2024-05-16 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 16 May 2024

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

STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS 2867 STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT MATTERS Venice Biennale 2867 Reference to Federation Chamber 2869 09:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to Australian recipients of Golden Lion awards be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 2869 COMMITTEES Appropriations and Administration Committee 2869 Report 2869 09:17 The SPEAKER 53517 (): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's Report No. 29, Budget estimates 2024-25. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BILLS 2869 BILLS Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 2869

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

First Reading 2869 Second Reading 2869 09:18 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australians understand the importance of education—the power of it. We value it—what it can do to open the doors of opportunity for Australians, to change lives. We invest in it. You see evidence of that in this year's budget. And we export it to the world. It's a big export—the biggest that we don't dig out of the ground. It's our fourth-largest export overall. In the last decade we have helped to educate more than three million people from all around the world. It's a $48 billion industry. But it doesn't just make us money. It also makes us friends. Because when a student comes here to study they don't just get an education. A bit of Australia rubs off on them. They fall in love with the place. And when they go home they take that love and affection for us back home with them. And they use the knowledge and the qualifications they gained in Australia to become leaders and scientists, teachers and entrepreneurs in our neighbouring countries. That makes this no ordinary export industry. It is important to our economy. It is important to Australia. That's why this bill is important. It ensures its integrity and quality. And it provides long-term certainty for the sector and sustainable growth over time. The pandemic kneecapped international education. The former government told students to go home and they did. Almost overnight, an industry worth $40 billion was effectively halved to $22 billion. The students are now back, but so are the shonks—shonks and crooks looking to take advantage of students and make a quick buck at the expense of this critical national asset, unscrupulous actors who are a threat to our good name as a place where the best and the brightest from around the world can come and get the best education in the world. Since we were elected we have been working on this. In September 2022 we announced the Parkinson Review of the migration system. In January 2023 the Nixon Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system. These reviews brought urgent attention to integrity issues in international education. We've moved quickly on the recommendations of those reviews. In July last year we got rid of unlimited work rights for international students by reintroducing a working hours cap at 24 hours per week. This allowed students to support themselves but not at the expense of their studies. It was the first step in reducing the lure of getting a student visa as a backdoor to work here. In August last year I closed the 'concurrent enrolment' loophole that was allowing agents and providers to shift international students who had been here for less than six months from one course to another, a cheaper one—from genuine study to no study at all, another backdoor way just to work here. In October last year we boosted the capacity of the VET regulator, ASQA, through a $38 million investment and establishing an integrity unit. The same month we increased the amount of savings that international students now require to get a student visa—to $24,505. It's now $29,710. In March this year we increased the English language requirement for students, introduced a new genuine student requirement and increased the number of 'no further stay' conditions on certain cohorts of visa students. Many of these measures are in response not only to the Parkinson and Nixon reviews, but to feedback from the sector. They know that dodgy education agents and providers create problems for the whole industry. They are a threat to the reputations of our universities and providers who are doing the right thing. It's very important that this important part of our economy maintains its social licence to operate. Not only are the students back, but they're back faster than anyone expected, here and in other countries. At the Universities Australia gala dinner in February last year I spoke about how the trajectory of the total number of international students enrolled in our universities would not get back to pre-pandemic levels until the end of 2025. Well, they are back already. That's a vote of confidence in our institutions and providers and in Australia as a place where the best and brightest come to study. But it's also something we need to manage carefully and protect from bad actors. And that's what this bill does. It amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act to include measures which directly respond to issues identified in the Nixon and migration reviews. The amendments are also informed by the 2023 interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Quality and integrity—the quest for sustainable growth: interim report into international education, and I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, in particular the member for Bruce, who is with us in the chamber, and Senator O'Neill and the other members of that committee for their outstanding work on that interim report. One of the issues this bill addresses is the activities of education agents and their interaction with providers in Australia. There's an important role for education agents in helping students navigate their move from one country to another to study. But what the reviews and sector feedback have told us is that we have a problem with collusive and unscrupulous practices between some agents and providers. In response, the bill inserts a new definition of 'education agent' which better captures their activities. It strengthens the fit and proper requirement used by regulators to apply increased scrutiny to cross-ownership of businesses, including those between an education agent and an education provider. The bill also inserts a definition of 'education agent commission'. This will allow for complementary amendments to be made to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 to ban commissions from being paid to education agents for onshore student transfers. It's something that the sector has asked for and will help address agents poaching newly arrived students to shift from their original course into a cheaper, more limited course at a different provider. To further support this and to increase transparency around the operation of education agents, the bill requires providers to give information to the secretary on request about education agent commissions they have given, and strengthens the ability of the Secretary of the Department of Education or the relevant regulator to give information to registered providers about education agents. Access to performance data about all education agents, not just agents they have an existing relationship with, will enable providers to make better informed decisions about who they choose to engage with. The bill also introduces measures to improve the management of applications for registration as a provider or the addition of courses to an existing provider's registration. Importantly, it allows the minister to direct via legislative instrument that relevant regulators, called ESOS agencies in the act, are not required to, or must not, accept or process these applications for a period of up to 12 months. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade heard evidence of instances where some providers were offering courses to international students only, which can be an indicator of poor quality. The bill addresses this by changing the registration requirements for education providers to require that new providers deliver a course to domestic students for two years before applying to register to deliver courses to international students. This builds on the requirements recently introduced in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and means that new providers will need a track record with their domestic students before extending delivery to international students. And it means that ESOS agencies have time to focus on any integrity issues with a new provider before they enter the international market. It will also deter dodgy providers from setting up 'ghost colleges'—fronts that exist mainly to get students a visa so they can work without ever attending a class. English language courses—ELICOS—and foundation programs will be exempt from these measures as they only deliver to international students, as will be table A providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to ensure that they remain able to restructure their existing business operations without attracting the limitation. The bill also helps build quality in the sector by enabling the automatic cancellation of a provider's registration where it has not delivered a course to an overseas student over 12 consecutive months. This complements recent changes to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and targets integrity risks posed by dormant providers. These providers are not demonstrating a commitment to international students, and can be a vehicle for unscrupulous actors to bypass registration requirements for entering the sector through the purchase of dormant providers. There are protections to ensure that schools are exempt due to the smaller number of overseas students they teach, and applications for extensions may be made to ensure that genuine providers are not affected or inconvenienced. Finally on providers, the bill strengthens the fit and proper test applied by ESOS agencies to providers to take into account whether a provider is under investigation for a specific offence, such as human trafficking, slavery or slavery-like practices. I said earlier that we have to ensure that we manage the international education industry in a way that delivers the greatest benefit to Australia, whilst maintaining its social licence from the Australian people. In keeping with the responsible approach from this government, the bill introduces powers for the Minister for Education to manage sector enrolments to deliver sustainable growth. These are to make enrolment limits by legislative instrument, or by individual notice, for providers. These may relate to a provider level 'total enrolment limit', or at the course level imposing a 'course enrolment limit', or a combination of the two. In setting enrolment limits, the Minister for Education will take into account the relevance of the courses to Australia's skills needs. An additional consideration for the Minister for Education when setting limits will be the supply of purpose-built student accommodation available to both domestic and international students. Where a limit impacts the VET sector, the Minister for Education must obtain agreement from the Minister for Skills and Training prior to introducing a limit. There are transitional provisions to ensure that any limits only apply to new enrolments for the 2025 calendar year, and the Minister for Education is able to exempt specific courses from any total enrolment limit imposed on a provider. Finally, the bill enables the automatic suspension and cancellation of courses specified by the Minister for Education, with agreement from the Minister for Skills and Training where it affects the VET sector, by legislative instrument. This allows the Minister for Education to limit the delivery of courses with systemic quality issues, limited value to Australia's critical skills need or where it is in the public interest to do so—for instance, where students are being exploited. At the Australian International Education Conference in October last year I said that the government wanted to work with the international education industry to make sure that we get these reforms right. And I am serious about doing this in consultation with the sector. This week the government released a draft international education and skills framework for consultation. We will consult with the sector on the implementation of the powers set out in the bill. This will be through broad and continued engagement with the Council for International Education and with the sector—stakeholders like Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the International Education Association of Australia, TAFE Directors Australia, the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia and the Regional Universities Network. This work will take place over the next few months, with the intention that any limits will have a start date of 1 January 2025. One thing that the framework makes clear is that international education is not a one-way street. In the last couple of years we have made great strides in taking Australian education overseas—teaching in international branch campuses where students can get the benefit of an Australian education without having to leave home. We are already a global leader here. There are more than 10 Australian universities operating international branch campuses across 10 countries, with three further branch campuses expected to open later this year. Universities like Monash, who have the first foreign university campus in Indonesia, or Wollongong, with their campus in GIFT City, India and Western Sydney University, soon to open in Surabaya. That's a key part of this too, and I look forward to working with the sector as consultation on the framework progresses. The important measures in this bill are the next steps in strengthening our international education sector, shutting out the shonks, giving our providers long-term certainty and setting this national asset up for future success. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 2872

