We're not supposed to interfere in the course of justice, but there would not be a person in this place that hasn't, at some time, pleaded a case where there's a great injustice occurring and tried to head it off. And now it will be on the register and you will go to jail when you do those things, because interfering in the course of justice is an unlawful and jailable offence. I could give you a hundred examples of where your freedom is going to vanish. It is not funny to say, 'I'm from the government. Trust me,' and that's exactly what the last two ALP speakers were saying: 'We're from the government. You can trust us.' Who would trust a government that has backed Gaza? Would you trust those people? They're justifying the murder of 1,200 innocent people with no provocation whatsoever, and they're out there barracking for Gaza. Would you trust that government? I wouldn't. Would you trust a government that has closed mines and intends to close all of the coalmines in Queensland, putting— (Time expired) 12:41 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Freedom is important. We just heard 15 minutes of why freedom is important to the member for Kennedy, and I understand much of what he said. I completely understand where he's coming from. He, like me, represents a country electorate, and people in country electorates take their freedom very seriously indeed. I know, from when I was deputy chair of the NSC, that national security is, of course, the hallmark of a good government. We banned Huawei, and I know that, following that decision, which didn't go down well in Beijing, Britain followed suit. Estonia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Sweden—the list goes on and on—were concerned that Huawei, a leading global provider of ICT infrastructure and smart devices, would have too much control over the information disseminating around our nation and the nations that I just mentioned. Indeed, would they have control over systems where our hospitals were operating or over traffic lights? These are important discussions to have. As a government, you need to ensure that the safety and security of your people is No. 1. At the time, Huawei was a sponsor of the Canberra Raiders rugby league football club in the National Rugby League, and there was a lot of pressure on Australia. I raise that, in the context of this important debate, because freedoms are important, and they are certainly important to those who sit on the same side of the parliament that I do. I am perturbed that, in the death throes of the final parliamentary sitting week of the Senate, not that long ago, this particular legislation, the Digital ID Bill 2024, was rushed through and guillotined by a government that, when it came in in May 2022, said that it would be more transparent, said that it would be more open, and said that it would respect parliamentary procedure, protocols and process. Yet on this, and on other bills, it did not. Even when you think back to 12 months ago, the appropriation bills for the second budget brought down by the member for Rankin were guillotined. I have never in all of my time here—and this is my fifth term—seen the appropriation bills being shut off and members not being allowed to speak on those particular bills. Why we would have a digital identity bill with members unable to speak on it is beyond reason and beyond belief. These amendments which were put forward to enhance privacy protections for Australians who choose to use digital IDs were not supported. We oppose these bills; we believe they're half baked. And it's not just the coalition which thinks that they're half baked and it isn't just the member for Kennedy or, I'm sure, others. I've had a lot of correspondence into my office, some from people who don't usually reach out about legislation—they just go with the flow. In particular, there were two emails I received where I felt it necessary that I put them on the parliamentary record, on the Hansard, because the people who sent them in were very concerned about the digital ID bills and what they might entail for them and for others. One was from Jenny Madden from Uranquinty. I've known Jenny for a long time. Jenny is a good citizen; she is a passionate Australian. She said: Although I am a user of My Health record, and an enthusiastic advocate of such a resource, I am greatly disturbed by the potential ramifications of the Digital ID Bill 2024. Even though I completely understand that it is more onerous to use numerous different identification documents such as birth certificates, passports, and driving licences to prove ID, it is in this very aspect of variation that safety lies. With the centralisation of data comes great danger. Firstly, the Federal Government has a poor track record of securing our information. For example, in 2020, security researchers warned the public against using MyGovID due to security flaws in its design, which the Australian Tax Office declined to fix. Moreover, an article published by the ABC last year titled "Cyber black market selling hacked ATO and MyGov logins shows Medibank and Optus only tip of iceberg" reported on numerous data breaches involving the Australian Tax Office, National Disability Insurance Scheme and MyGov. But what I find even more concerning is that a single digital identity database could facilitate a system of surveillance of Australians not unlike that of China's social credit score system. That's what Jenny Madden had to say. I understand completely where she's coming from. Dan Grentnell, of North Wagga, said: I would like to express my disapproval of the proposed digital ID legislation on behalf of my family, myself, and I think the majority of people of the Riverina and Australia who actually know how much of an overreach of government this is. Australians have to ask themselves—do they really want the government acting as gatekeeper over every aspect of your life, I know I certainly do not. These two are just normal, everyday, ordinary Australians but they speak for a lot of people. They're good people and what they have put in their emails to me are concerns that I know would be shared by a number of regional Australians and a number of Australians, full stop. I know that more than 10 million people already use the Australian government ID system via myGov ID. I get that the banks and, dare I say it, even supermarket loyalty cards have a lot of information on people. But only recently I had the bank that I have been with since I was a teenager—and rest assured that is a long time ago, more's the pity!—pursuing me via text and email to actually identify who I was. All they required was my driver's licence number—not only the licence number on the front but the number that appears in the back. I'm just going through the process of renewing my licence and I now have a paper form from New South Wales. The number on the back of that wasn't the number they required so I have to ring the bank back and give the proper number when I get my little laminated licence in the mail in coming weeks. I digress, but as I said to the person on the end of the phone when I finally rang under the threat of having bank accounts closed: 'Fair dinkum! If you can't find my name, just do a Google search! And don't believe everything you read when you do that Google search!' But I was worried about being scammed because so many people get text messages via their mobile phones and via their iPads and they get emails from supposed trustworthy institutions, but they are from scammers in far-off countries who just want to take their money, get their identity and use it. I know that a lot of MPs use social media and many MPs have people putting up fake accounts purporting to be those members. I also know that we've been told not to use TikTok. I can't understand why any MP would want to use TikTok. They might want to reach out to younger members, but it is a security risk. People are also concerned with this particular legislation and they are concerned not only with the contents of it. How can Australians trust Labor to manage digital ID when they won't even allow parliamentary scrutiny? And why does the government feel the need to rush legislation such as this through, if it is so important that people's representatives in the parliament can't speak on it. I'm glad I've got the opportunity, but my Senate colleagues were not given that opportunity. For a government that said that they would be more transparent, why did they rush this through the Senate in the finishing hours of that last parliamentary sitting week? Labor's bills don't adequately ensure that the bill is truly voluntary, yet every Australian deserves to receive the same quality of services regardless of how they're accessing them, be it through traditional ID or face to face and so forth. The government shouldn't proceed with these bills until such time as they've reformed the Privacy Act. There should be simultaneous private sector participation in the Australian government digital identity system to ensure that the digital ID is a truly national, whole-of-economy solution. When in government, we did some careful, calibrated work to progress the AGDIS—the digital identity system. We worked hard, we worked in good faith, we took on board consultation from stakeholders and we made sure that what we were doing was transparent. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about this. There are many, many Australians who are concerned that hacking and professionally done security flaws and breaches will happen as a result of this sort of system, if and when it is enacted. We released, as the coalition government, draft legislation in 2021 to further regulate digital identity. The important word in that sentence is 'draft'. We put it out there, we made sure that people were able to have a good look at it, we made sure that people were able to respond to their local members of parliament, because that's what being a federal member of the House of Representatives is—it's about taking feedback from the constituency. But this was done, so to speak, in the dead of night. This was done on a whim by Labor, and I have to say there's been a lot happen this year, there just has—a lot of legislation and a lot of things done in the parliament. This particular legislation and the National Disability Insurance Scheme are probably the two things that my office—my electorate offices at Wagga Wagga and Parkes—have received the most traffic about. When it happened so quickly and was so rushed through the Senate in that parliamentary sitting week, I was inundated with emails. I was surprised and amazed at how many people approached me when I was out at events and in the street and wherever else I happened to be in my local communities, by the number of people who came up to me and asked me about it because they were that concerned. That's not normally the case. People will often get animated about things that might happen in the budget, things that didn't happen in the budget and all that sort of thing. But the amount of people who were very concerned that their privacy was going to be breached because of what Labor did in rushing this through the Senate, quite frankly surprised me. The digital identity legislation introduced by the Albanese Labor government is very, very different to the draft bill which the coalition released. That concerns me, as well. The coalition put forward amendments designed to fix what we see as weaknesses in the bill. Our amendments included the following: a much stronger guarantee that having a digital identity would be voluntary; that no Australian would be required to have one; that someone would not face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional paper based identity documents; removing the phasing provisions so that the private sector could be involved from the outset—how important is that?