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

First Reading 2872 Second Reading 2872 09:34 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government has a strong commitment to reduce excessive and unnecessary regulation and administrative costs for businesses. This bill will deliver significant deregulation benefits for businesses who engage in the manufacture, importation and distribution of fuel and alcohol. The measures in this bill, together with amendments to subordinate legislation, implement the remaining elements of the 'Streamlining the administration of fuel and alcohol excise package'. A first tranche of measures from this package were legislated as part of Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving our Tax System) Act 2023 and took effect on 1 July 2023. Those measures have improved reporting arrangements for small businesses by aligning the excise and customs reporting with other indirect taxes, and they support innovation in the beer industry by allowing the small-scale sale of 'growlers' from licensed hospitality venues without attracting excise duty and licence obligations. This bill implements the remaining measures of the deregulation package. This bill will remove unnecessary regulatory touch points by ensuring that businesses dealing with dutiable alcohol or fuel will no longer need to renew their excise or customs warehouse licences which permit the storage of excise-equivalent goods (customs EEG warehouse). In addition, the bill will provide an immediate and ongoing cash saving for those businesses by removing fees and charges associated with excise and customs EEG warehouse licences. The licensing process will also be simplified. Businesses with multiple manufacturing or warehousing sites around Australia will now be able to apply to consolidate each of their excise and customs EEG warehouse licences into corresponding single 'entity-level' licences. This will allow business to easily apply to add or remove sites from their licence without the need of going through the full onerous licence application process. A new arrangement that allows freer movement of dutiable goods between licensed sites will be provided. Approved businesses will no longer need to seek regulator permission each time they wish to move or supply their excisable goods to and from other excise licensed businesses or excise-equivalent goods to and from other customs EEG warehouses. This bill will also make it easier and timelier for businesses to access information they need, allowing businesses to readily identify licensed entities without having to contact regulators and wait for a reply. This will be achieved by the creation of a new online public register of all excise and customs licensees that manufacture, store and warehouse fuel or alcohol products. Finally, this bill will remove unnecessary administrative burdens for onshore oil producers by removing the requirement that they hold excise licences, unless the relevant production threshold is exceeded. The government is committed to removing unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens for businesses, reducing costs and helping keep prices lower. This bill complements the continued support the government currently provides to local brewers and distillers who receive an automatic full remission of any excise duty they would otherwise have paid on the alcohol they produce up to a cap of $350,000 each financial year. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 2873 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 2873 Approval of Work 2873 09:38 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Nuclear Medicine Facility Project. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is proposing to construct a new nuclear medicine manufacturing facility to replace the existing facility at Lucas Heights in south-east Sydney, which is nearing the end of its useful life. The project will ensure an existing nuclear medicine manufacturing capability is maintained. The proposed new facility will also become key to the nuclear medicine manufacturing and distribution supply chain underpinning Australia's development of a local radiopharmaceuticals industry. The estimated cost of the works is $619.2 million, excluding GST. The proposed works were referred to the Public Works Committee on 15 November 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the new facility is expected to be fully operational by mid-2023. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Can you tell me what date that was supposed to be completed? Dr LEIGH BU8 Mid-2023. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Thank you for the clarification. Question agreed to. Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee 2874 Appointment 2874 09:40 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution agreed by the Senate relating to a proposed joint select committee on social media and Australian society. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information of all honourable members. The terms will also be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The resolution read as follows— (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, be established to inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society, with particular reference to: (a) the use of age verification to protect Australian children from social media; (b) the decision of Meta to abandon deals under the News Media Bargaining Code; (c) the important role of Australian journalism, news and public interest media in countering mis and disinformation on digital platforms; (d) the algorithms, recommender systems and corporate decision making of digital platforms in influencing what Australians see, and the impacts of this on mental health; (e) other issues in relation to harmful or illegal content disseminated over social media, including scams, age-restricted content, child sexual abuse and violent extremist material; and (f) any related matters. (2) That the committee present an interim report on or before 15 August 2024, and its final report on or before 18 November 2024. (3) That the committee consist of a total number of 12 members, as follows: (a) four nominated by the Government Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives; (b) two nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives; (c) one nominated by minor party and independent members of the House of Representatives; (d) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (e) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (f) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report. (7) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in any meeting of the committee, one member nominated by the Government and one member nominated by the Opposition shall be present. (8) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, and as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (10) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (11) That the committee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceeding at any place it sees fits; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives. (12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker. (13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. Ordered that the message be considered immediately. 09:41 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I move: (1) That the House concur in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society; and (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Social media has a civic responsibility to its Australian users and our society more broadly. Social media is part of everyday life in Australia, and social media companies play a role in determining what content Australian adults and children are exposed to online. Meta's recent decision to withdraw from paying for news in Australia demonstrates the negative impact these companies can have on Australian news businesses and our democracy. The Albanese government is committed to making social media companies more transparent and accountable to the Australian public, and the joint committee we seek to establish today will enable the entire parliament to undertake this task. These companies have enormous control over what Australian citizens and consumers see and hear online. Their corporate decision-making impacts the sustainability of Australian public interest journalism and news media. Their business models incentivise maximising attention and screen time to drive profits, often at the expense of public interest objectives such as quality and accurate information and the best interests of children. We know algorithms and recommendation systems dial certain content up and down, often putting on repeat dangerous material, like misogynistic material that reinforces stereotypes counter to the interests of society. The spread of harmful or illegal content, like scams, age-restricted content and child sexual abuse and violent extremist material, causes harm. The lack of action on misinformation and disinformation sows division, undermines trust and tears at the fabric of society. The committee will also examine age assurance on social media, something the government has confirmed will be part of the trial funded in this week's budget. This is an important opportunity to scrutinise developments given its widespread interest to Australians. We want Australians to participate openly and safely in society with the same standards and expectations reflected online as well as offline. Social media platforms have immense power and influence, and parliament has a stake in ensuring this is deployed in accordance with our public interest objectives as a nation. Elevating issues in this way is when the parliament is at its best, working together with a common purpose. With the right incentives, social media can contribute more to the welfare of society, enhancing access to trusted sources of news and information and expanding participation in civic life. I call on the House to support this referral. 09:45 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks What we need in relation to social media is action, and unfortunately what we have seen from this government on the totemic issue of age verification for social media is inaction, so much so that in the motion establishing this inquiry into social media there was no reference to either age verification or age assurance. That is appalling, because the single most important issue facing Australian families when it comes to social media is what is happening to children in that environment. This is an issue that is something of a defining issue for this era, because we're seeing incredibly disturbing things in the mental health outcomes of Australian children, especially girls. There is no more important issue than this, and we have to act. That's why in November, six or seven months ago, the coalition brought to this chamber legislation to act on the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation of March 2023, 14 months ago, to get moving on a trial of age-assurance technology for social media. It's right here on page 3 of the legislation that the coalition introduced to this chamber, where it includes establishing a minimum age for using a social media service. That's what we said, and the government actually came into this chamber and voted against it. That was a shameful thing for this government to do, and the government presumably did that on the instructions of this minister. It was a shameful and disgraceful decision that flies in the face of all the evidence about the need for action. This is a government that never met a roundtable it didn't like—so many inquiries, consultations and round tables. What about actually doing something about this issue? This is an issue that worries every Australian family, and this government's persistent inaction, right up to and including the terms of reference it proposed for this committee, betrays that lack of action. It's not surprising, because we've got a letter here from the minister to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in July of last year. Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, a widely respected public official, spent two years looking into the issue of age verification, protecting children online from pornography, social media and other things online. The commissioner said, very sensibly, 'Let's trial this technology before mandating it and getting on with it.' That's what the commissioner said in March 2023, quite some time ago. In July 2023 the minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister—and I have the letter here—saying that the pilot program, which is what the eSafety Commissioner recommended, would be 'an unnecessary distraction'. It says that here on page 2 of the letter. In other words, don't do it—don't do what the eSafety Commissioner, our top expert in this field, wants to happen, even though she's been working on it for two years. I'm speechless, but that's what this government did. Then, a couple of weeks ago, 14 months after the original recommendation, the government said, 'Actually, we will conduct this trial; we've wasted 14 months, but we will conduct it now.' The language about that trial is pretty vague. It specifically mentions pornography, but it doesn't mention any other specific platforms. And when the minister was directly asked, on ABC radio last week, 'Will the trial include an age for social media?'—that is, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat—and, 'Will there be age verification for social media as part of that trial?' she refused to answer that question directly. She has referred to age-restricted content, which is a completely different concept to age verification. This ongoing inaction is completely inexcusable. It makes no sense whatsoever. The coalition has been talking about this issue and calling for action for months and months. This government has been in a position to act upon the recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner after the inquiry was commissioned by the previous government, but this minister said, 'No; we're not going to do it,' and that is patently wrong. We need a minister who can do more than simply read out talking points. We need actual leadership and action. Australian families are demanding it, and we are not seeing it. If you think about the substance of this, we have a classification system for movies and TV shows. We never said, 'Let's get rid of the classification.' Nor should we, because nobody thinks a 10-year-old should be watching R-rated movies, presumably. Yet we know that on social media that and worse happens every single day. So why on earth would we embrace a system under which this happens when we have a clear recommendation from our top expert to do something different? That is the question. We know that so much is happening around the world. Facebook has been using age verification for its Facebook dating product in the US for more than two years. They don't tend to publicise that because the social media companies don't want age verification to happen, because it's probably not going to be good for their businesses, but Facebook has actually been doing this for more than two years for its dating product in the US. On 5 December, Ofcom, which is the regulator in the UK, published detailed guidance as to how age-assurance technology should be implemented for the purpose of the UK Online Safety Act. We've had Florida pass a law on this a few weeks ago along with numerous US states, and there's a lot of action in Europe as well, but there's ongoing inaction in this country. This is a totemic issue. The data we're seeing about the mental health of Australian children is really disturbing. Some people—and some of those people work for social media companies—say: 'You know what? It's all a coincidence.' The fact that over the last decade we've seen extremely concerning rises in the mental health outcomes for Australian children, and the fact that that has coincided, effectively in a straight line, with the adoption of social media by Australian children is a complete coincidence. I don't buy that at all, and I don't think any sensible person does. Between 2008-09 and 2021-22, we saw a 275 per cent increase in the rate of self-harm hospitalisations of Australian girls under 14. For girls and young women aged 15 to 19 over the same period, we saw a 71 per cent increase in those hospitalisations. These are hard things to talk about, but we must talk about them because they are very important. The US Surgeon General, who's the nation's top doctor, has had a bit to say on this. He said in March: What's happening in social media is the equivalent of having children in cars that have no safety features and driving on roads with no speed limits. No traffic lights and no rules whatsoever. And we're telling them: "you know what, do your best—figure out how to manage it." It is insane if you think about it. And he's right. It is insane if you think about it. I spent the vast majority of my career before coming to parliament in technology. I was head of digital for Nine, and I was the chairman of Nine MSN. I think that technology generally has been very positive for our economy and for our society, but, if 99 per cent of technology has been positive, we need to have intellectual clarity and honesty and strength about the one per cent that is not. This issue is very much in this category. This is not business as usual. This is not about roundtables and the consultative process. This is about getting stuff done to protect Australian children. The world is moving on this issue. The evidence is very clear that action needs to be taken. Our top expert was ignored for 14 months, shamefully, by this minister. Now the minister needs to get on with it. The past doesn't matter. What matters is the future. Get moving on this age verification process to protect Australian children from social media, because there is no more important issue facing this minister and this government than this issue. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 2877 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 148th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly 2877 09:55 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 148th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 23 to 27 March, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection to the report. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 The 148th IPU Assembly took place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 23 to 27 March this year. The overall theme of the assembly was 'Building bridges for peace and understanding'. I think it's fair to say that across our parliament, in both chambers, the IPU is little understood except by those relatively few members who've participated or engaged in it. It's a unique organisation. It's a parliament of parliaments, if you like. It's a global assembly of legislatures around the world, including from countries that we may not think of as democratic. But every country, in one form or another, has some kind of legislative mechanism working with whatever function their executive performs. The IPU facilitates learning, sharing, debate and cooperation amongst countries and between parliamentarians, and parliamentarians, as we know, have a role distinct from that of the executive. It's an important organisation. It's often glacial but, over time, contributes to international norms, to capacity building within parliaments and democracies, and to global forums, with direct lines into the United Nations and other forums. It has two assemblies—generally one around March-April and one around September October—and it's an incredibly weird and complex organisation. I think this was my third assembly, and it does take a couple before you actually work out the arcane procedures. If you want to get a motion up, you need to start a couple of years in advance. The assembly this time was attended by delegations from 142 member parliaments, including 711 members of parliament globally, of whom women comprised 36 per cent. The Australian delegation, because our House was sitting, was led by Senator O'Neill and comprised Senator Reynolds, Mr Entsch and me. I'd also just note that most countries take it far more seriously than Australia does. Indeed, many countries send what you might call heavy hitters within their system, and you can get a lot of other business done. For the record, I'm not suggesting that I may continue on the IPU delegation, but I do think we need to take seriously the need for continuity and let members like, I'd say, Senator Reynolds and Senator O'Neill continue for some years, because they build very strong personal relationships and can leverage a lot more for the country. I won't read all of the tabling statement, rest assured. There are just another couple of comments that I want to make. Among the key outcomes, there was a Geneva declaration issued on 'Parliamentary diplomacy: building bridges for peace and understanding'. There was a resolution around 'Addressing the social and humanitarian impact of autonomous weapon systems and artificial intelligence', which was not a perfect resolution but a lot better because of our interventions, I would say—those of Senator Reynolds and me in particular. Thank you to DFAT for their work in supporting us through those very long days. There was a resolution on 'Partnerships for climate action: promoting access to affordable green energy, and ensuring innovation, responsibility and equity' and a motion regarding 'Reform of the United Nations Security Council'. Senator O'Neill represented the Speaker of our House, who is also now a member of the executive committee. I just want to make a couple of remarks about the Speaker. Lovely as it is to have you there, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, it would be even lovelier to have the Speaker just for a moment, but I'm sure he's watching in his office. Our Speaker is the first Australian for nearly 40 years to be elected to the global executive of the IPU. That's actually a big thing globally. We haven't had anyone on the executive committee for 40 years. I really want to compliment the Speaker. In just a short space of time, his performance in that global forum has been truly outstanding. It does credit to the parliament and to our country. He's found ways to use the IPU in our national interest—some of which will never be seen—that are creative and effective and have advanced our relationships with numerous countries, supporting the work of DFAT and the government in a very bipartisan way. It is a funny forum, a funny role for Speakers, because, generally, the minute they sit in the chair—I did notice you asked a question before, Deputy Speaker, which we thought was interesting—they get gagged. The moment that someone here is elected Speaker, their voice is silenced within our parliamentary debate, except for maintaining order. So the IPU is where Speakers go to be ungagged. I couldn't speak highly enough—and I think that's a bipartisan comment—of the work that the Speaker has done. He's known everywhere. He walks down corridors and, in just a couple of years, he's known by Speakers and delegations from across the world, and the role that he's playing internationally is a real credit to us. Frankly, as someone who's known him for some decades, I think it's a great use of his formidable political skills, which are perhaps not on display or put to use in his current role. I commend the report. We did actively participate and we were a very collaborative group. There are a final couple of things I just want to record. As well as the work of the IPU itself—we were engaged in all sorts of stuff that's in the report—we also really hit our strides with multilateral and bilateral meetings, working with DFAT with other country groups and filling pretty much all of our spare time. We had meetings with Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, Nigeria, Indonesia and Afghanistan, as well as a multilateral meeting with Pacific island nations, New Zealand, Timor-Leste and so on. Thank you to Ambassador Amanda Gorely, Australia's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and to the Conference on Disarmament, who hosted the delegation at her residence and provided really high-level and generous staff support from DFAT—some really, really skilled and knowledgeable officers. I'll mention, in particular, Aussie Dave, the First Secretary in Cyber and Digital Affairs, who was truly invaluable in sitting with us and making a serious impact working with Canada and many other like-minded nations to significantly amend resolutions that were going through. Thank you also to DFAT and the Parliamentary Library, who provided excellent briefing material to assist the delegation. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for Bruce. Before I move on to the next item of business, can I just, from the Speaker's chair, offer my affirmation of your words about our Speaker and associate the entire Speaker's panel and all of those in this House with the kind words that you offered Speaker Dick on his elevation to the IPU, the first Australian in 40 years to be so elevated. Mr HILL 86256 I forgot I was also going to say similarly lovely things about Senator Reynolds and Senator O'Neill, but I'll save that for another occasion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I appreciate the sentiment. BILLS 2878 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 2878

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

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

Second Reading 2878 10:03 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest In continuation, I spoke before about Labor's broken promise, and the promise was to not make any changes to superannuation. There is absolutely no doubt that this decision undermines Australians' confidence in the superannuation system itself, because they don't have certainty. They know they cannot trust Labor not to make further changes. This decision will affect far more people than Labor is actually claiming. Their claim is the next misleading statement being made by the government in relation to this bill, because the $3 million cap is actually not indexed and Labor is doubling the tax on superannuation for one in 10 Australians by the time they retire—for younger ones is what this means. Treasury's own analysis shows that a 20-year-old today earning an average wage will, over their lifetime, pay higher taxes under Labor's scheme. Analysis of data from the ATO and census shows that over two million Australians who are today under the age of 25 will be hit by this latest tax grab by Labor. That means millions of hardworking young Australians will be affected—our young Australians, many of whom are probably not aware of exactly how this is going to affect them when they retire. It will affect young professionals, be they teachers, nurses or engineers. I hear that the government in this budget is saying that it wants 80 per cent of young Australians to go to university. The types of careers that they're going to be pursuing will put them in the firing line. Whether they're lawyers, pharmacists, engineers or medical professionals, they will be affected. This will disincentivise people from putting their own money—after all, it is their money—away for their own retirement. They want to fund it and do the right thing. What will $3 million actually be worth in 40 years time? That's another question for the government to consider. This attacks aspiration and discourages people from taking more responsibility to fund their own retirement. We know that the big super funds and therefore Labor want to get rid of our self-managed super funds. Retirees and superannuants will now face basically a doubling of tax on the money they haven't yet earned or received. It will hit small-business owners, farmers and self-managed super funds the hardest, but clearly that was the government's intent. Taxing unrealised capital gains means Australians will be taxed on money they haven't actually made or received, and it actually doubles the taxation on an asset that they haven't even sold. It's really hard to explain this in a way that makes any sense. It doesn't make sense. The tax will be applied year on year, on a recurring basis, on that same asset every year. If you're a small business and you're in this position, you're going to have to pay to have the value of that audited every year and make sure that you sit beneath that $3 million, otherwise you're going to have to pay double tax. If the value of the property escalates, they'll have to, at times, sell the property to pay the tax and pay capital gains and stamp duties, and on and on the costs go for those people who've worked their hearts out to look after themselves in their retirement. Here's the rub as I see it: if the value of that property drops and they've already paid tax the year before, they aren't refunded. This is just extraordinary. It is just an extraordinary proposal. But even more of an issue for me is the precedent this has set. Are Labor planning to tax other unrealised gains? If they're prepared to do it for super, what's next? Will the government actually tax unrealised gains on investment properties, share portfolios or any other form of investment? What's going to stop them? If you were a homeowner, how would you feel if your home were taxed every year, year on year, and you had to pay tax on any and every increase in the value of that home, whether you retain or sell the home? It's exactly the same principle behind what Labor is trying to do in taxing unrealised gains in superannuation. What's next? Not only will these changes affect young Australians, but, because this is a retrospective change, they affect our older Australians—hardworking Australians who believed that they could have confidence in saving their money for their retirement through a small self-managed super fund. These are people who have worked hard and saved with the absolute ambition to be a self-funded retiree, not dependent on the government or taxpayers, but, instead of respecting their hard work and initiative and willingness to take personal responsibility, the government is planning to punish them through this legislation. It will hurt thousands of Australians. Often it's the small-business people who may have bought a commercial property to run their business out of in that fund. It will, of course, grossly affect our farmers—the very people who grow our food and fibre. Unfortunately, it's the same people that this government continues to show utter contempt for. Our farmers have been under constant attack. In my more than 50 years of farming, I've never been as worried about the future of our farmers as I am right now under this government. When we look at the attacks, whether it's the ending of the live sheep trade or the biosecurity levy—that obnoxious decision to make farmers pay for risks created by their foreign competitors—it just shows absolute contempt. There's the ute tax that's on its way as well, so good luck with us trying to do our work! There are the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines and solar panels that are going to take up valuable, productive agricultural land. There's the nature positive act, which is yet to land. There's just one attack after another on farmers. We've got 450 gigs of water yet to come out of the Murray-Darling. How many more farmers is that going to take out of business? At some point, the government's going to have to realise that farmers produce food. They actually need us, but you'd never guess that. This government, I think, would be happy to see more of us go because that frees up more land for wind, solar and transmission lines, and it's probably looking at the water as well when it's so focused on hydrogen production, because to produce a kilo of hydrogen, depending on whatever process you're using, it's upwards of nine litres of water. Depending on the process, it's up to about 40-plus litres for every kilo. It depends on the system used. I talked to one accountant about this measure, and he was just devastated for his clients. He actually knows, because some of his clients are small businesses and farmers, how hard they've worked and how they've actually scrimped and saved over their 30 or 40 years to put away what they need for their retirement. They've done all of the right things, and they've paid their taxes all the way through. They've taken personal responsibility, and they want to be independent and not need to draw on the pension or the taxpayer. But that's exactly what this measure will do. It is going to affect those people, and it is going to affect the next generation of younger people as well. There were speeches last night about how young people are trying to get into the farming and ag industry. If they don't have help from their families, this is extraordinarily difficult because of the cost of actually buying or leasing property. For instance, if you want to get into the dairy industry as a young person, the return on investment means you'll struggle to find a bank who will finance that, so you actually need help from the family to be able to do so. You've got to buy cows, land—even if you're able to lease it—irrigation water, machinery, sheds, housing and a dairy, and you're trying to do this from scratch. With the returns on that investment, you will struggle to find a financier to be able to support you to do so. So there are many obviously intended consequences of this bill and the measures in it, and I suspect there are many more unintended consequences that, unfortunately, those who put this on the table don't actually understand the implications of. I am very concerned about what's next when we talk about taxing of unrealised gains. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 2880 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2880 10:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 2880 BILLS New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024, New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 2880

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2880 Third Reading 2880 10:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave of the House to move the third reading immediately. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. Mr van Manen 188315 On a point of order, could I have clarification from the minister? Excuse me for asking. If I'm out of order, please tell me I'm out of order. I just want to know whether you're closing down the bill, because I want to speak on that bill. Are you closing down the bill now? Is that what you're doing? Mr BURKE DYW The debate on the second reading has concluded. The second reading has been put. We've now sought leave of the House to continue with the third reading. Leave has been denied. This motion is to allow the third reading to be dealt with now. That's where we're up to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 What I think has happened is that no-one jumped to speak on the second reading, so now we're going to the third reading. We're going to put that, and there will be an opportunity to speak during the third reading and potentially during consideration in detail. So I'll put that question before the House, brought by the minister. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.  

The House divided. [10:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 81 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 66 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:26 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. It has been 20 years since we've talked about having a fuel efficiency standard in this country. We stand alongside Russia as the only advanced economy that does not have a fuel efficiency standard. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The minister is on her feet. She has been speaking for about 15 seconds. That is not the reason for everyone to start screaming and yelling. We're not having that. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker. We will listen to the minister. The minister has the call. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, we have stood alongside Russia as one of the only advanced economies that does not have a fuel efficiency standard, so consumers in Australia are not getting the benefits of the most efficient vehicles, whether they be petrol vehicles, whether they be hybrid, whether they be electric vehicles or diesel vehicles like the one that I drive. This is an important reform, one that is long overdue, one that used to be supported by those opposite. They know that it is an important measure to make sure that people in regional areas get the fuel savings that are desperately needed. We know in country Australia just how important it is that we are part of the net zero transformation and that is what this bill is very much part of—making sure the people in regional Australia get the benefit of fuel-efficient cars. That is what this bill does. I'm very proud that we are bringing this into the House today and getting it through and getting this done, something the member for Bradfield could only dream about. 10:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move as an amendment to the motion before the House that the word 'now' be omitted and replaced with the word 'not', so the question would be 'that this bill be not read a third time'. The reason I move that— The SPEAKER 53517 Just pause. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. 10:28 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the question be put.  

The House divided. [10:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 81 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 67 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 (10:38): The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that this bill be now read a third time.    

The House divided. [10:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 90 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 58 NOES 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) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. 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) Sharkie, R. C. C. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 MOTIONS 2884 MOTIONS Parliamentary Procedure 2884 10:40 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved by the Manager of Opposition Business: That this House condemns the government for its cynical action in unilaterally suspending debate on the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and using its numbers to ram this bill through the House, in complete violation of the principles of transparency and accountability which this government promised to bring to the operation of the Parliament. What we have just seen in this House is an outrage in terms of the conduct of the Parliament of Australia and the House of Representatives of Australia. It shows complete cynicism in the way that this government is operating. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will pause. The Leader of the House. 10:41 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.    

The House divided. [10:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

82 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 66 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:48 The SPEAKER 53517 Is there a seconder for the motion? 10:48 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Can I speak now? I shall speak now. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the member seeking to second the motion, and is he seeking to speak to the motion? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I am seeking to speak to the motion. We have in the same week— 10:49 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Given that even he wanted to reserve his right, I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When I am putting motions before the House, that's highly disorderly and disrespectful. Members need to hear the decision that they need to make. The question before the House is that the member no longer be heard.    

The House divided. [10:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

82 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 66 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:54 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. BILLS 2887 BILLS New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 2887

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2887 10:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. To that, the Leader of the House has moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.  

The House divided. [10:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 82 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 66 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:04 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.  

The House divided. [11:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

90 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 NOES 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) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 2890 11:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [11:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 81 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 64 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. 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) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that this bill be now read a third time.  

The House divided. [11:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 89 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 NOES 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) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 MOTIONS 2892 MOTIONS Parliamentary Procedure 2892 11:19 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Fairfax from moving the following motion: That this House reaffirms the importance of a proper and comprehensive consideration by the House of Representatives of legislation dealing with matters of importance to Australians. As every single member opposite knows, based on an act of parliamentary trickery the Australian people today have been given another tax from the Labor Party—this is the family car tax—without parliamentary procedure. This is the new modus operandi of the Australian government, a preparedness to tax the Australian people, introduce legislation into this parliament and refuse to have any scrutiny placed over it. This week was the week that the government presented a budget, framing that budget as apparently trying to provide cost-of-living relief. But what we have today, in this very week itself, is a new tax legislated by this government. In the same week where the government say they want to make life easier for hardworking families of this country, they slap on a new tax. They do so under the guise of a vehicle efficiency standard, but everybody in this country knows the truth. It is a new family car tax. And here's the worst part of it: the government itself knows the truth. That is why we have seen today a shutdown of parliamentary debate on this piece of legislation. The Prime Minister knows the truth. The minister responsible, the minister for transport, knows the truth. This minister who sits across from me right now, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, he knows the truth. I've been to car dealerships in his electorate. They tell me the punitive tax will be paid ultimately by consumers, but will this government have the debate in this parliament? No, it refuses to do so. This goes to the heart of the lack of integrity and the cowardice of this government. Why would you not have the strength of character to stand in this parliament and put forward your case? If you want to tax the Australian people for buying the cars they like, the cars they need, then why would you not stand in this parliament and have the debate? Why are you so scared of transparency? Why are you so frightened of having a debate? Why will you not be honest with the Australian people about the impact of this legislation when they purchase vehicles? Silence. Radio silence. This is the problem we have seen—radio silence from the government when it comes to all parts of this legislation. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Oh, now the minister would like to pipe up! I'm happy to take any interjection, Minister. What is your interjection? There is silence because you know you've shut down debate on this topic today. It's not unlike what the minister across the table did on introducing a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030—a lack of transparency. To this day we still have nothing from the government on economic modelling of the impact on the Australian people—none. And, as a minister leaves this chamber, will he go back to the office and say to his staff, 'Let's release that modelling of the impact on the Australian people of my emissions reduction target'? No. The same Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who is leaving the chamber right now, was the very one who put out the target that 89 per cent sales of vehicles in Australia by 2030 had to be electric vehicles—had to be EVs. Is that being achieved? No. The government's own department says it's only going to come in at 27 per cent. So what has happened here? Emission targets set at 43 per cent—they will not be achieved. EV sales targets set at 89 per cent—they will not be achieved. The government gets desperate. Its objective is to achieve its objective no matter what the impact is, no matter what the cost is for the Australian people. And as part of that plan it introduces a new family car tax, the original design of which was estimating an increase in the purchase price of vehicles of up to $25,000 for Land Cruisers. We are looking at the prices of Australia's most popular vehicles going up. This government will continue to introduce legislation that will harm the Australian people. We have seen again this week through the budget that this government's approach is to not be transparent, to not show modelling, to not put consumers at the centre but to put itself as the centre. This is a big-government Labor approach. There are winners and there are losers, and we've seen again this week the government's 'made in Australia' policy: it is picking winners. But if you pick winners then, by default, you are also picking losers. The question Australians have to ask themselves, after two years of this government, is: have you been made a winner or have you been made a loser? Australians aren't mugs. They know, under this government, on which side of the ledger they fall. Is this government trying to make them a winner, or a loser? As Australians, do you feel richer, or poorer, after the last two years? Australians: are your lives now easier than they were two years ago, or harder? Australians: is it harder to make ends meet, or is it easier? We have a government that is choosing winners and losers. The Australian people, by and large, are the losers here. Even with the family car tax that the government has just rushed through—closed down any debate—it's the everyday Australian family that will lose. They'll be the ones who'll be paying the higher price for vehicles. It'll be the most vulnerable Australians who'll be hurt the most. It'll be Australians living in regional communities, having to travel vast distances, who'll be hurt the most. Now, I accept that different sides of parliament can have different philosophical views about certain areas of public policy. But no matter one's view, you should at least have the courage of your convictions to come to the dispatch box in parliament and prosecute the case, to have your policy open for scrutiny and review. But this government hasn't done that, and we see the Australian people hurt as a result. For all the waffle we've heard this week from the government about trying to look after Australian consumers, at the first opportunity they had to legislate something to assist everyday families they instead legislated a new tax. People can judge others by what they say or what they do. I put that this government must be judged by what they do. We on this side of the House stood ready to engage with the government in good faith on a vehicle efficiency standard. They refused to engage. We put principles on the table—genuine emissions reduction, affordability, choice. Every one of those principles were ignored. The Australian people have been ignored. The Australian people are paying the price. So, as Australians move forward and they keep hearing all the talk from this government about cost of living, they can be sure of one thing. This government is refusing to release any economic modelling that demonstrates the impact on consumers of this family car tax. Secondly, they can be sure that this government has refused to engage in good faith across the parliamentary aisle to ensure that a proper efficiency standard has been put in place. Thirdly, they can be sure that this government has rushed through this parliament—without debate, without scrutiny—a new family car tax which will be paid by everyday Australians, while this government laughs and carries on. That's the calibre of the Albanese Labor government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? 11:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I second the motion. We know that standing and sessional orders do need to be suspended because, as the member for Fairfax states, this House has to reaffirm the importance of a proper and comprehensive consideration by this House—the people's house, the house of what used to be democracy—of legislation dealing with matters of importance to Australians. If ever there were a matter of importance to Australians, it is this matter. The Labor government has form when it comes to gagging debate. Indeed, last year, for the first time since I was elected in 2010, they gagged the appropriation bills of all bills to gag. Just recently, in the last sitting week of the Senate, they gagged our senators from speaking about the digital identity bill in the upper house. Now here today, they have gagged the fuel efficiency standard debates. There was a long list of speakers who wanted to speak about the importance of this legislation for and on behalf of their constituents. Many of those members are regional members who will hurt the most from this tax on family cars and utes. But those opposite don't care about families and farmers. They do not care about families, which are in Struggle Street at the moment. They do not need another Labor tax to impose upon their livelihoods, upon their day-to-day budgets. I appreciate that the member for Rankin stood at that despatch box the other night and delivered his budget speech, but the important budgets that are being done are around the family living room tables. They are the ones that are being done by families that are struggling to pay for groceries, struggling to pay every time they go to the bowser at the petrol station. Under this, they're going to be struggling even more. They are hurting so much, and that is why the suspension is so important. That is why Labor has to finally concede that, before it came to power, it said: 'Let the sun shine in. Let there be more transparency.' Yet they are gagging debate again and again. This is simply not good enough. And they're doing it in collaboration with, for and on behalf of the teals. They are a party; let's make no mistake. They're also doing it on behalf of the Greens. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 We don't need the echo. Order. Mr McCORMACK 219646 They are here and they are helping. They've all been denied speaking on this important debate. Every one of my colleagues behind me are very concerned, very worried and very upset that they weren't allowed to speak about the fuel efficiency standards. We saw the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government come to the despatch box and talk about how much this is going to mean for the regions. She has absolutely no idea. This is the same minister who has absolutely cut, stalled, delayed or, indeed, taken away all of the regional infrastructure, all of the roads infrastructure—so much so that even in the Courier Mail yesterday the columnist was talking about how much easier it was to deal with the coalition when it came to infrastructure. That's from Palaszczuk government insiders. Here we have a government that feels the need to not only gag debate but also ram through this unnecessary legislation. The ones who will be hurting the most are our farmers. The ones who will be hurting the most are our rural and regional families and, indeed, those in remote areas. I appreciate that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy says that this is necessary. I appreciate that he says that this is going to lead to reduced emissions. I appreciate that he says this is going to lead us closer to net zero. But it's all poppycock. It absolutely is. He knows it. What we've seen today is a denial of democracy. What we've seen today is the Labor government denying people from the coalition, members who are sent here by their constituents—by their rural and regional constituents in particular—to speak on this debate, and they have not been given or afforded the opportunity to do so. This is a shameful day for this parliament. In 14 years I have never seen this sort of behaviour by those opposite, who promised more, who promised better when they came to power. That is why the suspension is so necessary. This is another tax on families. This is another tax on farmers. This is another tax on the regions. It is so unnecessary from those opposite, who should have known better, who promised better and who have broken yet another promise to the Australian people. 11:34 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I stand in unison with the member for Riverina and the shadow minister over this shameful display by the government of running away from democracy and running away from the House, a house where this debate should be held in an open and transparent way. The Prime Minister promised us on election night that there would be a different parliament. He lambasted us when we were in government, saying that we didn't have a transparent system in terms of the legislation that came through here. But, with a bill as important as this—putting in place a new tax, not just on farmers and tradies but on young families—we should be debating its merits. When it comes to the intent of the bill, I don't think anyone actually challenges that there is a need for a vehicle emissions standard, but we need technology and time to achieve that. This is a reckless race by the government to achieve a target by 2030 that will impose a tax on the Australian people. In my mind, it would be important for the Australian people to hear the debate and allow the science and the actual arguments to be put forward in front of the Australian people so they understand why they are paying this tax and how it could have been avoided. And it could be avoided. The manufacturers are moving towards this, if they are given time and technology to achieve it. But what we have seen—the reason we are going down this path—is that this government have made a big international commitment on the international stage, putting their chest out, telling us that they're going to get a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and it is to be achieved by getting to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. But there has been an epiphany for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who realises that we do not even have the supply chain to achieve 82 per cent renewables by 2030. There isn't the supply chain of wind turbines and solar panels. Between now and 2030, 40 wind turbines a month must be installed and 22,000 panels a day must be laid. It is unachievable. He doesn't want to go back on the international stage—he understands he's not going to be able to achieve that 42 per cent, because his 82 per cent target has been blown to smithereens. Instead, he has reached to the vehicle emissions standards and brought that forward so that it imposes a tax on vehicles for their emissions and does not allow manufacturers to catch up and allow the technology to solve this problem, which would be common sense. That's what we are saying. Let's bring to this parliament the common sense of allowing technology to catch up, instead of imposing a tax on farmers and tradies. For a LandCruiser wagon ute, you're talking about an extra $20,000. If you go to a HiLux ute, you're talking about nearly $10,000 extra on the purchase price of that vehicle. If you look at a RAV4, it is over $9,000 extra. For young families, let me tell you, an SUV is a tool of trade. You can't go to the supermarket and have a pram in the back and put the car seats in for the kids unless you've got an SUV. How do you say to these young families, 'We are going to tax your vehicle, your tool of trade'? This affects families not just in the bush but in the cities. They have this utopian idea about EVs, but, let me tell you, I've got properties in my own electorate where EVs wouldn't get to the front gate before they have to be recharged. This is the insanity of the ideology that's being imposed. This blanket ideology doesn't appreciate the very fabric of what this country is, what makes up this fabric. It's not all about those in capital cities. There are some of us—in fact, 30 per cent of us—that live outside a capital city and should be taken into account. You know what? Much of the budget surplus that was heralded here was actually earned in regional and rural Australia, either through agriculture or resources. If we're not provided the tools to be able to achieve that, then these surpluses are gone. What we are saying is this that there should be a proper debate and understanding of what every Australian will go through and what every Australian will pay because of an ideology rushed, because of a target that is wanted to be achieved before the technology is there to achieve it. We've all signed up. We're all ready to go, but you've got to use some common sense. This government is afraid of this parliament. This government is afraid of its people, but, make no mistake, there will be a day of reckoning in less than 12 months. 11:40 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper What we have seen this morning is more than just the imposition of another tax on the people in the regions. What we have seen is an egregious breach of the trust of the Australian people. What this Labor government did this morning was to shut down debate, shut down democracy and not allow the opposition to speak on this horrible tax that will be imposed on the mums and dads and the tradies. I ask the Prime Minister and I ask those opposite: What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of the Australian people? Why would you shut us down and not allow us to speak to this tax that you will impose on the Australian people, particularly those in the regions? The Australian people will not forget this. We will remind them. The member for Maranoa said at the end of his speech, 'There will be a reckoning,' and there will. I urge the Prime Minister to bring on an early election, because the people will not forget that you have prevented democracy in this place. Every single one of us, over that side and on this side, is elected by the people to come down here and speak on their behalf, for them. By blocking us from doing that today you are saying to those people: 'We don't care about you. You don't matter. It doesn't matter that you voted for your member, because we're just going to shut you down. We will shut you down.' By shutting us down they are shutting you down. They don't care about you. They don't care that your electricity bill has gone up by 30 per cent. They don't care that your gas bills have gone up by 27 per cent. They don't care that this very tax will put $20,000 on the family car which is the most popular car in the regions. Who buys those cars? Tradies, farmers, families—people in the regions who put the food on the table and the fibre on your backs. But they don't care about you, and they showed that today because they shut us down. Shutting us down shuts you down. I've had people in my office and I'm sure we've had people in all of our offices telling us how hard it is to cope at the moment with the cost-of-living crisis. Going to Coles—I go to Coles; I do the shopping—we have an increase of 15 per cent on our grocery bills. Mark my words and listen to this, Labor: the people will not forget what you have done to them today. If you support Labor, you should be ashamed of what your government has done today to the Australian democracy. You should tell them. You should ring your MPs and say: 'We vote for democracy. We vote for freedom.' That is exactly what has not happened here today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allotted for the debate has ended. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [11:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 65 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. 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) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 77 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. 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. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. 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. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Domestic and Family Violence 2896 11:52 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) currently in Australia, one woman every 4 days is murdered by her current or former partner and 2.3 million Australian women have experienced violence from an intimate partner; (b) as of 16 May 2024, at least 28 women have been allegedly murdered by their male partner in Australia; (c) the rate of women killed by an intimate partner in Australia increased by nearly 30% in 2022-23, compared to the previous year despite the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 being in effect; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) an immediate boost of $1 billion in annual funding for frontline services for domestic, family and sexual violence, including crisis services, refuges and emergency housing; (b) immediately increase funding to Legal Aid by $484 million to allow more women to access the legal help they require and Women's Legal Services Australia by $25 million to allow more women to access the legal help they require; (c) undertake an immediate national review of sentencing laws, with a special focus on strengthening state and territory level responses with use of AVOs, electronic monitoring of domestic violence and sexual assault offenders, and removal of character references during sentencing in domestic violence cases; (d) establish a national database to record all those convicted of family, domestic and sexual violence offences; (e) establish a national mechanism to track family, domestic and sexual violence deaths across all states and territories to identify red flags and risk factors. (f) fund community education and prevention work consistently including respectful relationships education to bring about culture change. 11:54 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—The words of that may have been provided to offices; I'm not sure if they have been. The standard practice when leave is sought in these situations is that leave is not granted. Certainly there are aspects of the motion that go directly to appropriations and decisions that are not ordinarily dealt with in this way. There has been discussion about there being a suspension, but, now that I've heard the motion, I am worried that this could be the first time that we end up—at the end of this, if a suspension is then moved—going to a division about family and domestic violence. I'm genuinely worried about that. I have full respect for the motivations of the member in bringing this forward. I wonder, having now heard the motion, whether it might be possible, on the issue of whether a suspension is moved, for there to be some discussion outside the chamber. It's up to the member. She has got the right to move a suspension if she insists. But, if it is possible to get to a point where everything that comes out of this House sends a unanimous view on family and domestic violence, I would like us to find that way. It's how traditionally we've been able to deal with these issues. I respect that, in the speeches, different calls may happen, but I do not want, if it can be avoided, for us to have the first time where a message is sent to the community that is in effect a mixed message about something that, at first-principles level, every single member of this parliament agrees on. The question that I was asked was 'Is leave granted?' To answer that question: leave is not granted. But I would offer to the member for Warringah that if the member for Warringah chooses to not go immediately to moving a suspension, then I can give a guarantee that, if we aren't able to reach agreement on words, there will be no procedural blockage to making sure that there is an opportunity later today. We won't procedurally block it in any way. But I am worried about the implications and how the community will see it if, for the first time, we end up in a divisive vote in the House which will carry an implication to some people that I don't think reflects the House. As I say, the member for Warringah has a full right, as a member of parliament, but, if that is a possible course of action, it would certainly be appreciated by many members. 11:57 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah on indulgence—Could I have a clarification from the Leader of the House? Am I to understand that you would allow a debate but not proceed to a vote? 11:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—If the member seeks to move a suspension and simply have the speeches, and we don't end up dividing, then I don't think there's the same risk to the House. But, if we end up with a division, I think it will be taken by some to be a message that it is not, and I'm worried about that. We can either talk about it and come back later or, if the course of action is taken now, the other option is that we understand that we don't divide. But I think there is a risk with a division, with some of the forces in this country that none of us want to encourage. A division could potentially send a very bad message. The SPEAKER 53517 So one option before the member could be further discussion, negotiation and then a further motion before the House or a suspension, and the other option could be moving to the other item on the agenda today, which would give time to enable that to occur. 11:59 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah on indulgence—Leave has not been granted. I won't divide on the lack of leave, and I won't suspend standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 Okay. So we'll just move to the next item. BILLS 2898 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 2898