—and imposing a clear requirement that the changes to the Privacy Act must be made before this legislation came into force. As a reasonable person, I would have thought that those amendments were reasonable to the government. They weren't onerous. We were working in a bipartisan fashion with the government to try to strengthen legislation that Labor felt the need to just ram through the Senate. It always bothers me when legislation starts in the Senate and then our representatives in the Senate—the fine states' house that it is—do not get the opportunity to speak. The amendments were just brushed aside. That bothers me. The government refused to accept our amendments, more is the pity. Accordingly, the coalition voted to oppose the government's digital identity legislation because, as I said a short time ago, it is half baked—that's a good description of it. We want to make sure that any legislation that comes before the House is what it ought to be and is given proper consideration not just in this place, the parliament on the hill, but indeed right throughout this wide brown land. Sitting suspended from 12 : 56 to 16 : 00 16:01 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'm pleased to rise to talk on the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the related bill. My electorate of Cowper is around 8,000 square kilometres, so it's not a huge electorate, but it's big enough that it allows me to conduct mobile offices around the electorate. Every week I will go to a different place, find a hall somewhere and meet constituents. Sometimes I go to The Pub With No Beer up at Taylors Arm and constituents come and meet me on the verandah there. They talk about a whole range of issues, whether that's Centrelink, child care or aged care. Sometimes it's about local council issues. Sometimes it's about state issues. Quite often people just want to come along and meet the local member. Over the past six or eight months, I have to say that, overwhelmingly, the people who have been attending those mobile offices, as well as emailing my office, have been speaking to me about their concerns in relation to the Digital ID Bill. They have concerns about privacy, government intervention and their freedoms. Just because I'm out the back of the bush in halls and in the corners of pubs doesn't mean that it's the tinfoil-hat brigade coming to see me to raise their concerns. These are mums and dads, grandmothers and grandfathers, business owners and farmers. Everyday people out there are coming to talk to me about their concerns. They're saying, 'Pat, you've got to represent us in parliament against the Digital ID Bill.' I've printed out three emails from constituents. The first email is from Angie: 'Please vote no. It is an unsafe idea, as hackers are getting smarter, as recent events show clearly. The Australian public (your voters) do not want this digital ID or wish to be discriminated against if we choose not to use it (while that is still an option). We are a free country. Let's keep it that way and err on the side of caution.' The second email—and I get multiple of these every single day—is from Peter: 'Please vote against the Digital ID Bill. Your privacy, my privacy, our freedom—all at risk. Digital ID will become the tool for big government and big corporations to monitor, track and control us. The Digital ID Bill is a Trojan horse that threatens to transform our democratic society into a surveillance state. Please share this petition widely to help us stop this before it's too late.' This last one is a bit longer, but I feel that I need to read it out because it is so balanced. It's from Steve: 'Dear Sir, I write regarding the Digital ID bill. As my representative in parliament, I urge you to reject and oppose this insidious bill on my behalf. I appeal to your integrity and your humanity to make the debate clear in your mind. As you know, this country is not the country you and I grew up in. I am 62 this year and I know there is something terrible happening to our country and the world. No-one can doubt the advantages of digital communications and computing but, in my opinion, the digital/AI machine is not being used for the betterment of humanity. I am beyond making arguments politically. This issue is about our humanity. Are we going to surrender our rights to the arbitrary decisions of the machine—a machine obviously being utilised by a nefarious power? I will not comply with any "digital ID requirements". I am an Australian, born in Sydney and raised in New South Wales, and I know who I am.' As a closing statement, 'I am so very tired of seeing division being cultivated by our very own governments.' So there's a cross-section of very reasonable people who are expressing their real fears of this intervention into their lives through the Digital ID Bill. You have to ask why people are coming to me in droves over this very issue and lobbying me to come down here and speak the truth. If government wants policy passed, they have to have the trust of the public. They have to garner the trust of the public. Why does the government not have the trust of the public on this very issue? It's because over the Christmas period there was a one-month consultation period. When governments push something through over the Christmas period, what they're trying to do is fly under the radar. We've seen it time and time again. Not only did they have the consultation period over a month—a short period of time, considering the impact that this bill could have on our communities—but Labor gagged debate in the Senate. They gagged debate on this very bill. Why? That is the question the public is asking: why did they do that? When Labor don't stand up and offer a reason or give another opportunity for a consultation period, the only reason the public could ascertain is that it was for sinister reasons. They do not want this bill. They want their freedom. They want their privacy respected. Do you know who does want this bill? The banks. The banks want this bill, and they will worm their way into the government's pockets and say, 'We need this information for the betterment of society,' and they will use your information for their own financial purposes. They will gather your information, and we're seeing it already. We're seeing it already with the banks' ESG—their environmental and social governance. If you don't comply with their train of thought, they can freeze your accounts or they can say, 'I'm sorry, you don't have the privilege of being our customer anymore.' I've seen it happen in my electorate. So the banks would welcome this—all your information. They would use that information that you hold so closely. The other people, not too far away from the banks, who will love this are the crooks, the criminals. We have seen breaches of privacy time and time again over the last 12 or 18 months to two years. The last one was in a club where you now have to scan your licence and they take all your details. You don't just have to prove you're over 18; you've got to say: 'There are all my details. There's my date of birth. There's my licence number.' Why on earth do clubs need all that? In my day you just had to prove you had a licence and were over 18, and you walked straight in. Now it's: 'There's all my information. Please don't get hacked.' And that's exactly what's happened. All the information from New South Wales clubs went out to a criminal. And they are getting more and more sophisticated. Imagine a world where these bills proceed and all your information is gathered and put into the system, and some brilliant hacker gets it. They will use that for their own purposes; we're seeing it now with ransomware. But what happens if they have all your details and a hacker hacks the system and decides: 'Rather than doing that, I'm going to make sure you no longer exist. I'm going to wipe your details'? This is not beyond the realm of possibility. You wake up one day, and, on paper, you no longer exist. You ring the bank and they say, 'I'm sorry, you don't exist anymore.' You go to the hospital and they say, 'I'm sorry, we don't have any records of Medicare.' This is why we need to keep our details private. This is why we shouldn't be handing out every single piece of information to big government to infect our lives. Australia is a free country and should remain a free country. We should have the right to say 'no'. One of the biggest problems with these bills is the voluntariness of being involved. We put forward some amendments to ensure that that would happen, and Labor voted them down. Why? Is the next step, 'There is no option; you must comply'? Last week I went back and—I hadn't read it for a long time—read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which, interestingly, was written in 1949. Winston Smith, the main character, spoke of his worries about where the government was in his life, and in every room you went into there was a TV that could see you, and it knew exactly where you were at a particular time of day, knew exactly what transaction you'd made and put out what the public should think. It was incredible, reading this book and thinking: 'This is where we are now. This is exactly where we're heading.' The next step will be that government will have complete control over us. This is not what we want. We want the freedoms of the past. We don't want government telling us what to do. There are many diverse reasons that people come and see me and are opposing these bills. But the biggest one is the freedoms that we enjoy right now, followed by the real fears that their information will end up in the wrong hands. This is exactly why we should not support these bills. 16:14 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Thank you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, for this opportunity to speak on the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the associated bill. One thing I will note from the start is this: look at the list of speakers here. There are no Labor speakers at all, only coalition or independent speakers—not one from Labor! There's a good reason they're not lined up to speak on this bill: half of them don't like it. Half of them are very uncomfortable with the bill, but they can't say anything to their leadership about the fact that they're uncomfortable with the way this bill attends freedoms. But it's not just the Labor party that's at odds here. I'll go back to 2022, when the coalition was in power and I was a member of that government. To give the experience—and I'll come to that a bit later on—if you ran a superannuation account on your own in 2022, the then minister, Jane Hume, introduced and passed legislation for a government sector ID for small and medium super funds. I got a direction from the government that said: 'Sign up or else. You have to have a digital identity if you want to be a director of your own super fund.' I thought: 'This can't be right. The Liberal-National government would never to do this—make it compulsory.' Not only did they make it compulsory but, under the law, directors who failed to apply for a director ID within the stipulated time frame could face criminal or civil penalties of 5,000 penalty units, which currently stands at $1.11 million. Directors of a CATSI organisation can face penalties of $200,000. So I thought, 'I better get on and get a digital ID,' because I didn't want to be the member of parliament that wouldn't sign up for, at that time, his own government's digital ID. It was quite difficult. It was quite a strain on my wife to get that done, because you have to have facial recognition. You had to go through the process, and our accountants couldn't process our documentation. So don't talk to me about 'voluntary'. This government is talking about 'voluntary', and I'll speak a bit more on that when I get a chance later, when, internationally, this legislation is in nearly every Western country. 'Oh, surprise! 