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

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

Second Reading 2898 12:00 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies It would be tempting and easy to look at the debate on these bills as one about people who are wealthy. In the talking points that the government has provided, they have sought to narrow that number to 80,000 affected individuals. Australians who are struggling right now—the average wage is $95,000, and the median wage is $65,000—would probably ask, 'What has this got to do with the average Australian?' It has everything to do with the average Australian, particularly younger Australians. Younger Australians are taken for granted by this government. The government banks them electorally and perhaps has some competition with other parties. But young Australians are being sold short. We saw that they are being sold short on the issue of ballooning debt. You just have to go to the Intergenerational report on page 144 to see that, for every person in this nation, there was government spending in 2023 dollars of $25,000—$25,000 per person in Australia was spent by those who make decisions in this place. When you think about the average wage of $95,000 or the median wage, which is directly in the middle, of $65,000, that is a huge proportion of wages—average and median wages—being spent on federal government spending. But the graph on page 144 of the Intergenerational report notes that in 40 years time, a generation away in 2063, that spending will hit $40,000. That uses 2023 numbers. So, assuming there are no increases in productivity—and that's a fair assumption with this government—if the average wage is $95,000 and the median wage is $65,000, if we're to have ballooning government spending at that level, that is totally unsustainable. Then, on the issue of housing—we will have an MPI today on housing, and we will have more to say on that—young Australians were looking to this government to provide hope that they can, like generations that have come before them, own their own piece of Australia, that they can build a better life for themselves, a life where, if they choose, they can raise children and enjoy grandchildren in generations to come. That aspiration is now at risk, and we saw in an article in the newspaper today that, looking at Sydney house prices, to save for a 20 per cent deposit, those on the average wage are looking at 46 years. It is 21 years in Melbourne. That's going to cause young people to just give up. That would be a rational decision. So this decision, this proposal, on superannuation also affects young people. Young people are quite financially literate, and that's one of the good things about social media. I've spoken to many young people in high school or at university who are learning about the great benefits of compound returns. The flip side of that is the horrible losses that can come for people with compound debt, and that is borne out particularly in credit card debt. The key issue with this bill, in addition to the broken promise and taxing on unrealised capital gains, is the lack of indexing. Three million dollars may seem like a lot of money now, but without indexing that will affect much more than 80,000 people. In fact, it will affect two million people. For young Australians who are putting money away in their superannuation, by the time they come to be at this relevant stage of their lives, if that is not indexed, which it's not, then $3 million won't be what it is today. More and more young people will be caught up in it, in the same way that more and more young people are finding themselves moving through the various tax brackets through bracket creep. It has been described quite properly as a thief in the night. It's a thief in the night because it's not one that is discussed openly. People think that they have a particular bracket. They think that this won't apply to them, but, bit by bit, in compound losses, this will ultimately affect them, and it's done in a dishonest way. At the heart of this proposal is dishonesty. When people are planning for their retirement—and their superannuation, in particular—the most important thing they want is certainty. Is there certainty in the tax rates, the rules and the systems, particularly for an investment that will be realised many decades later? The government, in their desperation to be sitting in the government benches, made that commitment not to change superannuation. They made that commitment. This isn't the first promise that has been broken by this government. We'll have an election at some stage, maybe at the end of this year or early next year, and Australians will quite correctly look at the Prime Minister and say, 'Are the promises you are making in this election going to be like what you said on super, on energy and on a wide variety of matters which you then walked away from?' That is a fair question and one that has not been properly answered by the government. There will be other speakers coming after me who will speak about the particular issue of taxing unrealised capital gains. That affects probably farmers and those in regional communities or running small businesses more than any others. It is a huge change to the way superannuation is taxed, particularly for those that have their own self-managed super fund. This is another broken promise. It particularly affects young Australians. The taxes on unrealised gains are quite an insidious change to our tax system for superannuation assets and will affect those in regional communities and on farms more than any others. (Quorum formed) 12:10 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak against the changes proposed by the government in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and particularly against this concept that you can tax unrealised gains. The impact, particularly on self-managed super funds—and this is intentional from the Labor government—would be extraordinary. It is incredible that they would seek to seize taxes from an asset which hasn't been realised. For those who are listening, if you have a self-managed super fund you may well invest in commercial property, agricultural property or residential property. If we look at ag in particular, there have been extraordinary increases in the value of ag land. But you're holding a hard asset. In one year you could get a tax bill for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for which you have no cash. And, with your self-managed super fund, you can't put more money in; you can't contribute. The only option you will have will be to sell that asset. That will mean that those individuals who have made real decisions based on the facts, based on the conditions at the time that they purchased and based on the law—they have not done anything unlawful—will be forced by this Labor government to divest their assets. This is an extraordinary decision. It has been panned by economists everywhere, because what happens in the next year if the value of that property goes down? Will you then get a cash refund? Will they then calculate the value of what your property is now not worth? I don't think that's likely. Every individual with a self-managed super fund—and I'll declare an interest; I have one, though I don't hold any hard assets in my self-managed fund at the moment but have previously—and every single Australian who has made reasonable decisions based on the law of the day is now going to be absolutely hammered by this government, when all they're trying to do is build their wealth for them to live on in retirement, which is the purpose of the super system according to the Labor Party. This is something that they believe in, but they don't believe in individuals being able to build their wealth, because they want to force them into industry super funds for nefarious means and purposes. This is a terrible decision. They will have to sell no matter what the market says, no matter what the value is and no matter whether they could potentially make a loss on that sale. But they'll certainly realise whatever gain there is, and the Labor Party will get their tax. They will get their handful of shekels. They will get their handful of silver. But the individuals who are out there trying to have a go will be penalised not only financially but into the future, because that asset could continue to grow, which is the reason they purchased it in the first place. I oppose this bill. It is abhorrent. It is a ridiculous decision. It should be absolutely panned across the country. Who are they attacking? They are attacking hardworking Australians that are trying to get ahead and are actually investing in assets that are of benefit to the nation, including residential housing. And guess what we need right now? We need more rental properties, more availability and less immigration, and this Labor government has messed this up completely. 12:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina As the member for Hinkler has just pointed out in very explicit detail, this tax on unrealised gains is, when it comes to farming property, just nonsense, and anybody with half a modicum of intelligence, financial know-how or acumen would appreciate just that. Before the May 2022 election, Labor promised, wrongly, that there would be no changes to superannuation, there would be no touching of superannuation—that was promised. But, as we know, everything that Labor says is not the same as what Labor does after it gets elected. It's the same with the $275 power bill cuts; it's the same with this legislation before the House today. I'm surprised that Labor's not just going to ram it through! Mr Pitt 148150 No, you're not! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Why would they uphold the principles of democracy and allow us to talk about it, member for Hinkler? It's a good question, and I ask the House. We saw, just a few sordid moments ago, that Labor pushed through the new fuel efficiency standards without allowing members to speak on that debate. We saw last year that Labor rushed through, pushed through, the appropriations bills, the budget bills of all legislation, without allowing every member of parliament, who's elected to this place—the people's house—by the people, to speak on that bill. Of course, just in the last sitting week of the Senate, the national digital identity bill was pushed through without allowing debate, and many coalition senators wanted to speak on that particular bill but were not permitted. This is, unfortunately, the Labor way. This goes to the far greater concern we have for people particularly, as even the member for Menzies noted, in regional Australia. This is not only a betrayal of what Labor said it wasn't going to do—and that is touch super—but a fundamentally flawed policy. It unfairly disadvantages farmers and young people into the future. Labor's proposed changes are such that they are going to look at the overall value of a farm and tax that farmer on an unrealised asset when, as the member for Hinkler pointed out, they may then have to sell the property, or part thereof, to pay the tax bill for an asset from which they're gaining their money and which underpins their livelihood. How can people have the confidence necessary to make investments into their retirement when Labor backflips on its promises and pledges? I'm particularly concerned about how the proposed changes are going to affect farmers and young workers, and many, many people share that concern, including, I have to say, the National Farmers Federation. They, in a press release on 14 May 2024—so that's this week—sounded the alarm on the superannuation tax impost. That was the heading on the media release. They are already under the pump, and I note with great concern that Tony Mahar, the chief executive, was one of those who walked out of the post-budget speech by the agriculture minister, Senator Murray Watt, when he began talking about the WA sheep farmers who are going to have their trade phased out. The NFF are right on that, and they're right on this issue too. As the NFF points out: Evidence from financial and tax experts in a Senate Economics Committee Inquiry shows the agricultural sector will be unfairly hit with the changes that could even see families having to sell farms. This is what I said a few moments ago. Why is there this constant attack on farmers? I noted—and I am digressing a little bit—in the budget papers that there was no disclosure as to how much the Labor government will spend on water buybacks. Our irrigation farmers are nervous about that; our irrigation communities are very worried about that. We've got the WA sheep farmers being paid $107 million over four years to phase out what they do for a living, which is put food on the tables of Middle Eastern countries, in the sense of live sheep exports. Here we have farmers being slugged with an unnecessary tax on an unrealised asset—that is, the property, the land, the soil and the dirt from which they earn their income. This is just nuts. This is just crazy. Why? How? How can this possibly be? As the NFF points out, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry's report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the bill we're discussing, was released late on Friday, ahead of the legislation now being debated. I'm amazed it is being debated, but anyway, I move on. Tony Mahar said this: Concerningly the final report does not appear to address the issues raised by the NFF about the potential impact the reform may have on small business and family farms … These reforms could be like a sledgehammer to succession planning for family farms. A sledgehammer to succession planning! I remember the late Bill Thompson of Coolamon and the work that he did in the Riverina in relation to succession planning. It's something that is so very important. But how on earth is an accountant—even a good accountant, like Mr Thompson was—and others who are doing work in this space supposed to know how much a farm is worth if Labor is going to tax the unrealised asset? This is like stealing something that hasn't even been sold, though it's probably going to have to be sold because of this legislation. Why is Labor so against our farmers? Why is Labor continuing this attack on regional Australia? Why is Labor bringing, as Tony Mahar says, a sledgehammer to the people who provide the food and fibre? And it's not just here in Australia; now we're stopping those who want to sell sheep overseas. I don't get it. It absolutely beggars belief. Labor brought down a budget the other night. It was a potential re-election budget—a bit of a cash splash here, a bit of a cash splash there—but our regional communities won't be hoodwinked by this. They will not be fooled by Labor bringing down a sledgehammer on their operations, on their activities. As Tony Mahar says: In many cases, older farmers will hold their farm in an SMSF— a self-managed super fund— and lease it to their children, providing both retirement income for them while giving the next generation an opportunity to start farming. We are extremely worried the proposed taxation of 'unrealised gains' on holdings will increase the tax obligation so much, farmers will be forced to sell land assets to pay the tax bill. Given high land values and modest cash income generated from farming, this new tax when will represent a significant proportion of a farmers' annual retirement income, or even exceed it. This may see the farmers left with a terrible choice. Sell the farm to meet these new tax obligations or increase their lease rates so much that their own children and grandchildren can't afford it and leave the industry. Is this what Labor wants? Is this what Labor desires? Is this some sort of subversive way that Labor wants to force farmers off the land? It makes you wonder; it truly does. Tony Mahar goes on to say, 'This is a lose-lose situation and undoubtedly not what the wider community would expect these reforms intended to deliver.' Our farmers are the backbone of the economy. People may disagree with that. They may say that some other industry or asset is. But I don't know any other industry or sector which grows the food to put on our tables, three times a day, every day, and we should thank farmers every time we tuck our knees under the dinner table. They also provide the fibre for the clothes on our backs. That's what they do. But they are not being treated fairly by this Labor government, which never cares about farmers, never worries about their concerns and has absolutely no idea as to the toils and turmoils and troubles that farmers go through to grow that food and fibre. In any given decade, farmers will have three good seasons, three average seasons and three terrible seasons, and the other one—well, take your pick. That's farming. It's a tough occupation, and our thanks go to those farmers, who do their best to prop up and feed everyone—even those opposite, and they should remember that. This bill seeks to implement a broken promise to change the tax arrangements on superannuation. That's what it is doing, and that's what it represents. It's a shame that it even has to come before the parliament, given the fact that Labor said, prior to the May 2022 election, that it would not touch super; it said it would not touch it, but indeed it has. The NFF is against it, and there are so many other people who are against it. Young workers aren't going to escape this Labor cash grab, either. The proposed $3 million threshold isn't indexed to inflation. Who knows what inflation will be over the next 30 or 40 years? We might ask the member for Rankin, the Treasurer. He seems to know. He seems to push the Reserve Bank of Australia in one direction and comes out and says what the inflation rate will be—locks himself into that. Good luck with that; I'll be watching that with great interest, and I'm sure RBA governor Michele Bullock will, too, as well as many other economists who panned the budget—many, I would almost say, Left-leaning economists who panned the budget; they saw through it. Regional Australians see through this legislation. If this wasn't simply a cash grab by Labor, the government would do the right thing, the honest thing, and index the threshold to inflation. But they just won't. The coalition is not supporting this. Why would we? Why would we support yet another tax? Why would we support yet another cash grab? Why would we support something that is going to hurt our farmers such that they may have to sell part or all of their land simply to pay the unrealised gain, the tax that Labor is going to impose on them? Accountants around the country will be scratching their heads and wondering how this is even possible. Labor's broken promise on superannuation is, as I say, a broken promise, but also it comes at a time when cost-of-living pressures are making it so hard, particularly for those people in regional Australia, who have to drive further. They've just had another tax imposed on them with the fuel efficiency standard. They won't be able to drive the cars that they can afford. They won't be able to pay for the ute or pay for the SUV. And it's is not just farmers; it's families—mums taking kids to school, dads taking kids to sport and all that. And our tradies are going to be hurt by the legislation that was rammed through earlier today. This legislation that Labor is proposing will double super taxes for one in 10 Australians by the time they retire—double. It'll stop companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities—those volunteer organisations that do so much good for so many Australians. As I said, it will tax unrealised capital gains in superannuation, meaning that Australian retirees will pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet. What nonsense! Who came up with this idea? What brainiac decided this would be a good idea? It was obviously somebody who had never set foot on a farm, somebody who has never sat around with farmers and talked about how they're going to manage: 'It hasn't rained for five years, but you're going to have to pay an unrealised gain, because your property is actually now worth more than it was last year. But there's a tax coming your way.' The farmer would ask, 'How am I going to pay for that?' And the farmer would be told, 'Well, that's your choice. Sell off a portion; sell off a paddock of your farm.' But the brainiacs in the bureaucracy don't care; they don't worry. They'll still go down to their coffee shop and they'll still go down to their tapas bar and they'll still go and eat the food that has been provided by an Australian farmer, while at the same time coming up with dumb legislation and giving it to the likes of the member for Rankin, who brings it into this place to get passed. It's simply not fair, it's simply not right—but unfortunately it is the Labor way. That's what Labor stands for. It stands for broken promises. It stands for taxes. This should be absolutely rejected every point of the way. (Quorum formed) 12:32 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. There are reasons I was inclined to support the bill, the primary of these being intergenerational inequity in our tax system. This is an issue of grave concern to my community. However, I cannot support the bill in its current form, primarily because of its poor design, particularly the taxing of unrealised gains and the lack of a clawback mechanism for that tax, the lack of indexing and the ambiguity as to whether final salary pensions will be subject to the same conditions. These are issues that my community has raised with me—and continues to raise with me—at the ferry at Rose Bay and at Bronte Beach just in the last week. In the words of a young man who had just come out of the surf, 'Taxing unrealised gains—that's crazy!' The taxing of unrealised gains is, in my mind, the most critical of these objections because of the extremely poor precedent it sets in the tax system and the impact it will have on people. We've just heard from the member for Riverina about the impact on farmers, but it will particularly have an impact on high-growth, high-risk startups and scale-up businesses, many of which are in my electorate. Let me go through these points one by one. Policies around tax and tax concessions are critical questions for this parliament and for the country. When we consider some of the most difficult issues facing this country—intergenerational inequity, housing, productivity and addressing climate pollution—tax reform is a key solution that needs to be on the table. Intergenerational inequity is a critical issue in itself, and our tax policies are contributing to it. A household headed by someone over the age of 65 grew wealth by around 50 per cent in the last decade or so. A household headed by someone under 35 basically didn't move in its wealth. Our communities are diverging, and they are diverging by age. Despite this, older generations are paying less tax than they did in the past, with only 17 per cent paying income tax versus 27 per cent a generation ago. These are the reasons why looking at superannuation in a tax sense is important. The superannuation system, for all its manifest qualities, does contribute to this intergenerational inequity. I accept the premise that the current tax concessions and the current tax system do not currently support young, working-age people, who are facing some of the greatest barriers in building wealth, housing and security—higher barriers than previous generations. My community agrees with this in large part, in the sense that super balances of many millions should be subject to broader taxes. We reached out to the community to ask them what they thought about this policy, bearing in mind that Wentworth is one of the communities with some of the largest numbers of people who will be directly negatively impacted by this change in policy. About 1,400 people responded. The support for the principle of taxing balances of extremely high superannuation was broadly and very significantly held by the community. But there were some very significant and very, very clear caveats which I will go through, and those caveats are why I cannot support the bill in its current form. The biggest caveat, the biggest concern people had, was around unrealised gains and the lack of clawback for unrealised gains. This not only will have implications for asset-rich but cash-poor self-managed superannuation holders, particularly in farming communities, which the member for Riverina alluded to, but will have a significant impact on Australia's growth and technology sectors, and I do not believe the government properly thought about the impact of this policy on those sectors when they designed this policy. For self-managed superannuation holders this taxation of unrealised gains introduces a high degree of uncertainty and volatility regarding their annual tax liability. For these Australians the level of tax is unpredictable and charged annually on the investment, which may not be realised at all or for many years. In their submission the Self-Managed Superannuation Fund Association estimated that around 14 per cent of affected self-managed super fund holders would experience liquidity stress in meeting the new tax obligations. Objections to this bill have been hand-waved by many as only affecting a small number of superannuants. Indeed, the raw numbers are not high, but this argument doesn't consider the outsized impact on the sectors that rely on this type of investment. Let's talk about early-stage investment and Australia's innovative economy. Australia suffers from a chronic underinvestment in early-stage businesses. Australia's pool of angel and seed-level funding per capita is some of the lowest amongst our peers. Even on a per capita basis our angel and seed funding amounts to 50 per cent of the UK and 35 per cent of the US. We have seen repeatedly that Australia struggles to grow and develop early-stage businesses and often loses those businesses and some of our leading lights and opportunities in the future to overseas, and the challenge is that the taxation of unrealised gains will only exacerbate the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in accessing finance in Australia. My electorate of Wentworth is home to many of the people involved in both the venture capital space and emerging industries, including clean tech and quantum. From speaking to entrepreneurs and members of the venture capital community, they have been clear that the impact of this bill will be unambiguously negative for those high-growth sectors. The challenge of early-stage investment and private capital is volatility and risk. An investment could be worth $50,000 in one year, $1 million the next year and nothing in the following year. These investments are inherently illiquid. They are investments that often cannot be sold out for five or 10 years, because of the need for these young productive and growing businesses to have certainty in terms of access of capital. These businesses can't go onto the ASX, and fewer and fewer of them are. More and more are being held in private hands for longer. When I talk to the sector they tell me that super funds and particularly self-managed super funds are absolutely critical to the startup and scale-up sector, which is not as strong as anyone would like it to be in this country. Some funds are more than 50 per cent backed by the SMSFs. The great danger of this legislation is that it drives people out of that sector and into assets with lower returns but lower volatility. With private capital in these sorts of sectors having returned approximately 18 per cent per annum in returns in the last 10 years and the ASX having returned approximately eight per cent, this is bad both for Australian startups but also for Australian superannuants who need their super to fund their retirement. We're seeing more and more private businesses stay private for longer, which will lock broader investors out of this market if we continue to tax things like unrealised gains and make these high-risk but also high-return areas of investment unattractive to investors and, particularly, to superannuants. This change comes on the back of other forces—particularly a focus now in the superannuation sector on fees rather than on net returns, a fear of changes to the sophisticated investor test, and complexity in addressing foreign capital, some of which the government has tried to address—that are pushing back on the startup and scale-up sector. Some people might argue: 'The investments will move out of super. That's no problem. People can invest in these areas outside of super.' But superannuation is the dominant form of capital in this country. We have collectively and decisively said this is where we want people to put their money, and for good reason: so that they can hold it and so that they can fund their own retirement. So the bias towards super in so many different things means that people will continue to hold money in preference in their superannuation funds, but they will no longer want to hold high-risk, high-volatility, illiquid investments in these sorts of funds, particularly when there is any increase in funds which might require tax. If the fund then drops in price, they will not get any of that tax back. They could pay tax on unrealised gains on an asset they cannot sell, and then that asset may no longer be worth anything at all. They've already paid the tax and they will not get that tax back unless their own superannuation balance gets over $3 million again, which it may not. The night before last the government introduced the Future Made in Australia and made a big push to support emerging industries and great innovative capacity, as they are critical to our energy transition and security and to our economic future. I just want to make the point that taxation of unrealised gains will stand in direct contrast to the objectives laid out in the Treasurer's vision, because it's cutting off an important source of private-sector funding for the companies and industries of the future, which the government on the other side of the ledger is trying to support. Australia has low productivity right now. We know that. We also know from people like e61 that the most productive firms are young firms. These are firms that are otherwise struggling to access capital and these are the firms that rely on these sorts of funds that the government will have a significant and negative impact on. I don't think this policy is consistent with a government that is trying to focus on productivity or a government that is trying to focus on building innovation and building the industries of the future. I have raised this issue with the government and have seen no evidence that the government has actually properly assessed the impact of this change on the startup or scale-up sector. That is why I've put forward an amendment for exactly that focus: I would like the government to assess and to table in this House what the impact is going to be on these sectors and what the government is going to do about it. I urge the government to remove unrealised gains from the measurement of taxable earnings and remove the clawback provision. If they did that, I would then support this bill. That said, I think there are other issues with this bill. There's a lack of indexation, and so I will be supporting an amendment raised by another member of the crossbench to annually index large superannuation balance thresholds in line with inflation. I do not like this idea of gaining more tax effectively by stealth, and indexation ensures that the tax policies of a government are deliberate rather than things that they hope the public doesn't notice. The second issue is that, while this is an increase in tax overall, it misses the opportunity to do more from an intergenerational inequity point of view in terms of lowering the taxes for young people or doing something that specifically supports young people in this situation. We know those are the ones who are held back the most at the moment in our current tax system. The third issue, which I know the coalition has raised significantly, is a question of broken promises. I accept that this policy won't be in place until 2025, after the next election, and I think that is appropriate, but I think we can all urge everyone in politics: try not to make promises that you're not going to keep, because it reduces the confidence that the community has in the words of any member of parliament. The final issue, which many in my community have raised, is: will public sector final pensions be treated in the same way? There is a concern. Some of those public sector final pensions are extremely generous. I'm sure many people would like to be on them. My community rightly says that, if people who've built up their money in the private sector are going to be treated in this way, it is appropriate for the public sector pensions to be treated in the same way. There's still some ambiguity and uncertainty, as far as I can tell, about whether that is going to take place. That is why I will not support this bill in its current form, although in principle I agree with what the government intends: trying to shift the tax burden away from young working Australians, which is where we should all be trying to shift the tax burden from. 12:45 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith This is a missed opportunity to tax wealth fairly in this country. People are sleeping in tents while 27 self-managed super funds hold balances of $100 million, with one person holding an obscene $544 million in their tax-sheltered super account. Australia's superannuation system is no longer about ensuring a dignified retirement for workers. Successive parliaments have contorted its purpose so that it is now Australia's premier tax haven for wealth accumulation and estate planning. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, will not change this trajectory in any meaningful way. It is not just the Greens saying it. The co-architects of the compulsory superannuation system, the ACTU, say the same: Superannuation was not designed as, and should not be, a tax haven for the wealthy nor a way for the wealthy to receive tax handouts. Instead, superannuation tax concessions should provide assistance to those who need it, to save sufficient income for their retirement. Current superannuation tax concessions are unfairly targeted, regressive and unsustainable. As a result, superannuation is soaking up lost public funds that should be directed to properly fund aged care and lifting people on the age pension and income support out of grinding, demoralising poverty—lest we forget that the age pension is still below the poverty line. In this financial year, $9 billion will go to the highest tenth of the population in superannuation contribution tax breaks and $8.5 billion in earning tax breaks—$17.5 billion a year in tax breaks going to this top 10 per cent of people, who will never need to rely on the age pension, which ostensibly was the entire purpose of superannuation. If we lowered this government's proposed cap from $3 million to $2 million, it would still touch only the wealthiest one per cent of the population, but apparently that's too much for Labor. Public school funding, removing student debt, supporting women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and pulling families out of poverty are all things the government isn't investing in enough, precisely because there is too much timidity in taxing excessive wealth. Think of the potential of our country if we invested money in our people instead of letting the obscenely rich park their assets in Australia's homegrown tax haven, known as superannuation. The Greens are withholding our position in the Senate, but, even if this bill did pass, it would not change the fact that superannuation is skewed to the benefit of the wealthiest over everyday working people, and it will not change the ever-growing economic inequality that has infected Australia since the 1980s. The other point the Greens make is about self-managed super funds' capacity to borrow to buy investment properties. Self-managed super funds are overwhelmingly established so that investment properties can be held or transferred within a tax-sheltered superannuation framework. Self-managed super funds are using limited-recourse borrowing arrangements to buy investment properties that renters can no longer afford. In 2014, the former head of the Commonwealth Bank, David Murray—hardly a friend of the Greens—was handpicked by the Abbott government to lead a Financial System Inquiry. He said super funds should no longer be able to borrow money to finance investments, because it creates too much financial risk. Scott Morrison, as Treasurer, accepted all 31 recommendations of that review except for that one. They sent it to the Council of Financial Regulators to report back. The council reported back in 2019 and said, 'Yep, get rid of that ability for super funds to borrow.' Minister Frydenberg stayed silent, but shadow Treasurer Bowen listened to the experts in the RBA, APRA and ASIC and committed to removing these borrowing arrangements pre-2019. Unprompted, with a new Treasurer they reported again, highlighting the financial risks. In the time since the original review, loans by self-managed super funds to buy property have gone from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014 to $22.6 billion in June 2022. That is $22 billion flooding the property market essentially as property investments. This unsustainable growth in tax-sheltered borrowing is not just turbocharging financial risk in the super system but is fuelling the property speculation and pushing aspiring first home buyers out of the market. Three independent reviews to government have said, 'End borrowing by self-managed super funds.' It shouldn't have been ignored for a decade. The proposed taxation of unrealised capital gains in this legislation has brought the issue to the surface. Taken together, the combination of accrual taxation and a 156 per cent increase in limited recourse borrowing by self-managed super funds since the Murray review presents a very real risk to the individual super funds as well as to the financial stability of the superannuation system as a whole. If the government wants this timid legislation to pass, it is going to have to end super tax breaks for property investors. (Quorum formed) 12:53 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne 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. What bad bills these two are. I can't believe that anyone on that side can agree to breaking one of the essential provisions of our taxation system—that is, taxation of unrealised capital gains. Paper gains are going to be taxed in your super fund, even though it may be an illiquid asset, like someone's farm or a business bit of real estate that is essential and that can't be sold or the family business would suffer. Also the imposition of a higher tax rate, once the value of the super fund is above $3 million, sounds a lot now, but it is not indexed. The whole purpose of superannuation is to make lots of investments that compound in value. The government says this is going to affect only 80,000 people, and they trot out, way out of left field, the one person in Australia who's got over $500 million in their super fund. Trust me: I think people with that amount of money have their accumulated wealth in lots of other things. I would say he or she would be a very, very small example, which they use to justify changing all the rules around superannuation. This effectively will double superannuation for one in 10 Australians. That's a significant number of people, and many of them will be small and family businesses whose whole lives are wrapped up in their business. When they sell their business, multiple decades of family effort will be taxed at a much greater rate than they thought it would be when they made these long-term decisions. All these superannuation decisions are long-term decisions that have huge ramifications if the playing field is changed when you are 20, 30 or 40 years into accumulating your retirement savings. It also stops companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities. At the last election, and since they've come into government, this government has said they would not change superannuation rules. They lost the election back in 2019 because they did exactly that, and they've come into government now and done the same thing! The voters will catch up with you on this. They are catching up at light speed. I suppose that's why we've just had the budget that we've had, which will drive inflation and will drive up interest rates. For those who have cash invested, interest rates will go up, and superannuation balances. So, if these changes aren't indexed there'll be plenty of young people—my children, your children—who will become adults, like us now, getting towards the time when they will rely on their super funds, who will I suspect have $3 million superannuation balances. I suspect that by then many of this current young generation that is just starting work will have $3 million superannuation balances; it won't be exceptional. It will be way more than 80,000 Australians. Taxing unrealised capital gain is so out of left field and so illogical. It has been floated before; we've heard it discussed. Most people who are financially literate think: 'How does that work? How can you tax something that's just a paper profit?' Assets go up and down in value—does that mean that if the asset goes down in value then at your next tax return or your next superannuation reporting the government is going to give you a tax refund? It's absolutely crazy. They should just stick with the principle that has been running accounting in this country: that capital gains are taxed at the time that the gain is realised, in hard cash. There are so many other things that are really long-term bad outcomes for investment and business in this country. Now, the government haven't totally gotten rid of franking credits; they're just going around the back way. When they're having capital raisings and people are making large investment decisions, Australian people who are looking to invest in big companies might think: 'Well, if we invest in Australian companies we'll get franking credits, which means we won't be paying twice. The company will pay the tax on the profit and then when we get the dividends the tax has been paid on it.' That is a big driver of people investing in Australian companies, particularly Australians. But the government want to get rid of that—through the back door. We need to realise that when bad legislation comes before this place you don't try to short-circuit the process. At least they're not guillotining the debate on this one as they did on the last bill. But this is a bad bill. It can't be supported. If they were to amend some of these rules then yes, we would consider them, if it were for the good of the economy. It's just a question of a tax-hungry government who will tax you more for longer, and you'll have less of your money if you vote for this bill. 13:00 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Isn't it a joy to see what a couple of quorum calls do to lift the atmosphere in the chamber! I remember all the wonderful times on quorum duty that I spent listening to pearls of wisdom, and I'm happy to dispense some back, because there's much to talk about with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Goodness me: what an affront to the economic credibility that the Treasurer strives for—the idea of taxation of unrealised gains! Goodness me! But to put this into the context of the time where we find this: this is the highest-taxing government in 23 years and—a wonderful little pearl that I picked out—outside of COVID, the highest spendings of potential GDP since 1986-87, which, for those of you who remember, were Keating's 'banana republic' years. Isn't it wonderful the way things just come back? We find ourselves in another era of spiralling spending, causing a giant threat to interest rate rises. But that is where a bill like this comes from: Labor needs to find a new tax. You've heard of 'farmer needs a wife'? Well, Labor needs a tax. That's what this is about. They need something to feed this constant appetite for growing spending that we've seen. And they've gone ahead with a new one. They're flouting all our taxation history and coming up with taxation on unrealised gains, and I'll speak about where this will hurt. This is beyond just the usual redistribution of wealth that we've come to expect. This is now a redistribution of wealth that you don't even have. This is stretching into realms of fiscal thought police, economic re-education programs and monitoring the market for signs of aspiration to nip it in the bud and make sure we can snuff out the slightest thought of prosperity in this country. To reinforce my humble contribution today, I'm going to add a few statements that we've received—all on the public record—that I think all very much agree on what a ridiculous proposal this is and on what an affront it is to the basis of economic credibility. The National Farmers Federation made a fantastic comment. They said they hold significant concerns about the impact of the government's proposed changes to the treatment of superannuation holdings and what effect it will have on operations across the country. The NFF is particularly concerned with respect to the proposed taxation of unrealised gains on holdings and what this will do to farming businesses. They point out quite well that the smaller the farming operation, the bigger the impact this will have—the less likely you will be able to cover the new tax. Regarding that $3 million threshold, I've got to point out that in my part of the world a $3 million holding is not a big farm anymore. We're not talking about big guys. These are family farms. And we have seen the value of