'No, it's in Australia. It's only an Australian proposition.' No, it's not an Australian proposition; it is worldwide. We are following along, tagging along, with the Americans and other countries on this bill. We just heard the member for Cowper outline the community concerns about this bill, and what the community is on about is freedom of activity, freedom of engagement and freedom of being part of the Australian community without encumbrances like a digital identity bill. If you want to hide the bill, what you would do is introduce it in budget week. But the first thing you would do is rush it through the Senate on the last day of sitting, helped by the fact that coalition members didn't turn up to vote against it. I know why they didn't, because they proposed it themselves and put in the legislation. As a backbencher, I didn't see that legislation; I didn't see that come before the party room. I didn't see it; I wasn't told about it. But, when I did find it, it was in some obscure corporate legislation—set out here—that would have gone through the party room without comment. It would have been an uncontroversial bill. Well, it became controversial for us. From where I sit, there's something exceptionally sneaky and suspicious about the bill and how the government is handling it. Accordingly, debate on this bill is as a pesky and insignificant piece of legislation—no big deal! Well, it isn't. To the contrary, it's one of the most heinous, overreaching and disturbing bills I've seen in the 25 years that I've spent in the parliament. Adding to my suspicion, consultation about this important bill was stifled. A quiet notice went out: one month to provide feedback. This was just before Christmas, when people were distracted and rightfully preparing to switch off—not switch on. Then, to top it off, as I said, it was rammed it through the Senate without any committee consultation. There's nothing surer than this bill having the capacity, in one fell swoop, to imprison us all as servants of the state. Have I gone too far? There's been too much. This Digital ID Bill is already mandatory. Take the requirement for digital identity for directors of superannuation funds. I explained the situation with my wife before. We could have faced a serious fine if we hadn't done what we were told. Other people have told me that they just signed up using paperwork. How they did that I don't know. That wasn't our instruction. The reason 10 million Australians have to have a myGovID is that 10 million Australians were coerced into getting one and Centrelink won't or can't talk to you without one. Recently, in Western Australian, there was a payment to be made, but you couldn't access the payment without a digital ID. As one commentator put it: Why should the Government have any more of our data than they already have? They don't deserve it. They have not proven that they can be trusted to handle information about their citizens responsibly. Well, it's too late. The game's up. Australians can see through this nonsense. The Australian people will never forget the extent to which their human rights—which I screamed about every day—were violated during the pandemic, nor will I. It's clear we're already living in Orwellian times, with 24/7 surveillance through satellites, banks and facial recognition technology. How do I know about facial recognition technology? I have an in with Coles supermarkets. Bunnings tried to bring in facial recognition for their customers and dropped it because it was against the law. It's still against the law, but Coles have put in all the facilities and all the cameras for facial recognition throughout all their stores. Whether it's throughout all their stores yet, I don't know, but they're just waiting for the time when they can switch it on. What it will do is get your face against the products you're buying. It doesn't even wait until you get to the checkout; it puts it against the product you are putting your hand up on the shelf to buy. They will know everything about you. A pregnant mother was called by her bank after their transaction algorithm picked up that she'd visited a medical centre and had had a pregnancy scan. Apparently they were offended that she and her partner had negotiated their mortgage based on having one child. Their crime, it appears, was that she and her husband didn't consult the bank before conceiving their second child, thus affecting the loan and their ability to pay it. Then, as you know, there's the move towards a cashless society. The Digital ID Bill is yet another bill supporting the government and the banks to move us into a cashless economy. Just imagine how dangerous the ID becomes when the money in your bank account is inextricably tied to it. What worries me is that, if they give you a digital identity, the digital identity can be taken away. We just had an enormous storm go through Mirboo North. It was a unique, unprecedented storm. It smashed huge forest trees to the ground as though they were matchsticks. There was only one apparent death caused by the storm—one farmer, who was hit by flying debris—but how the rest of the town survived without death, I don't know. There was no communication, no power, no electricity, no water and no food available. As one lady said to me, we went back to 200 years. But I make the point that, because they were so reliant on cards, they couldn't get fuel, supplies et cetera. They're saying this digital ID is not mandatory, but it is, and I've been against mandatory everything through the whole of my 25 years, whatever that mandatory might be. But in this case I believe that, if it's given to you, it can be taken away. I know of a personal instance. A friend of mine was deemed by a bank to be not a suitable customer. The bank were the judge and jury, and they said, 'We and other banks will no longer deal with you.' Now his whole business operation has to go through his daughter. We saw the government's willingness to override our human rights during COVID. We saw the closing of bank accounts, the police storming in to arrest a pregnant woman who had posted her views about a lockdown on Facebook and the censoring of social media posts put up by people sharing their heartbreaking stories of vaccine injury. When I say no to the next vaccination mandate, which I will—as I did to the COVID mandate—how might my digital identity be used to encode, punish or penalise me? Might it prevent me from paying for my shopping prevent me from travelling by cancelling my drivers licence or switch off my electricity? I think the worst part on former minister Jane Hume's was: 'A director ID will be attached to a director permanently, even if they cease to be a director, change their name or move interstate or overseas.' It will be like a tattoo! I haven't got a tattoo, but that would be a digital tattoo. I am concerned about this; I'm concerned about freedom and the huge risks. I want to say to the people in this room that every time I've made a decision or looked at legislation, I've made that decision and looked at the legislation in the knowledge that the decisions we were making may affect you, your children and your grandchildren. Just like a tattoo, they're permanent: the legislation is permanent. Yes, this can be repealed, perhaps, by a future government chasing freedom. But every bit of legislation can be turned around and can be used by authorities. Will it be your children or your grandchildren affected by the legislation that we move today? Boring? It works. I'm with Senator Canavan, Senator Rennick, the member for New England and others who have stood up here and opposed this bill. And they've opposed it for very good reason. We all read books. There was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where she was an expert hacker. That book tells the future of how they can hack, what they can do and how they can move money and all sorts of things. It's a fictional story, but it exists today. Hackers make us look like fools. We have all talked about the scams that are happening, where $3 billion is lost every year in Australia through hacking and scamming. How can the government be so confident that we can put all this information into one bank—myGovID or whatever it is—and that they won't be hacked? Or cut out—hacked to the point where, as the member for Cowper said, you don't exist. The government didn't do it, but somebody decided to take you on and the way they can attack you now is through your digital ID. It's an Australia Card on steroids. People today want the opportunity to have control over your life—more control. So it isn't about keeping people safe, it is about control. There is no redress here in the case of fraud or cybersecurity. They've said, 'We'll find the people,' if they can find the people who did the cyberattack. They could find them, but are they likely to be in this country? I don't think so. This government today have said that we have been under cyberattack from our so-called friends and people who we trade with. That has happened already. The government have failed to demonstrate the need for digital ID and they have failed to convince us that they are trustworthy enough to keep this information secure. I heard everything in the second reading speech that it was designed by the Public Service to say. I saw all the new commissioners they're putting in place—I saw all of that. But that won't mean one thing to the individual who is crucified under this legislation through his digital ID being attacked. I listen to my constituents, and they tell me they don't like it. They're telling the government they don't like it. The backbench of the Labor Party is telling them they don't like it and the backbench of the Liberal Party is telling them they don't like it. I heard what the shadow minister said today—I thought it was pretty wishy-washy. If you are really going to protect freedoms in Australia, you oppose this bill and you oppose it with all your strength and all your arm. 16:29 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I stand here to speak about the Digital ID Bill 2024 with very mixed feelings. I'm one of the 10½ million Australians that have a myGovID. I got sucked in and gave all my details, which the government already has through my tax files and through my multiple passports. But, for some reason when I was in the ministry, I needed something, so I had to sign up to it. This is an initiative that we all know about and that was created following the review in 2014 known as the Murray inquiry. The resulting initiative is commonly known as the Trusted Digital Identity Framework. There is some merit in the system, but what is proposed is an economywide system, which is different from the way the government and citizens interact, when government provides a lot of services to Australian individuals. But the fact is that this is going to change and be virtually universal. I'm concerned that there will be multiple identity providers, or multiple issuers of digital identities. There is a private provider already within AGDIS system. But, under what is proposed in the transitional arrangements, they will transition over. The whole idea of it was to get efficiency for businesses that want to know who they're dealing with. To know that you're not a fake person or a criminal, they want some form of ID. If we're going to have this system, it should be available to everyone. And there are plenty of people who don't want the government to have more and more ability to digitally track them. There is freedom of movement and freedom of association, but, if it's all in one spot, as the previous speaker mentioned, it puts a lot of architecture in place for long-term digital surveillance. We have seen problems in other nations with social credit systems that are enabled by being tracked. Your behaviour, in some autocratic nations, gives you social credit or brownie points, so you can access more services—or, secondarily, you can be denied services. At the same time, we have two other digital phenomena happening in the world. We have the cashless society being foisted on us by bankers because it suits them. I have no doubt that most of us like the ability to have a credit card and to tap and go, but most of us also like the fact that we can have real money—real cash—and deal in that way. There are plenty of people in our country who don't have access to the cashless society, so we need to keep cash. This is just another part of a phenomenon. We are clever monkeys and we have developed amazing technology. But, when you combine social credit systems, a cashless society and digital tracking, and you put artificial intelligence on top of that, it gets to be a very scary combination of digital skills that can upend your life. We've all heard of identity theft. What if someone were to be able to hack into the government super system, which this federal government seems to be wanting to happen? There are state based systems existing in some jurisdictions, and there have been high-level intergovernmental meetings to try and force everyone onto the one system. If it's going to be here, I'd prefer that there were some private providers, because they might be a safer venue to hold your critical information, rather than a monstrous central government system that can be hacked. We hear about it all the time. Could you imagine if someone got an image of you and made a 'digital you' with artificial intelligence? You've seen some prominent people who've had their images stolen, a digital fake made of them and appeared in financial scams, advertising goods and services, and they have no idea. I've seen pictures of some of these celebrities and elected officials that look remarkably like them. It's a case of buyer beware with this technology. I'm happy to give my identity—that the government already has to a central location—as long as it's secure, but a lot of people aren't and they should have the right not to do that. As we've seen up in the Senate, they tried to ram this through and did that without a full discussion. The amendments to the Privacy Act haven't been confirmed, there is a mixture of ministers who have legislative and regulatory control over the system versus another minister that has control about the creation of the licences—some are in Finance, some are in DSS. I think this is a shoddy bit of rushed legislation, and that we really need to take a slow breath, get through all these issues and make sure that when it does come in that other entities that are setting up aren't restricted from being part of the system. And people should absolutely have the voluntary right to be able to establish their identity by traditional paper, in-person attendance, written name and address, and all those things and it shouldn't be used as a vehicle for restraining trade and changing conditions of existing contracts with service providers, be they government or not government. All in all, it's a pretty complex issue. I just think the issue is not urgent. It needs proper and thorough evaluation. It would be good to send it off to a committee that can really pull it to pieces, and we'll get a better product in the end. I reserve my rights on how I proceed in the vote on this issue. 16:37 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I'd like to begin by recognising the importance that the government's digital ID proposal represents for the Australian economy and society, but I say that equivocally. I will say that the existing arrangement of digital identity verification in Australia—one decentralised and led by the private sector—is fraught with risk. One only has to look at the 2022 Optus and Medibank Private data breaches to identify the need for a secure means of digital identity verification in Australia. Names, phone numbers, physical addresses, bank details and mental health diagnoses should not so readily find their way into the public domain. Australians can and should be protected from this kind of risk. Enabling Australian industry to rely on a secure means of digital identity verification is likely to simplify a vast range of economic activities. Banks will be able to verify a mortgage applicant's identity without having to undertake their own verification process and carry the risk of storing sensitive identity documentation themselves. Accessing government services like Medicare or the Tax Office would be made less arduous—that's the promise, anyway. It's even foreseeable that the process of entering a hospitality venue could become quicker and easier, with greater protection for underage children. Some people are suspicious of or simply struggle to deal with the increasing digitalisation of government services that we've seen in recent decades. I understand and I acknowledge their concerns. There is an equity issue here, and we must make sure that older people, poorer people and people from a range of backgrounds are not disadvantaged. But I don't oppose the trend in principle. I can see that where evidence based policy design has been undertaken and thoroughly considered, and safeguards are in place, digitalisation can be a force for positive change in society. Unfortunately, however, there are elements of this legislation which indicate the process has not been rigorous enough. Whether this policy will be successful comes down to a single word: trust. In the case of digital ID, I don't think the government has done enough to build that trust, and I think that's been evidenced by the speakers before me. The government has missed several opportunities. As a starting point, it is poor public policy and legislative practice that this piece of legislation has been prioritised for enactment prior to the government's broader promised series of reforms to the Privacy Act. This view was put forward by Digital Rights Watch to the government last year but has apparently been ignored or, at worst, parked. As the government has publicly acknowledged, Australia's present-day privacy legislation is insufficiently robust to deal with a modern and internet connected digital economy. Ideally, expansion of the existing Australian government's digital ID system should only occur within a comprehensive legal framework which provides assurance to Australians that their sensitive data is private and protected. The government's proposed model for this digital ID system is not of itself new. It's a model that has been used internationally, and many countries have adopted such a policy, the Aadhaar system in India being one significant example. India's version of digital ID, which is technically comparable to Australia's proposal, includes law enforcement access and accredited private sector involvement. But it also raises important questions about the design of its technical systems. International advocacy group Access Now, in a case study of the Aadhaar system, found that its implementation did not broadly capture all types of identity within India. In addition, in India, religious and caste identities are both contested and deeply societally complex. Visibility of such social characteristics, particularly for marginalised groups or those perceived to be 'out of favour' with the government of the time, is not uniformly desired. This is particularly the case when adequate and accessible alternative methods for verifying identity are not available—take, for example, the plight of a refugee escaping persecution while having no choice but to navigate a complex and central digital identity system. Despite some other welcome changes to the original legislation, which I'll come to later, this bill would have been further improved had it contained specific protections against discrimination of vulnerable individuals. I raise this issue because the legislation does not incorporate such safeguards. The explanatory memorandum states that the legislation does not include express provisions to prevent the discriminatory use of a digital ID. While I understand other legal avenues may exist for individuals impacted by the digital ID system to seek redress, we must question whether proper safeguards have been implemented within this proposal which would prevent discriminatory misuse or mission creep by a future government. This is another missed opportunity to build trust in this bill. The special accessibility provisions for law enforcement agencies to the digital ID system are one of the predominant questions surrounding this legislation. Amendments made by the Senate offer some improvement by requiring that the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police report to parliament annually detailing the number and types of access requests made by law enforcement. I want to stress that the simple activity of verifying one's identity digital should in no way involve law enforcement and in no way improve the effectiveness or operation of the government's proposed model for digital ID. This is an unnecessary provision. Alternative means exist for law enforcement to protect Australians, and its inclusion only serves to undermine the integrity or the perception of integrity of the digital ID system for many Australians as they understand it. Perception and acceptance are particularly important when dealing with new technology and public policy and in this case are key drivers for broad uptake of the system. These principles appear to be ignored in the legislation before us. Again, it's another missed opportunity to build trust. I commend the amendments made by the Australian Greens in the Senate relating to protecting the voluntary nature of the digital ID system and ensuring alternatives for identity verification are available as the system is implemented. This is an important provision to ensure that Australians are not forced into the system by a simple lack of other options. While the digital ID system will no doubt be quicker and more secure than any other alternatives, this important provision both respects the concerns any Australian may have in their understanding of, and trust in, it. The amendments also safeguard against indirect or unintentional discrimination experienced by Australians who are less literate in digital technologies. The amendments made by the Senate, therefore, improve the voluntary nature of this new form of secure identification. Law enforcement access is restrained and subject to those accountability measures. On balance, I am inclined to vote for this bill based on the benefits it presents to bringing up to date secure and modern verification of one's identity. But, for the moment, I will reiterate my concerns that this must be closely monitored to guard against unintended consequences. 16:45 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Some things in this place are very black-and-white, and others are little bit grey. Being a pragmatist, I try to take on both sides of the debate and understand it from both points of view. There's no question that I have heard a lot of terrible tales about cybersecurity and cyberattacks from constituents who have lost an awful lot of money over the last few years. The Digital ID Bill, on the surface, goes to address that issue, which is a good thing. On one hand, I'm a lot more comfortable with one organisation having my details than 20. For example, if I wanted to open an account with Optus or a bank, or whomever, rather than having to give all of these different organisations my information, the idea of giving it to one organisation, such as the government—which, in theory, would spend and invest a lot more money in securing that information than a business would, because for a business it's an expense that doesn't return any value to them, whereas governments have an obligation to protect people—on the surface it seems like a good bill. But, deep down, whenever I face these questions where I can see the good in it but I can also see the bad in it, the question I always ask myself is: does it take away the freedom of choice? That must be protected, above everything else we have in this country. This bill takes away that freedom. It has the potential to. The government are saying that it is a choice, and on the surface it looks like that. But when you read deep down and go into section 74 of the bill, there are exemptions. We've only got to go back to what happened during COVID with the state governments. Even though vaccinations were a choice, for many people they did not feel like a choice. They couldn't go to work, they couldn't go to a football game, they couldn't go to a pub, they couldn't go interstate, they couldn't go to a funeral, they couldn't go to a wedding. That doesn't sound like much of a choice. This has the potential to do exactly the same thing, and that is my concern. It's a deprivation of human liberties. We must protect that, because the greatest gift we have ever been given as human beings is the gift to choose. When we take that away from people, we dehumanise them—we take away their humanity. We can't do that. I'm also concerned with the fact that what will happen is corporations and businesses, because they want most of all to report a great return to their shareholders—which is their job—will do it at whatever cost to their consumer and their customer. And if they can find that this will make them more money on their bottom line—saving money from having to go through arduous other ways of finding ID and confirming someone's details—they will take it up. Then they will bring in policies that say, 'You can't open an account with us unless you go through this process.' Again, this is taking away choice. You just cannot take away that choice. We're seeing it more and more, and we've heard make an account unless you go through this process. We've heard people speaking a lot about Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World, and all those sorts of things. I don't want to dwell on these things because, at the end of the day they're fictional. But people are correlating how much it's starting to seem like that. I believe that it's our job as people in the parliament to sit there and, pragmatically, look at both sides. I always try to do that because I think that most legislation that's introduced has a great motivation, and I don't think this is any exception. But we've got to drill down on the detail and make sure that it's actually going to do what it's designed to do, and I cannot see it doing that. The biggest issue with this is that, when the coalition started to work on this—and I was on the committee that was working on this particular piece of policy, and I was never a fan of it—we said that it must be a choice; it cannot be mandatory. If it had stayed on that path, I may have reluctantly gone along with it, but the fact of the matter is that with section 74 that won't happen. I also understand that there are people out there who want to give their information to the government. You know what? That's their right. They have the same rights as a person who doesn't want to give their information to the government. Both groups of people should have their rights protected to make that choice. As far as I'm concerned, the coalition has made the right decision in opposing the bill as it stands. The amendments would have made it a greater debate. I think the government have done themselves a disservice by not even considering the amendments and rushing it through because they're trying to hide it through budget week. I think that they will pay the price for that, because there will be a backlash from the electorate, because the Australian people, more than anything, want their freedoms protected. 