the land increase, particularly around cities like Toowoomba and those beautiful black soil plains stretching out towards Dalby and beyond—these are reasonable, modest family operations. Their value has increased. The concerns that the National Farmers Federation raise about this legislation are significant. They point out that most of these farms nowadays use a self-managed super fund to hold that operation. This is not new. When the NFF raised this to this side of the House we knew this. This is not new. These are our people. Sadly, it seems to be coming as quite a shock to the government. I think the National Farmers Federation put this clearest. They said that, given that agricultural land values can experience high growth, as they did in 2022 and 2023, land price per hectare increased by 28.6 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. They continue to generate only modest cash income. This new tax may see an increased obligation that represents a significant proportion of their annual retirement income derived from leasing arrangements with their children or even exceed it. What we're seeing here is capital growth, paper capital growth, but no growth in income coming in. So the ability to service this new tax is simply not there. In fact, it's quite the opposite, because, whilst that growth in income isn't happening, we're seeing inflation across the board making every one of those dollars worth less. As inflation cripples the country—I know governments come up with forecasts to suit their spending habits, but it is out there and hurting us in the regions—farmers' ability to service this new tax will decrease year on year. I'll go to the Financial Services Council. This was covered in the Australian. They've criticised the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold for tax structures for being unfair to future generations of super members. We've heard this covered before. The acting chief executive, Spiro Premetis, told the Australian that more than 500,000 current taxpayers would be adversely impacted, and this included '204,000 Australians under the age of 30'. I point out that 21- to 29-year-olds are the only demographic who are experiencing a decline in both their discretionary and their non-discretionary spending. They are losing out every which way. House prices are going through the roof. Their ability to save is completely reduced. If they're renting, they're seeing rents going up. Now, thanks to this wonderful tax, they are again disadvantaged. Mr Premetis went on: Leaving the cap stuck at $3m will mean that in today's dollars a 30-year-old will have a real cap of around $1m, calling into question the intergenerational fairness of an unindexed cap. It's a very fair point. Under this government, it has become harder for these young people to own a home. We've seen house prices continue in this cost-of-living crisis. We've seen the ability for people to save reduce. Now, thanks to this, we're also going to make it harder for them to retire. They're going to get it as they come to adulthood and as they retire. We've just made that harder as well with this fantastically poorly designed piece of legislation. I'll go to the next on my list of people who have reasonable concerns about a very unreasonable bill. Writing in the Australian, Robert Gottliebsen makes an excellent point. This was covered by the member for Wentworth as well. Mr Gottliebsen wrote: After July 1 2025 it will be virtually shut down because a major source of local funds—large self-managed funds—will withdraw. He's speaking of the ability of venture capital to support new industries. This is fascinating. He went on: The current participants in the venture capital market raise high risk money from a variety of sources, but one of the largest is big self-managed superannuation funds. … That tax is clearly unfair and goes against all principles of Australian and global taxation. But, when applied to unlisted venture capital investments it is a disaster. This is a wonderful point. When we hear a government talking wanting to see things made in Australia, this is fantastic! Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 I love that the dots can't be joined by those on quorum duty today, but, when you take away the investment here, what you get in the end are fantastic investments—like getting a Silicon Valley company to build a computer, owned in America, and slapping a 'Made in Australia' sticker on it. You beauty—a billion dollars—what a great idea! Australia has mocked it and rejected it completely. But that's where we'll go if we continue down this path of making self-managed super funds less and less attractive. My favourite part, though, amongst all of this—because there are always different views—was from a silk who was quoted in the SMH, that great bastion of right-wing thought: Appearing before a senate select committee, Michael Black KC, said there was 'no doubt' there would be a constitutional legal challenge to the tax change. So here we are. Not only is it poor, and not only does it present an affront to our entire taxation history; it's completely risky. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention. When you have a high-spending government like this, they need to find new ways to raise taxes, and this is a great invention. It's outside anything we've had before. They've invented a tax unlike anything we've had. The government cannot say it hasn't been warned of the consequences of this tax. We've heard from speaker after speaker, particularly on the impact on farming. I guess it's okay; we don't expect Labor to be across the issues that farmers face—it's not their thing. But, when you have the NFF speaking out as clearly as it can on the impact of this; when we have local farmers raising their concerns to their members consistently about the impact this will have on their operations; and when we bring those concerns here and get them completely rebuked, laughed at and mocked by the government, you know they're not listening. They're not listening to the concerns about the consequences of this legislation—and they are significant, and they will play out. The government has been warned, and they now own every single outcome that will play out across farms in Australia. When this comes through, and your operational income hasn't increased, but the paper value of your land has, and you can't service this taxation—this is what the government wanted. That is the situation that the government is deliberately creating for farmers of Australia. They have been warned, and they refuse to listen. They could have addressed it. They've had plenty of time to address this, and they haven't. It's a very simple calculation. There is no increase in the capability to service a new tax. In fact, we're in a period of time where inflation has driven the cost of living through the roof, across every aspect. We can complain about new taxes on biosecurity laws that are unfairly put onto farmers and that should be distributed to those importing the risk, but this is such an affront to the farming community because there is no reason whatsoever why this concern should not be addressed. The government have walked away from their responsibility on this one. We can be very clear: the impact of this will be that the smaller the farm or operation, the more hurt it will cause, because they have less ability to pay a new tax. Once again, the small family-run farms will be pushed out, and we'll see farming run exclusively by corporations in Australia. That's where we're heading. It's an absolute shame. I think about my electorate, where we still have the settlers' blocks, the blocks that were given to the soldiers who came back. They're small for a reason: so that a family could make a living on these farms. Because of their proximity to growing cities, these farms have grown in value, and they are now right in the firing line of this new tax. That is who is getting squeezed out. And who's getting rewarded? The giant multinationals, who can afford to pay a new tax. They can afford to cover it. They've got the operational costs. The small guys don't have the operational money coming in. Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 I love to hear the laughter from those on quorum duty at what's going to happen to farmers. It's okay. I get it. You don't have them in your patch. You don't understand them. They're not yours. Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON 291387 I am angry. Absolutely. I want this point to be on record because I want to be able to say: 'You guys turned your backs on these people. You turned your backs on them, every single one of you. There was a chance you had to change these ridiculous laws, and you didn't.' This is completely on the government. They've ignored the experts. What we have here now is a clear separation. There could not be a clearer choice for regional Queensland: those who have chosen to tax farmers in an unreasonable and unfair way and those who have stood up for them. I'm very happy to be able to say that I have stood up for my farming communities. 13:14 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to once again speak about a bad bill put up by Labor, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. No surprises here. What sort of message does this send to our younger people, the people who we want to work and to save their money for retirement? What's $3 million going to look like in 30 to 40 years time? There is no indexation to this bill. That is one of the single biggest issues with this whole bill. And the move from a 15 per cent tax to a 30 per cent tax straight up—how was that designed? Is that just typical Labor Treasury mystical and magical stuff, where you just lick your finger and hope it all works out? Where is the place of aspiration? Listen up, folks: this is the side of the House where we understand reward for effort, where you actually get out of bed at the start of the day, where your wage isn't guaranteed and where you've actually got to turn up, plant something and grow something—actually do something. There's no turn-up pay on this side of the House. Those opposite are very confused by that. But it's typical of Labor—when you can't manage your money, you come after ours. That's what you do. You've got form for it. That's no big surprise to anybody. We've seen it time and time again. But it's not only the young folks. You've betrayed the older folks as well, the older generation to whom it's been said: 'Go and work hard. Put your money aside. Save it for a rainy day.' The rain probably doesn't affect those opposite because they get their money anyway. But they've got to just save their money for their retirement. Mr Neumann HVO Do you know you're a politician? Mr WILLCOX 286535 Definitely, Member for Blair—definitely a farmer. I know fully about it. Thank you very much for the interjection. 'You need to save your money for retirement'—that's what we tell them. Then those opposite, with a stroke of a pen, just decide: 'Oh—bang! We'll have a bit more of that.' That's particularly important to farmers. Those opposite probably don't know much about farming. They don't actually know what it's about. I don't know why you're so hard on primary producers. Why don't you like the miners, the farmers and the fishers? Mr Neumann HVO How many businesses have you run? I ran one. Mr WILLCOX 286535 A lot more than you, champion! But look at the fishing industry. Are you across the fishing industry? You've just banned the gillnets and wiped out the fishing industry. That wasn't a scientific decision; that was a political decision. It's exactly the same as the live sheep trade. You've just taken out the live sheep trade. Mr Neumann HVO You ran down the car industry! Mr WILLCOX 286535 No wonder you're not getting preselected next time, champion; you have no idea! It's very true. The live sheep trade—what's happening with that? Yes, shutting it—well done to you. That was going to put a base on the bottom end of the sheep— Mr Josh Wilson 265970 Rubbish! Mr WILLCOX 286535 A hundred per cent! And you're from over there. Don't worry; they'll come looking for you as well. Yes, you should back the people that you're putting up. Don't worry about that. But don't worry; they'll be used to broken promises, and this again is another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises. Despite making promises of no changes to superannuation before the election, the Albanese Labor government is proposing to double the super taxes of one in 10 Australians by the time they retire; stop companies— Mr WILLCOX 286535 listen to this, Dr Gordon—from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities; and tax unrealised capital gains in super, meaning Australian retirees will have to pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet. But we're used to broken promises from those opposite. Remember the $275 that those opposite promised was going to come off the power bill? After the 97 times—that's not a slip of the tongue—those opposite said, 'You will be $275 better off on your power bills,' what has happened to power? Just like everything else, it's gone through the roof. But don't worry; we all heard, 'My word is my bond.' Remember that? 'My word is my bond.' That was solid, folks. And then, 48 hours later, bang—total change around. They do more backflips than the Moscow circus, but I'll tell you what: don't worry. I'm sure that you're all right into that. There's no problem at all. What I don't understand is why you just don't like farmers. This tax is an affront on farmers. Mr Birrell 288713 They don't know what a farmer is! Mr WILLCOX 286535 I know. It's really, really tough to understand. With taxing unrealised capital gains, you're paying tax on paper gains, which is absolutely ridiculous. I will give you a real-life example, because on this side of the House we live in the real world. This will be something new for you. When an evaluation is made on a grazier's property and it goes up in value, you're asking them to pay tax on the unrealised gain. That is absolutely ridiculous. That happens nowhere else, and that's exactly what you're asking to do. A person who owns a large block of land, one large parcel, might be asset rich and cash poor, but, if a valuer comes along and makes that increased valuation, they will have to pay tax on that. So what's the answer to that? Do they have to subdivide a block, or do they have to cut it out? Do they have to sell the family farm or property? Is that what they have to do? Have a good think about this, and I hope you listen up because this is very, very important. These are the people that provide food and fibre for the country. They're the ones that feed you. I don't know why those opposite are so hell-bent on making life difficult for farmers, but I know where some of the money is going to go. Once you get this money, it's going to go towards the 36,000 bureaucrats that you're going to put in Canberra. Well done! How productive will they be! Mr Birrell 288713 What are they going to do? Mr WILLCOX 286535 That's a good question, Member for Nicholls. I know what they'll be doing. They'll be lying awake at night thinking of ways of getting more red tape and green tape to wrap around the productive people in this country. That's what they'll be doing. They'll actually be making sure that it's harder for all of the people who actually contribute. That's who you should be looking after: the people who contribute, the people who feed us, the people who clothe us and the small-businesses people who've got to get up every morning and make a dollar. Their dollar is not guaranteed. Now, let's look a little bit more at indexing. Let's look back a few years ago. I'm getting a little bit older now, but what was a house worth, say, 30 years ago? You could buy a house in my neck of the woods for 100 grand, and now they're close to 500 grand. So $3 million in 30 to 40 years is not going to be a terrible lot of money, and yet you want to tax them. You want to tax them on that and tax them on the unrealised gain. It's absolutely ridiculous that you would do that. But we understand the taxing, and look at what happened today: you gagged the debate on the new vehicles tax, on the family car and ute tax. You gagged that debate today because you didn't want to see that. It's absolutely ridiculous. Even a Corolla is going to have an extra fee of more than 1,000 bucks, let alone a LandCruiser. And lots of people in my area drive LandCruisers—you have to—as well as HiLuxes and Ford Rangers. You all want us to jump into EVs. I'll tell you something very simple about EVs. They can't carry the weight, they can't tow the load and they can't cover the distance, so, once again, it's just another tax and another shot at hardworking Australians. Mr Birrell 288713 There's no debate. Mr WILLCOX 286535 No debate at all—I don't know what you're all so frightened of. Why don't we have the discussion? Let's have the discussion about what we actually need to do here. This whole superannuation bill is absolutely abhorrent. What happens if people don't have enough money? Are they going to be forced back on the pension? That's not what we're trying to achieve here. We're trying to encourage people to save for their own retirement so they don't become a burden on society. I know those opposite are very familiar with being a burden on society, but we on this side of the House actually need to make sure that we— Mr WILLCOX 286535 I tell you what, no wonder you are not getting preselected. Anyway, let's move back to the bill, without the help from those opposite, because it's certainly not helpful. Mr Birrell 288713 Keep going, Andrew. They're getting rattled. Mr WILLCOX 286535 I can understand. I can understand why they don't want to hear this about farmers when we've got people on this side of the House who are sticking up for farmers each and every day. That's exactly what we're doing. So why would you want to do this? Why bring this bill in, apart from it just being a tax grab? I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to kill off all the self-managed super funds—kill them off and make it all too hard for them—so you can have all of big business unionised so you can clip the ticket and get your money as it goes. That's a little cash cow that those opposite have been milking for a very, very long time. But you don't want to worry about self-managed super funds, like people on this side of the House, who get out of bed and make a difference every day. No, let's look at putting it all back into big business and then unionisation! We see that all the time, whereas, on this side of the House, we're always supporting small business, because they are the backbone of the nation. They're the ones that have to take the risk and get out of bed in the morning and actually make sure things happen. What happened to the idea in Australia of a fair go? That's what we need to do—have a fair go. This is certainly not a fair go. Someone further down the track can, with the stroke of a pen, change all the rules, which is what's happening here. I've got three children. They're coming through and they're looking at this and thinking: 'Gee, I may as well go overseas and take it easier. Why should I be saving my money for my retirement when we're going to get the absolute life taxed out of it?' It makes no sense whatsoever. So I encourage those opposite to have a good look at this, particularly schedules 1 through 3. In the rest of the schedule, there's some stuff that is not too bad. That's the schedule—that's actually what the bill is. You probably haven't actually read the legislation, but have a good look at that. The other schedules have a couple of whiskers on them, but 1 through 3 is an absolutely shocking area. Government members interjecting— Mr WILLCOX 286535 Thank you for your help! Thank you very much for your help. Just to go over it one more time, let's make sure that we fully understand how bad this bill is. You need to put it back on the drawing board. This bill will do absolutely nothing. The only thing it will do is undermine the integrity of the superannuation system, which was designed so you could save money for your retirement so you wouldn't become a burden on the system. But say you then start changing legislation willy-nilly, whenever you feel like it, after those opposite promised that they wouldn't do it. At least Mr Shorten had the guts to run for election with it and say, 'I'm going to make these changes.' Of course, the public didn't want to do that, and that's why Mr Shorten is not sitting there. But, no, this current sneaky Prime Minister—what did he do? He decided, 'Oh, I'll get in and tell a few little porky pies, and then I'll just slip this through and then just see how we go.' This is bad legislation. It's bad for farmers. It's bad for the graziers. For young people, it instils no confidence. I don't think young people have confidence in this government anyway, and rightly so. That lack of confidence is very well founded. But please get behind this. Make sure you vote against it. Come on, fellas. You can do it. Vote against it. Stand up to your party. That's it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time being almost due, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted and if he wishes to continue his remarks, he'll be granted leave to do so later. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 2910 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Meals on Wheels: 50th Anniversary 2910 13:29 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today in celebration of the Meals on Wheels 50th anniversary. Meals on Wheels has been an organisation that I've been proud of for as long as I can remember. It holds a special place in my heart. To be able to join 70 past and present volunteers and their clients who turned out to celebrate this milestone was an absolute honour. What the amazing volunteers do for the community deserves special recognition, not just today and not just this month but each and every day. Meals on Wheels is so much more than just a food delivery service for our communities' most vulnerable residents. While they do serve a wide variety of nutritional meals, these dedicated volunteers also provide friendship and act as a vital support mechanism for their clients. Sometimes these volunteers are the only visitors their clients get. I would like to give a special thanks to Helen and Margaret for organising this exceptional event. Their ongoing hard work and dedication to this vitally important community service is outstanding. To all the volunteers involved: the work that you all do is truly life changing. You are the unsung heroes and you should be incredibly proud of what you do. I certainly am. Hignett, Mr James William (Bill), OAM 2911 13:31 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise to recognise the passing of a Vietnam veteran and veterans advocate, James William Hignett OAM, known to all as Bill. Bill was conscripted in 1970, aged 20, and he served 469 days of service with the 86th Transport Platoon, returning to Australia in 1972. I met Bill in his role as the president of the Plympton Glenelg RSL Sub Branch. Bill was a fierce advocate for his communities, in his profession as a teacher and educator, in his passion for Indigenous education, in his work as a union organiser for the Australian Education Union and in his work as a veterans advocate. Bill was one of the driving forces behind the Plympton Veterans Centre, the Veteran Wellbeing Centre at Repat hospital and the veterans hubs at Mount Gambier, Coonawarra/Penola and Millicent. He was also a driving force behind the establishment of the Kaurna Plains School. He worked to get recognition for Aboriginal veterans, and he sat on the board of Reconciliation SA. Bill was awarded an Order of Australia medal in 2014 and an Anzac of the Year award in 2023. Bill made a difference to his communities, and he will be missed. He was also a great bloke to have a drink and a chat with, always very generous with his time and his stories. Vale, Bill Hignett. May he rest in peace. Live Animal Exports 2911 13:32 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Last Saturday, Minister Watt advised Western Australian farmers and live-sheep exporters the budget would contain a—totally inadequate—$107 million phase-out transition package. I say: keep the sheep. This Labor government is at odds with the WA Labor Premier, Roger Cook, and his agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis. As proud Western Australians, they say: keep the sheep. Minister Watt is being deceptive when he says cattle won't be next. Former Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association boss Tracey Hayes called out the PM on Labor's failure to compensate cattle exporters in his speech at last week's Beef Australia 2024. Cattle farmers and exporters agree: keep the sheep. The Animal Justice Party this week stated: We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy. …   …   … We are already in deep preference negotiations with major parties for the upcoming federal election, laser-focused on: Ensuring Labor enshrines the end of the trade in law before the election; Making the end of live cattle export the next AJP policy and political win; … A re-elected coalition government will reverse Labor's live export ban plan. We may not be able to change this government's policy, so it's time to change the government #keepthesheep. Budget 2911 13:34 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan When people voted in the 2022 election, what they wanted was a government that would listen and act. They also wanted a government that would take responsibility, and that's exactly what we did on Tuesday night, as the Treasurer delivered his speech. This budget is about cost of living, homes for more Australians, the care economy—because, of course, this is the party that actually cares—and a Future Made in Australia. In Swan, my community, this means that every taxpayer—that's 94,000 people—will get a tax cut. In WA, every household—74,000 households—will actually get a $700 electricity credit, thanks to the WA government and the federal government working together. We're also wiping $3 billion worth of HECS debts. This will help 22,000 students. We're also paying super on paid parental leave. This will help 2,000 parents in Swan. But this budget isn't just about today; it's also about investing in the future. We're building a future made right here in Australia. We're looking at transforming Australia's industrial base and positioning ourselves in the world in a decarbonised economy, with a $22.7 billion package. This includes the Net Zero Economy Authority, the commercialisation of renewables, tax credits for hydrogen and critical minerals. National Disability Insurance Scheme 2911 13:35 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Constituents who contact me seeking assistance with the NDIS planning and review process are among the most vulnerable people in our community. For many, lack of support has a significant impact on their health and wellbeing. My office is currently trying to help Aaron and Michelle Callahan, a married couple who live independently in public housing in my community. Both live with intellectual disability and associated chronic medical conditions. In the four years since Michelle's mother died, Aaron and Michelle's support needs have increased. Without advocacy, their plans have been reduced. Three months after an urgent review request, their plans have not been reviewed. Because of their disabilities, they're not able to cope independently, and in these three months their living standards have declined significantly, despite their using two support coordinators and lodging several requests for escalation. The system is clearly failing these people. My office sent multiple unanswered emails before obtaining a plan rollover via the minister's office, but they still haven't had an urgent plan review. The NDIA has now closed the case, but the matter is clearly not resolved. Apart from requests that remain essential being closed, we're also hearing of long wait times, automated responses and inadequate information—issues that speak to a lack of capacity and humanity. As the changes from the NDIS review are implemented, I'd like to see a commitment from the minister that planning and plan review services will still be available to participants in line with the NDIS participant service guarantee. Tertiary Education 2912 13:37 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt One in four residents of Holt are under 14, and many will soon transition into TAFE and university. Across many industries, students must undertake hundreds of hours of unpaid work placements to finish their degrees. I know that undertaking hundreds of hours of unpaid work is difficult, especially with today's cost-of-living pressures. Last week I headed to Federation University in Berwick to share the extremely exciting news with students that the Albanese government will start paying nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students $320 per week while they are undertaking their placements. After a decade of attacks on our university students by the Liberals, this is proof that our government is committed to supporting students. We have also announced that we are wiping $3 billion in student debt and ensuring that future debt will never grow faster than wages. This change will benefit 19,600 people with student debt in Holt, because, unlike the Liberals, Labor will always support young Australians to pursue their dreams. Domestic and Family Violence 2912 13:38 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar This week's budget was a missed opportunity to roll out the Staying Home Leaving Violence program nationally. However, I do commend the New South Wales government's decision to extend the program throughout New South Wales. This is incredibly welcome, and I thank them on behalf of women across the state for acting so decisively. There is now 12 years of evidence from pilot programs that the Staying Home Leaving Violence program is safe and successful. The program partners with police to assess and ensure the home will be safe for women and children. Women and Children First, an organisation that runs a shelter on the northern beaches, is funded to support 208 women. But they fundraise constantly, and last year they supported more than 800 women. Even still, they must turn away at least 10 women and their kids each week. This is a major problem that needs a solution. Organisations that are active in my electorate of Mackellar have been advocating for this program to be brought to the Northern Beaches for years. As the CEO of Women and Children First put it: We should not be rewarding perpetrators of violence—by allowing them to stay in the family home, while victims are uprooted and forced to find new accommodation and new schools. The Staying Home Leaving Violence program is a practical and immediate way to make a difference in the lives of people affected by domestic violence. Budget 2912 13:40 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser To the people of Australia and to the people of my electorate of Fraser, we have listened. This week the Treasurer delivered a budget that addresses the government's main priority, which is to provide cost-of-living relief to all Australians. It's not just a budget for the big end of town as those opposite would've suggested. The Albanese government's third budget, building on the previous two, delivers cost-of-living relief in a way that does not add to inflationary pressures, through responsible and sustainable economic management. This is, of course, underpinned principally by our changes to the tax cuts. The 78,000 taxpayers in my electorate will all get a tax cut, and 87 per cent of my electorate will be getting a bigger tax cut than they would've under the opposition's plan. Some people who would've received nothing will now get over $800 a year. This is supplemented by a $300 energy rebate to every single energy account, which will make a huge difference to the people in my electorate of Fraser, who really need assistance at this difficult time. Finally, I'd like to mention the recalculation of HECS debt. Instead of being based solely on CPI, it'll be calculated based on the wage price index or CPI, whichever is lower. An enormous 25,000-plus people in Fraser will benefit from this fairer system. It has only been possible to provide this cost-of-living relief, without adding to inflationary pressure, through this government's responsible economic management. This is in stark contrast to the plan offered by those opposite, which left far too many people behind. Anzac Day 2913 13:41 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Like many in this building and throughout our nation, I wasn't born here. When I first went to school, I learnt about Anzac Day fresh. I remember a moment where a teacher said to me, 'Come into this room. I want you to meet someone that you will remember for the rest of your life,' and in that room were some World War I veterans. The teacher said, 'You're going to tell your grandkids that you met them one day.' We just came off an Anzac Day where the last of the World War II veterans were in our electorates. I had one that I got to speak to, Jim Burrows, in the days before Anzac Day. He couldn't make it on the day. Jim is 101 and served as a coastwatcher. In fact, he's the last coastwatcher. His older brother died on the Montevideo Maru, which he didn't know about until towards the end of the war. His twin brother died in an air crash over Papua New Guinea. As in so many families, he was one of three that served and he's the only one that survived. If there's a chance for schoolchildren anywhere throughout our electorates to meet a World War II veteran, I encourage all members to tell them to do it. They won't regret it, and one day they too will tell their grandkids that they met the greatest generation of Australians. Budget 2913 13:43 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The Treasurer delivered the federal budget this week, and the Albanese Labor government is a government that has 52 per cent women in our caucus. So we've also delivered a budget for women. Just last week, I met a woman in my electorate who, a few years ago, made the terrifying decision to report her husband for domestic violence. Her daughters—three and six years old—held onto her finger nervously, as she walked into the Brunswick police station. I'm sad to say she's far from the first woman to tell me a similar story. That's why the Staying Home Leaving Violence program announced in our budget is so important. It will provide women escaping violence with up to $5,000 in financial support to help them leave when they need to. We're also investing a record $3.4 billion to help end family, domestic and sexual violence in our communities. This is a national crisis. It's my community's local crisis, and we're committing to end it. There are also two important measures that relate to women's health. Firstly, we are making sure that those suffering from endometriosis, PCOS and other chronic reproductive conditions will be given the time of day to finally have their pain heard and treated, by making longer specialist gynaecology appointments more affordable. Secondly, we're paying super on paid parental leave because making the decision to have children shouldn't leave women without a secure retirement. The opposition will carry on about this, but a woman should never have to make this shameful trade-off. As long as the Labor government is in office, she will never have to. La Trobe Electorate: Festival of Colours, La Trobe Electorate: Rama Navami Festival 2913 13:44 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Namaste. I rise today to speak about the recent Hindu festival celebrations I had the great honour of attending in my electorate of La Trobe. The Hare Krishna movement, ISKCON, organised two very important Hindu festivals at Akoonah Park, in Berwick: the Casey Festival of Colours for Holi and the Rama Navami festival. The two events were incredibly well organised, great for families and very joyous occasions. The Holi Festival of Colours is a celebration of love, unity and joy. The festival signifies the triumph of good over evil. I must say that every time I go to one of these events I need to buy a new suit or shirt because I get covered in coloured powder. Holi has now become one of the most popular events celebrated right across Australia. Rama Navami festival celebrates the birth of Lord Rama. It is celebrated with profound reverence and festivities across the world by the Hindu community. Thousands of Hindus and wider community members attended both of these festival celebrations at Akoonah Park. Cultural performances, delicious food and children's activities were thoroughly enjoyed by everyone attending these events. I thank the members of ISKCON and their volunteers for hosting these fantastic festival celebrations that also bring the wider Australian community together. They generously shared their culture, art, language and festivals with the wider community, making Australia the greatest place on earth. Live Animal Exports 2913 13:46 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle People in my community welcome a Labor budget that delivers cost-of-living relief in a responsible way, moderating inflation and investing in a strong and sustainable future. They certainly welcome the assistance package being provided to manage the sensible transition out of the marginal, unnecessary and harmful live sheep export trade. We will legislate the end of a chaotic trade that has already decreased by more than 90 per cent, a trade shot-through with frequent animal welfare disasters and constant animal suffering. Australians will not accept the chronic suffering of animals, and Australians know there is not a sliding scale on which animal suffering becomes acceptable at a certain price. They know that chilled and frozen sheepmeat exports are already worth 58 times the live sheep trade, and that's why we're delivering a clear, decisive, responsible and carefully planned end to an industry that is worth less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural output. We will support the final part of the transition with $107 million in assistance to further develop processing, cold storage and feedlot infrastructure and to secure further growth in export markets. Under our government, mutton exports to the Middle East grew last year by 84 per cent and processed lamb exports to India grew 160 per cent. That is Australia's future: a higher value sheepmeat industry that's responsible, stable and humane—with more jobs—and that is part of a growing, high-standard Australian agricultural sector delivered as promised by the Albanese Labor government. Budget 2914 13:47 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman On Tuesday night I endured around half an hour of listening to what I've termed 'Labornomics'. This is where the Labor Treasurer of the day basically tells the parliament and the Australian people what cash they're going to splash around to fix the very problems that they've created. It's kind of like throwing someone overboard from a boat into a shark infested ocean, throwing them a lifesaving ring to save them—that they paid for—and then expecting thanks for it. A classic example is the announcement on rental assistance. Like everyone, I want to see rental affordability improve. Better still, I'd like to see people get out of rentals and buy their own home, but I digress. Labor increase immigration and therefore demand on housing; oversees 12 interest rate rises; and then, to fix this, uses taxpayers' money to raise rent assistance and subsidise the crisis that they created. And, by the way, that will by and large go to the landlord, not the tenant, who is meant to be the recipient. Many community housing providers take the rent assistance, whatever that amount, and then the tenant may or may not have to top this up. You've only got to look at the childcare industry, where subsidies have been increased but providers have increased fees. I'm being continually contacted by constituents who are saying they are worse off financially since the rebate was increased. This is Labornomics. They simply don't understand the market. Well, the Australian people aren't stupid. They won't be taken for fools and they will see right through this for the expensive vote-grab that it is. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 2914 13:49 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Today is a good day because the nation's first-ever fuel efficiency standard legislation has passed the House of Representatives. When it comes to advanced economies, only Australia and Russia don't have these standards. Labor is doing what no government has done in 30 years. We are doing it because we want all Australians to have access to the best and most fuel efficient vehicles. This standard will not ban any vehicles, but it will ensure that our utes, SUVs and sedans are more fuel efficient. It will also ensure that Aussies have more access to more affordable electric vehicles. Forecasts show that every motorist could save up to $1,000 a year on fuel. It comes as no surprise to anyone that every one of the Liberals and Nationals voted against this reform. They voted against our energy price caps and rebates in 2022, they ridiculed this week's $300 universal energy relief, they block and vote against our investments in new housing, they called our fairer cost-of-living tax Marxism and now they want Australians to spend more on fuel. Labor has a real plan for cost-of-living relief, and the Liberals, well, they just oppose them all. Labor wants to reduce emissions and the Liberals are fine for them to get worse. There is only one side of politics ready to make the right decisions for Australia, whereas all the Liberals want to do is say no. Hanson, Dr Paul 2914 13:50 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass It gives me great pleasure to stand today to recognise a wonderful local Northern Tasmanian GP, Dr Paul Hanson. Dr Hanson was named the 2023 RACGP Tasmanian GP of the year, an incredible achievement and just recognition for someone who has spent more than 30 years helping others. Dr Hanson's journey to becoming a doctor was not what you might expect. When he was nine years old he couldn't read or write and was later diagnosed with dyslexia, sharing that, growing up, he thought he had Buckley's chance of being a GP. With fierce advocates in his mum and school principal, who gave extra tuition, he continued to make gains in his schooling, particularly excelling in maths and science, and going on to graduate from University of Tasmania. Dr Hanson began his career in the north-eastern town of Scottsdale and later moved to Newstead medical. As a Rotarian, he continues to give back to our community outside of his work in health care, regularly volunteering at local schools, assisting with reading programs and building the confidence of other young students who may be struggling. He tells the kids, 'When I was your age I couldn't read. I am a doctor now. Believe me when I say you can do it too.' After more than 35 years as a general practitioner, Dr Hanson says that being caring is the most important quality a GP can have. 