16:51 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam First, I thank the members who have contributed to the debate. It's an important debate and it's an important package of bills. The Digital ID Bill 2024 and the related bill will put in place the legislative framework for an economy-wide digital ID system in Australia. I want to respond to some of the debate that I have listened to. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to all of the contributors, but I've had the opportunity to listen to a number of them. I was in the chamber when the member for Goldstein made some contributions, and I thought they were thoughtful, to be frank. I want to assuage her concerns by pointing to the fact that the bill contains a provision for a statutory review in two years so that, as this program rolls out and unforeseen matters arise, there is capacity for a full public review to deal with any of the issues that we haven't foreseen in the preparation of the legislation to date. I want to make a few points and address some of the misapprehension or misunderstanding, deliberate or accidental, surrounding this bill. The digital ID system does not create a new digital database of ID in the country. What it does is create a safe, voluntary and distributed means of accrediting existing ID systems throughout the country. I want to make a point on something that has come up in a number of the contributions about the safety of it. I've heard members of the coalition say that they're concerned about cybersecurity, and I believe them. Frankly, you can't maintain those concerns about cybersecurity and oppose a digital ID system. In the time that this bill has been debated in the House this morning and in the Federation Chamber this afternoon, there have been literally millions of attempts by malign actors to gain access to public and private systems and databases in this country. Most of the data that they're seeking access to is the personal identification data of Australian citizens. One of the reasons that we have a problem in this country around cybersecurity is that just about every business—sometimes because the government tells them that they have to properly verify, and have proof that they've properly verified, a person before they can conduct business with them, particularly in the financial services system—will take a photocopy of somebody's passport, licence, Medicare card and perhaps their bank statements, and then they'll store them. Sometimes they'll store them because we tell them they have to store them. God knows the safety and security around which some of this data is secured. We're not just talking about large businesses in this country; often it is stored in small businesses. Anyone who attempts to access a club or a pub in New South Wales will be regularly asked to provide a copy of their identification, and that is scanned and God knows how that is stored. That creates a safety risk to the personal identification of every Australian citizen who has had to provide that information to access one of those venues or to transact business. The digital ID system is an answer to that problem because it provides a safe and secure alternative to those businesses and those premises having to take a copy and store that personal identification. The digital ID system is an alternative to doing that, and it is safe. I've heard concerns about whether or not this is a voluntary system. I simply make the point—and it's an important point—that there is currently no regulation which requires a private sector business in this country to provide a choice to a consumer about whether they provide a digital ID or some other means of verifying themselves for their business. There is currently no legislation which provides a consumer with the right to say, 'I want to use that digital ID' or 'I don't want to use that digital ID'—until these bills are passed into law. Once these bills are passed into law, there will be a right for a consumer to say, 'Yes, I want to use that digital ID system' or 'No, I don't want to use that digital ID system.' To those members of the coalition who are proposing to vote 'no' because they think they're not going to have a choice: if you vote 'no' and these bills go down, you will be denying yourself and those you represent an actual choice about whether a business can require that you use some form of digital ID or some other form of digital ID. It creates the choice and creates the mechanism through which a voluntary use of a digital ID system can be maintained and mandated in this country. I heard the member for McMillan. I like the member for McMillan; I think he's a decent bloke. But sometimes he just gets the wrong end of the stick. I have heard him speak passionately about his concerns about scams affecting his constituents and mine. I know he has heartfelt concerns about these issues, and they are very genuine. I share those concerns. We have lost $3 billion in the previous year to scams; we're bringing that down through our initiatives. But, frankly, one of the reasons we have a problem with scams is malign actors are able to access personal information because it is being asked for and stored in an insecure way. That information is then monetised and onsold on the dark web, and is no alternative mechanism for people to safely identify themselves. You cannot on the one hand say that you are concerned about cybersecurity and on the other hand vote against the Digital ID Bill. You cannot on the one hand say that you are concerned about Australians losing billions of dollars a year to scammers and on the other hand vote against the Digital ID Bill. They don't stack up. This is an answer to the genuine concerns, the heartfelt concerns, that people across the parliament share. Can I address a point that was made by the member for Bradfield, who said when he spoke in the House that he supports the digital ID and that in some respects it was his idea. Frankly, I don't care whose idea it was; it's a necessary reform. But you can't say you support the digital ID and then go and tell coalition MPs that, when we vote on this later on tonight, they're supposed to vote against it. He complained that there was not enough political leadership or advocacy in relation to the importance of these bills in the economy and for the security of Australia's personal data. I simply make the point that the lack of advocacy and the lack of leadership is on the coalition benches. If the member for Bradfield really feels this is an important economic reform, as he said in his second reading speech, he should be doing the hard yards and having the hard conversations with the members on his backbench to assuage their concerns, and, frankly, separate himself from some of the nutso, tin-hat stuff that has been put around about what the digital ID system is. The member for Bradfield knows that a whole heap of the concerns that are being raised are simply not true. So what the member for Bradfield should do is show some leadership, show some strength and have those hard conversations with members in his own party room. Having done that, he should return to the House and vote in favour of this sensible bill. I commend the bills to the House. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill. Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 149

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 149 Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 149

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 149 17:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong The Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 will strengthen protections for Commonwealth frontline workers who face increased risk of violence or aggression because of their role. In the financial year 2022-23 there were 10 million visits by members of the Australian public to 318 Services Australia service centres across Australia. Six thousand Services Australia staff worked with their customers in service centres to help sort out their Medicare, childcare, age pension, unemployment or a range of other payments that occur at various points in a person's life. However, in the same financial year there were 9,000 reported acts of aggression against these frontline workers. Indeed, in the first six months of this financial year alone there were 6,092 incidents, of which 852 were serious. Tragically, the number of serious assaults is up by 261 on the previous year. Self-evidently, one assault on a staff member is one too many. Indeed it's almost a year to the day—23 May last year—that a Services Australia team leader's life was changed forever when she was viciously stabbed in her workplace. Joeanne Cassar was doing a job that she loved and has worked at for many years. She did so very well at the service centre located in the suburban shopping mall at Airport West, where she became the victim of a knife attack. I have met with Joeanne several times since the stabbing. I met her in hospital that week, where she was supported by her husband Andrew, and I met with her workmates. Last week I was able to deliver to her husband and to her workmates details about how the Albanese government is seeking to make them safer, including through this bill. I'd like to take a moment, though, to acknowledge Joeanne's strength, resilience and grace over this past year. We should almost rename the bill the 'Joeanne Cassar Bill.' She has a hard road ahead. She has a permanent injury, which won't change. But she wants to make sure that this can't happen again or that it can be prevented, to the best of our abilities, from happening to another frontline public servant. The people who work at Services Australia service centres are the engine room of our social security safety net and our Medicare safety net. They make sure that Australians can get the services and payments that they're entitled to when they need them. They're trained to deal with complex and, at times, unpleasant situations, and they set the bar high with their professional, compassionate interactions with members of the public. They see people who may be having their worst day—the loss of a job, a family breakdown, a health issue or the uncertainty of options for an ageing parent. However, we do know that a small cohort of people take that frustration out on Services Australia staff or other customers. Stress, vulnerability and personal frustration are never an excuse for violence. It doesn't matter how bad a day someone has, there's never ever a reason for aggressive behaviour towards staff or another customer. It's totally unacceptable. The Albanese government wants to make sure that the people who are there to help Australians in their time of need can go to work and come home safely and that they work in a safe environment. The day after the stabbing of Joeanne Cassar, I initiated a review of staff safety at all 318 service centres around the country. On the night of her stabbing, I contacted former Victorian Police Commissioner Graham Ashton to see if he was prepared to deploy his many years of meritorious policing experience to give me and the government answers to how we could make the service centres more secure for both staff and customers. The Services Australia Security Risk Management Review, conducted by the former commissioner Ashton, found that Commonwealth frontline workers are facing increasingly violent and aggressive behaviour in the workplace in their dealings with the public, which also endangers other members of the public. In his review, Graham Ashton made 44 recommendations to Services Australia. The agency is implementing all 44. In October of last year, I was able to announce that the government had committed an interim $47 million for immediate measures, including hundreds of additional security guards, enhanced security features incorporated into the design of service centres and improved training. Many of the service centres are in shopping centres and other busy places to ensure they're accessible to the public. We must do everything we can with the best advice possible to provide a safe environment for the 10 million visitors to Services Australia sites every year. At the beginning of this month, at Airport West, with Joeanne Cassar and her husband, Andrew, standing alongside me, I announced that the government will invest a further $314.1 million over the next two years to continue to improve safety in service centres. That's in addition to the $47 million announced in October. The new $314 million investment will help the agency to fund up to 606 security guards, up from about the 200-plus that we had before these changes, which means there are two guards at service centres where there are higher levels of customer aggression. It will help with the redesign of an additional 35 services centres, with enhanced features to reduce the risk of harm to staff, as well as expand the customer self-check-in kiosks to service centres at risk of high levels of customer aggression. This will minimise queueing, which, for this cohort of people I referred to earlier, has been reported as a source of frustration. There will be an upgrade to security systems and enhanced security features at all service centres, and we’re going to establish a centralised security operation centre to help the agency respond in real time to customer aggression incidents in any of the offices. The funding will also see the implementation of a new agency-wide system to better record, view and manage incidents of customer aggression, and there will be increased liaison with local law enforcement. There will be more work done with the Department of Social Services to improve the policy for and accessibility to urgent payments. This includes the use of electronic benefits transfer cards to safely assist customers who don't have access to a bank account. But, specifically, with the legislation and the amendments to the Criminal Code today, I talk of the implementation of recommendation 18 of the Ashton review, which called for amendments to the Commonwealth Criminal Code to increase the penalties available for causing harm or threatening to cause harm to a Commonwealth public official where the official is also a Commonwealth frontline worker. The Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill, which the Attorney-General introduced into parliament in March, promotes the right to safe and healthy working conditions and enhancing protections against violence and abuse for frontline staff. Specifically, the bill will increase the maximum penalties in the Criminal Code for causing harm or threatening to cause serious harm to a Commonwealth frontline officer. It does this by aligning the penalties for causing harm or threatening to cause serious harm to a Commonwealth frontline worker with the penalties that apply for the same conduct against a Commonwealth judicial officer or Commonwealth law enforcement officer. In other words, there won't be two classes of frontline Commonwealth public servants. It doesn't matter if you wear a badge and carry a gun or if you're just working at the Medicare or Centrelink office, you'll have the same protections under law of penalties for assault. Specifically and further, where a member of the public causes harm to a Commonwealth public official, under section 147.1 of the Criminal Code the maximum penalty will increase from a maximum of 10 years to a maximum of 13 years imprisonment. In addition, where a person threatens to cause serious harm to a Commonwealth public official, under section 147.2 of the Criminal Code the maximum penalty will increase from a maximum of seven years to nine years imprisonment. A 'Commonwealth frontline worker', as defined by this bill, is a Commonwealth public official who performs work requiring a person to deal correctly—whether or not in person—with the public or a class of the public as a primary function of their role. The lessons from Miss Cassar's assault now mean that we will seek to cover service centre staff and team leaders, including face-to-face and virtual service centres, as well as security guards, call centre operators, inspectors and compliance officers, such as officers exercising monitoring or investigation powers under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2015. It will cover interpreters, front-facing staff at electorate offices and service staff at relief and emergency centres, such as during a natural disaster. These categories have been included in the amendments to reflect the diversity of Commonwealth frontline worker roles, from service delivery to regulatory functions. It will likely cover an extra 100,000 Commonwealth public servants. While the bill we bring forward today deals with recommendation 18 of the Ashton review, there is also a body of work underway to introduce legislation to address recommendation 17, which relates to protection orders. Members may not be aware, but currently if someone assaults, threatens to harm or becomes fixated on a Commonwealth worker or their agency, the reliance is on using existing state and territory protection orders. A majority of these schemes place the onus on the individual to take out a protection order in their own name. The current law, as it stands, requires that if an individual Centrelink worker, Medicare worker, childcare worker or electorate officer feels the need to take out an apprehended violence order, they have to do it themselves. There's no ability for the employer or employing agency to take it on their behalf. This means that individual staff have a re-traumatising experience, not to mention an administrative burden at an already stressful time. The fact that the offender may have a problem with their employer or the government, and not them personally, is now being recognised. The legislation being developed will look at protection orders already in place in the ACT, as a model for the Commonwealth framework. These allow the individual workplace to be the sponsoring entity for such orders. It will expand it to cover, as I said, staff working in electorate officers, who are often assisting vulnerable people in touch with acute supports, but too often face acts of aggression in their workplaces that cross over into threatening behaviour. In conclusion, the Albanese government is not just talking about protecting frontline staff. We're genuinely acting, through the major financial investment that I outlined and by pursuing legal avenues of deterrence. The funding I've outlined and the amendments which support it send a powerful message to our very important Commonwealth frontline workers that we value them, and that violence and aggression towards them will not be tolerated and will be met with serious penalties. I do note that, in speaking on this bill, the opposition have indirectly implied that somehow this is all down to cost-of-living impacts on family budgets and wait times. The cohort of people actually committing these offences is not a large number of the people who use the system. It's a small number. Most are known to those working at Services Australia and many have complex mental health needs or significant vulnerabilities. Many are already on managed service plans, meaning they have specific servicing arrangements over the phone or in writing and are prohibited from physically presenting at the service centre. Certainly, in proposing this legislation, I do not think that the vast, vast bulk of users of our system are anything other than excellent customers, but none of us in this place would put up with the threat of aggression which increasingly faces Commonwealth frontline workers. We're fixing overdue loopholes, which treats our frontline workforce as important. Every worker in Australia should feel safe in their work environment, knowing that they'll return home after their shift without having had their mental or physical health threatened. We need to take the stress off the shoulders of the people we ask to look after some of our most vulnerable citizens. Commonwealth frontline workers are there for Australians in their hour of need and the government will protect them. 17:14 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I congratulate the minister, too. I think it's very important that there is legislation like the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 to protect those who work for the Commonwealth in areas such as Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, passport offices, airports, the AEC and other government services across the country. There are over 100,000 staff working in places like Services Australia and the tax office et cetera. Sadly, already this year there have been 9,000 incidents with aggressive customers when it comes to these Commonwealth workers. That's quite astounding when you think that among, roughly, over 100,000 workers, 9,000 have dealt with very aggressive customers. Last year, before the Voice referendum, AEC staff were subject to very high levels of cruelty online and were physically and mentally abused. This is just totally unfair when they're just doing their jobs to serve the government and serve the Australian people. In 2012 a Centrelink worker in Queensland was attacked by a woman who swung a chair and a bag at her desk. The worker ended up having a high level of mental illness history. This form of violence is totally unacceptable when people are going to work. The legislation was born out of Services Australia's Security Risk Management Review. I congratulate the minister, Bill Shorten, for this review, as well for having someone like Graham Ashton on it. I worked under Graham for a short time when I was in Victoria Police. He was a fine chief commissioner of police and someone who very much puts the public first. This was the result of a worker, Joeanne, being attacked with a bladed weapon while working in the Airport West Services Australia centre in 2023. It seems quite outrageous that someone would think it's okay to come in and do that. Okay, you may have a grievance, but to get to the stage where you're actually assaulting and attacking someone like Joeanne is simply outrageous. I congratulate the minister on visiting her and making this commitment to her. The bill amends existing offences for causing or threatening to cause harm to Commonwealth public officials in the Criminal Code. The bill creates a new category of Commonwealth official, called a Commonwealth frontline worker, whose primary function involves dealing with the public. As we heard the minister talk about before, this brings AFP staff or Australian Border Force staff into line—they are all now treated as equal. Back in my day in the Victorian police force, we saw offences increase when it came to aggravated assaults and assaults on women, and also when it came to law enforcement. I acknowledge the penalties have increased to a maximum of 13 years—but when governments increase penalties, the clear and simple message is to the courts in particular: the public expects to have higher penalties dished out when it comes to sentencing. For those who threaten to cause serious harm to Commonwealth frontline workers, the penalty rises from seven to nine years jail, which I support. But, again, we need the courts to take these very seriously and to make sure that those perpetrators who are responsible, when it comes to threatening behaviour, assaults et cetera, are harshly dealt with for their behaviour. That's because quite often when a person is going to a Centrelink office, there are other people there too, with children, and it not only affects the person who is serving them but also the public, who are quite often in a vulnerable situation themselves. A penalty must be strong penalty. I note, too, that there are 278 additional guards in the bill, bringing the total to 513 guards. I very much welcome this, because quite often that's a deterrent. We call it 'waving the flag'. Someone walks in there and sees the security guard in the corner and thinks, 'Okay, I'm being watched here; if I do misbehave, I'll have the security guard, if not the police, being called to arrest me.' Five large service centres are to have additional security features, such as customer service check-in kiosks and enhanced IT security with greater security alerts. It's so important to make sure staff are trained in that. The 500 frontline staff will be trained when it comes to delivering advanced customer aggression training. In all, I welcome this legislation, and I'm hoping that, when it comes to those working in these fields, they feel a bit more comfort and support from the government and the wider Australian community. For those who think it's okay to threaten and harm and attack, I'm hoping the courts dish out just punishments to them. 17:20 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—The member for La Trobe gave a great talk and I appreciate very much his support and I pay respect to his policing career. When I mentioned there were 9,000 reported acts of aggression in the first six months of this year, that wasn't against all 100,000 staff; that was against 6,000 frontline Services Australia staff, which is actually amplifying the members point. That means that chances are every staff member on the frontline will experience one of these acts in the course of a year. These changes cannot guarantee absolute safety, but we are taking the best advice possible from people with frontline police experience. I specifically acknowledge the work of the former chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Graham Ashton. He turned the report around in eight weeks, which might set some of the big four consultancies a new KPI. What is also pleasing is my colleagues in the government have agreed to all of these measures to implement the changes, and we have actually got on and done it. The clear message to the courts made by the Parliament's intent with the increased penalties—it's an excellent point made by the member for La Trobe. I would reiterate: it is a clear message to the courts. Finally, the victim of the assault of 23 May, Joeanne Cassar, will be very heartened by the support of the opposition. There's no scenario where it wouldn't have been better that she had never been stabbed, self-evidently, but she is a very public-conscious lady and a professional, and she sees a silver lining in the parliament doing this legislation. I thank all the members for their contributions in the debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 152

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 152 17:23 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway The Australian Postal Corporation and other legislation amendment Bill 2024 will strengthen the legislative framework for the screening and inspection of domestic and international mail to ensure that they are fit for purpose for the modern age. It does this through a number of measures. First, the bill ensures that Australia Post and border agencies can more efficiently share information with other Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and authorities under strict parameters to assist in the performance of their functions and duties during investigative and regulatory activities. Second, the bill makes technical amendments to clarify the officers and officials of agencies and authorities are permitted to open and examine postal articles where it is authorised under the act and any other laws, and where it is necessary to perform their functions or duties to ensure the safety and security of Australians. Third, new ministerial powers would be inserted to future-proof the system against emerging risks, allowing Australia Post and border agencies to adapt their practices as required. These powers would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Fourth, the bill make amendments to better deal with the forfeiture, disposal and destruction of postal articles containing explosive, dangerous and injurious things, and to protect the safety of postal workers and customers and biosecurity officers. Finally, the bill makes some minor amendments to simplify existing terminology and legislative process, as well as update existing references to state and territory legislation, giving greater certainty to Australia Post employees, and customs and biosecurity officers, when exercising the legislative powers and functions for mail screening. Importantly, these measures have been designed with appropriate privacy safeguards and will be subject to existing strict parameters and reporting obligations in the act. There has also been extensive consultation with Australia Post and relevant agencies throughout the development of the draft bill since 2018. They have confirmed that there is an operational need to modernise the legislation. This legislation will contribute to immediate enhancements to Australia's border protection, biosecurity and national security. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. CONDOLENCES 153 CONDOLENCES Cheng, Ms Yixuan, Darchia, Ms Pikria, Good, Ms Ashlee, Singleton, Ms Dawn, Tahir, Mr Faraz, Young, Ms Jade 153 17:26 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Faraz Tahir came to this country as a refugee and died as an Australian hero. He was just 30. His new life in this country was cut tragically short by a knife-wielding person in Bondi Junction. The other five victims of the attack at Westfield, Jade Young, Ashlee Good, Yixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia and Dawn Singleton, were shopping, that most Australian of activities, on a weekend. Faraz had just clocked on, actually, for his first shift as a security guard. As his brother Mudasar told us at Faraz's funeral, helping others was core to his nature. When Faraz and his fellow security guard Muhammad Taha heard the shouting and screaming as the attack on shoppers unfolded, it was Faraz who said, 'Let's find out what's going on.' Those were his final words, running to danger to protect strangers who needed his help. Both guards were stabbed—the only male victims—and Faraz was the one, unfortunately, who lost his life. Two weeks later, Muhammad Taha is still recovering from his wounds. He attended the funeral in a wheelchair. They'd met for the first time on the day of the stabbing and worked together to usher panicked shoppers to safety. Faraz would have turned 31 the day before his funeral, the same day his family arrived in Australia to view his body. At his remembrance, which I attended with the Prime Minister, the New South Wales Premier and many others who came out in force to remember Faraz, people spoke of the pride they had in his actions. He had deep gratitude for a country that made him feel welcome and allowed him to dream of a good life head. This was the life he gave up so that others may live. I'm proud to say my community in Chifley was part of this Australian hero's journey. He lived in the suburb of Plumpton. He attended the Masjid Baitul Huda mosque in Marsden Park, which is also where his funeral, the janazah, was held. He was an active and much loved member of Western Sydney's Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Quick to make friends, he was also known for his unwavering kindness and was an active contributor to the community's charitable endeavours. Faraz was the best of us, and, in a fitting tribute, the Ahmadiyya community organised a blood drive in partnership with the Red Cross to commemorate his life and the lives of the other five Bondi Junction victims—giving to the community in death as he did in life, offering kindness and a helping hand to the country that made him feel safe and free. He and the other victims didn't deserve to die that day. They all deserved to live out their dreams, raise families and be part of their communities. May they all rest in peace. 17:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina We were all shocked when we saw the footage of the events unfolding at Westfield Bondi Junction on that fateful afternoon of Saturday 13 April. We have all done it: we've all gone shopping on a Saturday afternoon, looking for a gift, browsing—doing what ordinary, everyday Australians do, gathering in a peaceful place, a safe place, a secure place. Sadly, the actions of the perpetrator of this dreadful act not only had a profound impact on our nation on 13 April but will have an impact forevermore, because the lives of those people, mostly young people, were taken so unfairly, so cruelly and in such dreadful circumstances. The Minister for Industry and Science has just read their names, and I'm glad the speakers on this condolence motion have. Sometimes when there is a tragedy involving a number of people, be it a military action or something such as this—and thankfully it's not too often—we just say the number of people who were killed. But they all have names. They loved and were loved. They have families who will go on mourning each and every one of them. Xixuan Cheng, 27, was an economics student at the University of Sydney, a fine educational institution. Pikria Darchia, 55, was an artist and designer—such a talent. Ashlee Good, 38, was an osteopath and the mother of nine-month-old Harriet. Harriet was a victim as well, but fortunately she survived. In Ash's final conscious moments she saved her daughter's life by giving her to a couple of brave bystanders. 'Look after my child,' she was no doubt thinking in those final horrendous moments. Dawn Singleton, 25, was an e-commerce assistant whose fiance, a police officer, was amongst the dozens of officers called to the scene. She was shopping for her upcoming nuptials. I know personally how much she was loved within the NSW Police Force. She was an e-commerce assistant, but the ramifications spread further than just her circle of friends; they actually went through the NSW Police Force, because her fiance is a much-respected police officer. Faraz Tahir, 30, was a security guard, a Pakistani national, a refugee. He was a security guard, as the minister, the member for Chifley, has just said, killed on his very first shift at Bondi Junction. Just think about that. It was his first day of work and he bravely went to help others, to see what needed to be done, in his role as a security guard and he lost his life because of it. And Jade Young, 47, was a brilliant architect. The lives of all of them were so cruelly cut short. I know there was a story in the Daily Telegraph today about the NSW Police Force seeking more officers. According to the report, they're 1,500 short and seeking officers from other states and, indeed, from across the ditch—the Tasman—in New Zealand. One of the things that really struck me, as the father of a police officer, was how the men and women in blue ran to the scene, because that's what police do. That's what the ambulance officers did and what all of those first responders did that day. I hope and pray—and I'm sure it is happening—that those officers, be they ambos or be they police, are given the right attention, because many of them will be suffering as a result of this incident. Inspector Amy Scott—how brave was she, Madam Deputy Speaker? Yes, she's got 19 years of experience in the force. Yes, she is an inspector, so she's senior. But it still takes guts. It takes courage. It takes bravery. It takes that certain metal steel in your heart and your head to do what she did and to neutralise this dreadful, dreadful attack. We have thoughts not just for the victims but for all involved—for those people who were not first responders, those people who were not victims but who saw. For them it will be on their conscience too. And we think of our brave bollard boys who thwarted the efforts of the perpetrator to go between levels. They held him up for those few vital seconds or moments or minutes and probably saved—who knows? A dozen or so lives. They stopped it from being far worse than what it was. In the worst of times we see the best of Australians. I share the Prime Minister's and the opposition leader's fine words—and the words of those others who have spoken on this motion, including the member for Wentworth, and I told her so when I bumped into her in the corridor. It would have been hard for her too. It's her local electorate, and no-one likes these things happening, let alone in their own local community. So many of us, probably all of us, have been to Bondi Junction. As I say, it was just an ordinary everyday Saturday afternoon. We pay tribute to those whose lives were snuffed out by this dreadful attack. We pay tribute to the first responders. We say thank you. And I'll reiterate that the police were so brave. I do hope that they are getting the mental help that so many of them will need, but I'm sure they will. I thank those officers, particularly Inspector Scott, for doing what they did. I know that it solidified in my own mind—and, no doubt, in everybody else's minds too—what fine first responders we have. Whether it's a natural emergency, a natural disaster, or something such as this, we see the best of Australians in the worst of times. 17:37 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On behalf of members of the Kingsford Smith community I'd like to offer my sincerest condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the terrible tragedy that occurred up the road from us at Bondi Junction on 13 April. The past three weeks have been unimaginably difficult, especially for our close-knit eastern suburbs community. Bondi Junction Westfield is a meeting place. It's generally a happy place for many in our community. My kids go there all the time with their friends to socialise, to shop, to eat, to go to the movies and to catch up. That all changed on 13 April when that happy place was turned into an unimaginable tragedy. I want to pay tribute to two of the victims, in particular. They lived in the community that I represent and were considered locals. Pikria Darchia moved to Sydney a decade ago from Georgia. She was a world away from home, but she chose Maroubra as her new home, and she was well-known in the local community, particularly down at Maroubra Beach, where she was known as a local artist, a painter. She practised yoga and meditation. She was a regular at one of the well-known cafes down at Maroubra Beach. She was a well-known and very well-respected artist in the local community. Her kids lost their mother. Her grandkids lost so many precious years of time with her. She went to Bondi Junction on that day to simply buy a water bottle after having lunch with one of her best friends. Unfortunately, she never got to go home. Her best friend, Tamara Shelia said of Pikria: 'She loved nature. She loved everything about Australia.' I also want to pay tribute to Ashlee Good, who lived in Randwick. Ashlee died in the noblest of circumstances, trying to save her baby, Harriet, when they were both attacked that day. Ashlee handed her baby to a man who was attempting to help, and said, 'Look after my baby.' It is a simply unimaginable tragedy. A nine-month-old—I just don't understand how anyone could do that to a baby. The baby had to fight for its life in Sydney, and, unfortunately, Ashlee succumbed to her injuries in hospital afterwards. I pay tribute to the staff at the Sydney Children's Hospital in Randwick for the fantastic job they did in the aftermath to save young Harriet. Ashlee was remembered by her family and friends as 'a beautiful mother, daughter, sister, partner, friend and all-around outstanding human' with so much more to give in life. She was a trained osteopath and well-known in the eastern suburbs. She was full of life and had just returned to her job as an account executive after a period of maternity leave. She was described by loved ones as 'a ray of sunshine' with 'a beautiful zest for life'. Just hours before the attack at Bondi she'd posted a photo on her Instagram of her baby in her arms—something that's terribly tragic. She previously spoke to her mum about being a mum, saying, 'It's like experiencing your heart swell with love whilst navigating anxiety for the first time'; I think every parent can agree with that. She said it was 'pure joy and extraordinary exhaustion blended with emotions you've never felt before'. To her, that's what being a parent was—'the most outstandingly beautiful gift that anyone could ever receive'. We offer our sincere condolences to Ashlee's family. I also pay tribute to the other victims—Dawn Singleton, Jade Young, Faraz Tahir and Yixuan Cheng—who were tragically killed on that day as they were going about their normal lives. I also mention Damien Guerot, who lives in our community—the French construction worker commonly known as 'the bollard man'. The CCTV footage showed his bravery in confronting the perpetrator with the knife on that dark day. He then chased behind Police Inspector Amy Scott when she was attempting to stop the assailant. Our community thanks Damien, and I think the Australian people thank Damien, for his heroic work. I also pay tribute to Amy Scott for her incredible bravery and her demonstration of the skill, competence and training of our first responders—particularly our New South Wales police officers—who do their job to protect their community, and, in doing so, risk their lives as well. Amy definitely risked her life on that day. She showed great skill and followed the procedures to a T, and no doubt stopped that man from potentially killing a lot more innocent people. For that, she deserves to be commended and recognised. I thank her and all her first responder colleagues for what they did. In the darkness of this tragedy the eastern suburbs community has come together in unity. I attended the memorial site on the Monday after the tragedy, and the sea of flowers and the heartfelt messages were some comfort to many in our community who were quite shocked and still showing the visible scars of what had occurred. I hugged many people that day with tears in their eyes. It was wonderful to see volunteers and staff from the Prince of Wales Hospital mental health unit, wearing their orange bibs, being there to support people; that was a great relief for many in the community, and I thank them. Then, of course, we had the vigil down at Bondi Beach. As I walked down to that vigil I saw the waves rolling onto the beach, similar to many of the tears that were rolling off the cheeks of many who were at that vigil. There was that expression of sympathy and love from our community coming together. I want to thank the volunteers and the council—the mayor of the council, Paula Masselos, and the council officers who organised that; the New South Wales Premier and the Premier's Department, who organised the event; and, of course, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth, who has done an extraordinary job in providing comfort and support to her community. She was there on the night, as were myself and the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, along with the members for Coogee and Vaucluse from the New South Wales parliament. This is something that we hope we never have to speak about in this place but, unfortunately, we have had to. We offer our support, our love and our sincerest condolences to the families. We pray and hope that something like this never, ever happens again in any community throughout the country. 17:46 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this condolence motion. I want to mention, first of all, and thank, all of those members who have already spoken on this, from the Prime Minister to the opposition leader and the member for Wentworth. I was also fortunate to be in this place when we heard from both the member for Chifley and the member for Kingsford Smith, who both had a couple of the victims living in their respective local communities. On the afternoon of Saturday 13 April, it was just a month ago, a tragedy unfolded in Westfield Bondi in my hometown of Sydney. On that afternoon, lives were changed forever, for the worse, in only a couple of minutes—a couple of minutes of madness, but utter devastation. Many of us in my community spend our Saturday afternoons in the way that these victims were. We're shopping, we're going to the movies, we're running last-minute errands, we're having coffee, catching up with friends and having lunch. So this was a complete tragedy. I'll share some of the words of the member for Riverina, who said that it's important to mention the victims rather than simply including them in a group, because they were very much individuals with individual families and individual communities who will now miss them very much. So the immediate victims of the tragedy were: Yixuan Cheng, a Chinese national and an economics student at Sydney University, aged only 27; Pikria Darchia, aged only 55—she was a mum, a grandmother and a well-known and respected artist, known locally very well; and Ashlee Good, an osteopath and a new mum—she had baby Harriet, aged only nine months. Ashley herself was 38 and her story is now well known. When she was stabbed, she handed her baby to an unknown man and said, 'Please look after my baby.' I think that all of those of us who are parents can relate to that overwhelming sense of protection that comes when you're a parent. Ashley paid the ultimate sacrifice, but baby Harriet will be okay, from what we have heard. Dawn Singleton, aged only 25, was an e-commerce student and a bride-to be, shopping for her upcoming wedding. Faraz Tahir was a refugee from Pakistan and a Westfield security guard. He was only 30, and it was his first shift when he also tragically also lost his life. And Jade Young was an architect, a loving mother to two children and aged only 47. They were all members of families. They were members of community groups. They've left behind grieving parents, siblings, partners, children and friends. On behalf of my electorate, I want to say that many of us go over to Bondi regularly, so those us who were in Sydney could well and truly see that it could have been any of us. It seems that everybody I've spoken to knew somebody that day, probably because Westfield Bondi is such a large retail outlet. I've heard of people that knew a friend of a friend or a friend of a colleague who was there or they knew a first responder. In particular, when we move on to that, I want to mention the many others who were working at Westfield that day. They were working in the small businesses. They were retail workers. Many of them, without any thought for their own safety, sprang into action. They tried first of all to protect their customers, then they tried to protect others, and they did that totally unselfishly. They demonstrated bravery, calmness, a sense of purpose and a very strong sense of community. If we're speaking of courage, let's speak of the acts of Silas Despreaux and Damien Guerot. Armed with chairs and a bollard, they thwarted the perpetrator. We'll never know how many other lives were saved through their acts. Ultimately, of course, the madness was finally stopped by the courage, decisiveness and strength of New South Wales police inspector Amy Scott, who confronted the assailant without any regard for her safety. Obviously, she deserves to be recognised and commended, as do all members of the New South Wales police who were there that day and joined in or who have been a part of the process subsequently, as well as all of the first responders: the paramedics, the security agencies, the ambulance personnel and the emergency services. There are also many health workers who were involved on that day and immediately afterwards. We don't yet know, and we won't know for a long time, the toll that it has taken on the people who were there that day: the retail workers and the first responders. I do hope that, in the days, weeks and months to come, they all receive the mental health support that they will need. In the true Australian spirit, we often see that our character comes through and that we do come together very well in times of despair and in times of great distress and hardship, and we've seen our character on display following those events. We've seen the floral tributes. We've seen the many that attended the memorial services. We've the vigils held in and around Bondi and the eastern suburbs. We've seen the countless messages on social media. That is the way that Australians behave in times of adversity Just to conclude, let me say that there were so many people at Bondi that day—people who will be impacted for a very long time, many forever. On behalf of my community in Hughes, I want to pay particular tribute to the victims. May they rest in peace. I also want to extend compassion and sympathy to all those affected and let them know that they are in our thoughts today and will be into the future. 17:53 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I rise on my own behalf and that of the Greens to express my deep sympathy and heartfelt condolences in regard to the six victims of the unimaginable and senseless violence at Bondi Junction last month. I'll mention their names. I think it's really important that we do speak of them, because their names and their lives matter. They are Yixuan Cheng, Pikria Darchia, Ash Good, Dawn Singleton, Faraz Tahir and Jade Young. Yixuan Cheng was an economics student; Pikria Darchia was an artist; Ash Good was an osteopath and a new mum, who saved her baby, Harriet; Dawn Singleton was looking forward to her wedding day; Jade Young was a fellow architect and mum; and Faraz Tahir was a Pakistani refugee who, on his first day of work as a security guard, lost his life protecting others from a violent perpetrator. I extend my condolences also to the mourning Pakistani community. I acknowledge the bravery of those bystanders, other shoppers and retail workers who, when the benign ordinariness of a normal Saturday morning was shattered, put their own lives at risk to protect others. Their selfless bravery demonstrated the very best of humanity, and I mourn the five women killed at the hands of the disturbed and violent man who took their lives. These deaths are unfortunately among those of at least 28 women killed this year in the epidemic of men's violence against women. To the victims' families, their friends and their community, and to all who are deeply shocked and traumatised by this horrendous incident, I extend my deepest condolences. We can and we must, on behalf of these people and on behalf of everyone, do better to prevent violence in our society. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:56