'There are many facets to being a good GP, but you have to care,' he said. Thank you, Dr Hanson, for being a great doctor and a great human and for your lifetime of caring about our community. Budget 2915 13:52 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The Albanese government is investing heavily in regional Australia. Just look at the level of investment in my electorate of Corangamite alone. Whether it is road, rail, health, education, women's advancement, communications or the environment and climate change, we are strengthening our regions, delivering cost-of-living help for local families and securing our transition to net zero emissions. For the third Labor budget in a row, our government is funding significant, much-needed projects across my region, including almost $40 million of new funding for the Waurn Ponds to South Geelong rail upgrade; delivering the Armstrong Creek high ball centre in our high-growth corridor, delivering an extra $600,000 for the Surf Coast Highway intersection upgrade and delivering $900,000 of new funding for the Bannockburn township safety project. There is also an extra $1.27 million for the much-needed Grubb Road upgrade in Ocean Grove and so much more in aged care, home care, child care, tax cuts and HECS relief for every Australian. This budget supports regional communities like mine, from the Surf Coast to the Bellarine, from the Golden Plains to Waurn Ponds and Grovedale. This is a budget that delivers for my region, for regional Australia and for all Australians. Budget 2915 13:53 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax This week was the week that the Albanese government decided to bring down a budget they tried to frame as being for easing the cost of living for Australians, yet today what they did in this House was pass legislation to introduce a new tax on everyday Australian families. On one hand, they claim they want to ease the pressure but, on the other, they are making everyday struggling families pay more to purchase not just the cars they need but also the cars they love, and they did so in a fashion today that went to their new modus operandi, one that has existed now for two years—that is, lacking complete transparency. They closed down debate in this chamber on the very bill they put through. So not only are they prepared to introduce new taxes for Australians in the same week that they claim they are trying to look after people's cost-of-living pressures, but they do so in a way that completely lacks any transparency. They have not produced the modelling of the impact it would have on the Australian consumer and Australian families yet they are prepared to legislate for new taxes in the very week they claim to actually care about people's cost-of-living pressures. Budget 2915 13:55 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It has been a big week, where the Treasurer has handed down the second surplus in as many years—something those opposite couldn't do in the three long, dreary, miserable terms that they had in government. They didn't do it under Tony Abbott. They didn't do it under Malcolm Turnbull. They didn't deliver a surplus under Scott Morrison. But our Treasurer—he's walking triumphantly into the chamber now—has been able to deliver a couple of surpluses. It is a reflection of the prudent fiscal management of the government. There are serious cost-of-living pressures facing Australians. That's why each and every Australian worker will get a tax return and a tax reduction under this government. Unlike those opposite who wanted to only give it to certain higher income earners, we're going to make sure that every single Australian taxpayer keeps more of what they earn. It's really important that we're also going to give every single household a $300 reduction in their energy power prices, and also small businesses. You would think that would have the universal support of every single member in this House. Apparently, those opposite want to oppose the $300 reduction in power prices, which I say is a fantastic approach by those opposite. I hope they run a massive campaign on their opposition to the $300 reduction in power prices. In fact, I encourage them to do so in Macnamara. We will continue to manage the budget in a responsible way and give cost-of-living support to Australians who need it. Daniher, Mr Neale Francis, AO 2915 13:56 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary Australian. Former AFL player and coach Neale Daniher is an inspiration. Neale received a diagnosis of motor neurone disease more than 10 years ago. Since then he has shown remarkable strength, courage and humility to put aside his own misfortune and dedicate his life to raising awareness and, importantly, raising money for MND research. While this place records many fine speeches and words that are spoken in support of various causes, Neale wryly observed in his memoir that 'when all is said and done, much more is said than done'. No-one could accuse Neale of doing nothing because Neale has been a man of action. Neale has activated the FightMND Army, which has raised more than $60 million for research and has just launched the 10th anniversary beanie. Just buying one of those FightMND beanies is one way that we can help the cause to find a cure for MND. We look forward to the King's birthday clash at the MCG next month, where the walk, the celebrity slide and all the excitement that's part of the annual Big Freeze clash between Melbourne and Collingwood takes place. I urge all Australians to help Neale Daniher and his family of supporters to find a cure for motor neurone disease by donating at FightMND.org.au and show your gratitude and appreciation to a bloke who has turned adversity to advocacy and done us all proud. Thank you, Neale, for all that you do and all that you continue to do for this incredibly important cause. 13:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on that contribution. Neale Daniher is indeed an absolute hero. He was strong and a hero on the field, and off the field he has shown enormous strength and courage in speaking about MND and in raising funds for MND and in organising the charitable events in order to provide more awareness and greater knowledge of this terrible disease. It is something that is debilitating and I think most Australians, unfortunately, know people who've suffered from it. It is a debilitating disease. We wish Neale all the very best, and we join with all of the parliament in saying that it is a very good thing if people kick in, buy a beanie, help to raise funds and help to cure this terrible disease. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2916 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 2916 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Twelve months ago I asked the Prime Minister: was he adding 1.5 million people from overseas during a rental and housing crisis and a cost-of-living challenge? The Prime Minister denied that was the case. Tuesday's budget revealed these problems have only worsened and now around 1.7 million people are coming into our country when building activity is at an 11-year low. Will the Prime Minister admit that his weak leadership and bad decisions over three budgets have made it harder for Australians to buy or to rent a home? 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Of course, we inherited a broken migration system from those opposite, and the migration system that the Leader of the Opposition talks about is the system that he presided over. What we are doing is fixing the system. In the words of Dr Parkinson, who did the review: This is a 10-year rebuild. This is not something that you can do quickly because it is so badly broken. He said it was 'a deliberate decision to neglect the system'. We also had the report from Christine Nixon, who found that systemic failures in the visa system under the Leader of the Opposition's watch paved the way for foreign organised crime syndicates, including the Albanian mafia, to infiltrate the country and engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking, money laundering, violence, modern slavery, sexual exploitation and corruption. The former deputy secretary of the immigration department, Abul Rizvi, indeed found: In total there were between 100,000 and 120,000 asylum applications lodged— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. I heard what the Leader of the Opposition was interjecting then. The Prime Minister—I'm listening carefully—is reading direct reports regarding the question he was asked, and these reports are recent reports. They're not something to do with the comparison. I'll just ask for the Prime Minister to be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 He found: In total, there were between 100,000 and 120,000 asylum applications lodged while Dutton was in charge. This is by far the largest number of asylum applications under any immigration minister in our history. Dennis Richardson also did a review—the former ASIO director-general, someone who is widely respected. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has the call on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The question was about the migration intake and housing for Australians. Can the Prime Minister defend what was in his budget last night, or is he— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! No. I'm listening extremely carefully to the Prime Minister on this one. Trust me. He is reading from direct reports from different reviews regarding the question he was asked about the decisions that he has taken. So that was the question, or part of the question, as well. So of course he's going to be directly relevant. If he were reading a report from 20 years ago or if he were reading a report from five years ago, he wouldn't be relevant, because he's been asked about decisions that have been taken. If he strays into territory regarding comparisons or contrast, he won't be able to do that, because the question was specific about the decisions that the government's taken. On a further point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI To your ruling, Mr Speaker, the question was: will the Prime Minister admit that his weak leadership and bad decisions over three budgets have made it harder for Australians to buy or rent a home? How can he be in order when he has no relevance to that question? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Resume your seat. I'll tell you how it's being relevant: because he was asked also about the remarks that he made 12 months ago, which were referred to in the first part of your question. I just want to repeat to the Leader of the Opposition: it's not an opportunity to repeat the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm proud of the time when I was a minister in the past, and it's no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed by his performance. The SPEAKER 53517 Please return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Dennis Richardson said this: he spoke about 'a lack of proper due diligence' resulting in public money being handed to individuals and businesses suspected of seeking to circumvent US sanctions against Iran, money laundering, bribery, drugs and arms smuggling into Australia, and corruption. We inherited a broken migration system, and we're working to fix it. Under our government, net overseas migration is on track to halve next year. We've announced we will limit international student numbers. At the same time, we know that we have skills shortages in our economy, so we're ensuring that our migration settings are meeting Australia's needs in areas like nursing, aged care and construction. The opposition should be clear about where their cuts will come from and what it means for business and for our economy. Budget 2917 14:05 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the budget tackling the challenges we face today while building for a better future? Is there anything standing in the way of making our future here? 14:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Indeed, our budget on Tuesday night was about helping people with their cost of living in a way that doesn't add to inflation but is also about making our future here in Australia. It's a budget for every Australian, not just some—tax cuts for every single taxpayer, not just some; energy price relief for every household, not just some; stronger Medicare in every single community; more homes right around the country; a better deal for every working parent, with paid parental leave; more help for households who are doing it tough. But we're also, while we're dealing with the immediate challenges, looking to the future. What does the economy look like due to the global changes that are occurring, and how do we set Australia up for success? We do that by making more things here in Australia, making sure that we take advantage of the opportunities which are there. For two years those opposite have said no to everything—no to cheaper medicines, no to helping people with their power bills, no to tax cuts for every taxpayer. And on budget night this year they said immediately—it didn't take them long; they haven't seen the legislation yet—that they're saying no to making more things here in Australia. They're saying no to Australian jobs. They're saying no to Australian ingenuity. They're saying, 'We should just export resources, wait for someone else to value-add and then import it back once the value has been added.' They were a government, of course, that told the car industry to bugger off. They just told them to leave. And they got the message, and they left. But, of course, when the car industry left, it didn't just affect the people who were working in that industry; there was a multiplier impact—just like making more things here in Australia will have a multiplier impact. They drove the car industry out because they didn't want things built in Australia then, and they don't believe we can do it now. It's the same mob—the same coalition mentality—that has built trains that don't fit on stations, that are the wrong gauge and that don't work, and ferries that can't fit under bridges. They say we can't do it. Well, we have faith in the Australian people, in Australian workers and in Australian businesses. That's why Tuesday's budget will back them. (Time expired) Payman, Senator Fatima 2917 14:08 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister. The chant 'From the river to the sea' demands the destruction of the Jewish state. The Prime Minister has said it's both violent and incompatible with peace, but Labor senator Fatima Payman has accused the Prime Minister of 'defending the oppressor's right to oppress' and repeated the chant. Will the Prime Minister show strong, not weak, leadership and remove Senator Payman from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade? 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question and I thank him for his principled leadership on a range of issues when it comes to race issues, including the principled stance that he took which is why he now sits where he does rather than down the front, which showed courage. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm not quite sure why that is somehow controversial. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker. The member for Berowra was heard in silence and given courtesy and respect. I ask a little bit is shown to the Prime Minister. He will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I praised him due to his principled stance there and I praise him for the principled stance he has taken about the rise in antisemitism. It has been my privilege to stand with the member for Berowra in my own electorate at the Exodus Foundation and speak about the need to bring the country together, to reconcile with our past and to celebrate our multiculturalism here. The chant 'from the river to the sea' has been used from time to time by some in the pro-Palestinian movement, by some who argue that Israel should be just one state as well, and that Gaza and the West Bank should be wiped out. It is inappropriate. I very strongly believe in a two-state solution. I strongly believe in the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. I strongly believe as well in the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. What we need to do, and why Australia voted in the United Nations as we did last Friday, is to join other nations, including New Zealand—and I pay tribute to Prime Minister Luxon—to join with Japan and Korea and ASEAN nations, to say that— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Berowra on a point of order. Mr Leeser 109556 On relevance, this is a question about the Prime Minister's actions in relation to Senator Payman's statements yesterday. We haven't heard anything about that yet. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is referring to topics of the question, but I will ask him, for the remainder of his answer—for the minute—to make sure he is directly relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I've said very clearly that that slogan that calls for a single state is not appropriate. I believe very strongly that— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members have got to cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer; otherwise, they won't be here. Mr ALBANESE R36 I believe very strongly that the world has an opportunity. Too often there is a saying that 'a time of war is the best time to talk about peace'. We have an opportunity to take forward the resolution that is required which does require a two-state solution. We continue to express our unequivocal opposition to the terrorist actions of Hamas on 7 October. We continue to call for a release of hostages. We continue to call for a humanitarian ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to be given to the people of Gaza. We continue to call for a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians— (Time expired) Budget 2918 14:13 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Treasurer. How does the responsible economic management at the core of this week's budget compare with the situation Labor inherited? And what approaches has the government rejected? 14:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I appreciate the question from the member for Chisholm—she has already asked more questions to me with that one question than the shadow Treasurer has asked in budget week. In the member for Chisholm's electorate, every one of the 81,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut and every one of the 75,000 households will get energy bill relief. That's because, as the Prime Minister said a moment ago, the cost-of-living relief in the budget is substantial and it is responsible, and it shows that responsible economic management is a defining feature of the government that this Prime Minister leads and it was a defining feature of the budget on Tuesday night as well. You see that in so many of the numbers which compare the situation that we inherited with the situation in the budget two years into our government. We have been turning Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses. Last year we turned a $78 billion deficit into a $22 billion surplus. This year we're turning a $56 billion deficit into a $9 billion surplus. Next year: turning a $47 billion deficit into a deficit that is $19 billion better than what we inherited from those opposite. Gross debt will peak 10 percentage points lower because of our responsible economic management. That will help us avoid $80 billion in interest costs that those opposite tried to lumber us with. Under this government we banked 82 per cent of the upward revisions to revenue, versus 40 per cent under those opposite. Our real spending growth: 1.4 per cent, compared with 4.1 per cent under those opposite. Our responsible approach is one of the reasons the inflation we inherited, with a '6' in front of it, now has a '3' in front of it and is heading towards having a '2' in front of it. Wages growth on our watch is almost double what it was under those opposite. Real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent when we came to office. They're now growing again, for the first time in years. And today we got another unemployment number, which showed that 820,000 jobs, most of them full time, have been created on the watch of this Prime Minister and this government, and that is an important thing as well. So we've been managing the economy in a methodical, balanced and cohesive way. Tonight, in contrast, we will hear from the divisive leader of a divided party. They are all over the shop on nuclear, on tax breaks for the industries that will power our future and on housing. That coalition clown show of incompetence and incoherence has learned nothing from its time in office, when wages were stagnant and rorts and debts piled up and Middle Australia didn't get a look in. No matter what he says tonight, we already know that his nuclear negativity is no substitute for economic credibility. (Time expired) Budget 2919 (Griffith) (14:16): Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the government's capital gains tax discount for landlords. If we take a landlord—let's call him Anthony—he can increase the rent by however much he wants and evict his tenants so he can sell the property for a big profit. When selling the property, he gets to keep 50 per cent of a $500,000 profit he makes, completely tax free, thanks to Labor's handouts to property investors— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's far too much noise. I can't hear the question. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister for the environment is not helping things. Every member deserves to be heard in silence with their questions—right across the chamber. Out of respect for the member for Griffith, he'll begin his question again. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the government's capital gains tax discount for landlords. If we take a landlord—let's call him Anthony—he can increase the rent by however much he wants and evict his tenant so he can sell the property for a big profit. When selling the property he can get to keep 50 per cent of a $500,000 profit he makes, completely tax free, thanks to Labor's handouts to property investors, which deny renters the ability to buy their first home. Does the Prime Minister think that's more than fair? 14:18 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Griffith for his question about tax policy and housing policy. One of the things we are proudest of about the budget we handed down from this dispatch box on Tuesday night is the billions of dollars in new investments in housing. That's because we recognise that the housing pipeline we inherited after 10 years of neglect needs our urgent attention—and it's receiving our urgent attention. But, more than that, it is receiving $32 billion in investment, including $6 billion of new investment in the budget on Tuesday night. For this I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and to the government for the way we have made building more homes for Australians a central economic priority of this government and this budget. We don't ask for much. We ask for the parliament to support our efforts. And when we desperately needed those opposite to vote for more housing and when we needed— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will just pause so I can hear from the member for Griffith on a point of order. Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 It's on relevance. The question went specifically to the capital gains tax discount, and the Treasurer hasn't addressed it at all. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes. He has three minutes to address—there's not a time factor as to when he has to address all aspects, and he doesn't have to address all aspects. He's got to be directly relevant to the topic. I'm just going to ask him to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Thanks, Mr Speaker—a question about housing policy and tax policy. I'll deal with the housing policy first, and I'll come to the tax part of it in a minute. We're very proud of the investments we're making in housing. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we want to build homes and they want to wreck super. That's the difference in the big parties in the parliament. The big clash of ideas in this parliament is that we want to build more homes and they want to wreck super. That's the difference, and we'll hear more of that rubbish tonight about raiding people's superannuation as a substitute for the decent, methodical housing policy that this minister and the government has put in place—something that we're very proud of. In addition to asking about housing policy, the honourable member also asked about tax policy, and there is a change in the budget to capital gains tax. The change in the budget to capital gains tax, which will raise more than half a billion dollars, is to align the capital gains treatment for foreigners with the capital gains treatment for Australians. This is one of the ways that we are methodically, in a considered way, repairing the tax base so that we can fund important things like helping with the cost of living, strengthening Medicare, reforming our universities and investing in more skills to build a future made in Australia. So there's tax reform in the budget—capital gains tax reform in the budget. There's a massive investment in housing because the government—rather than just playing a dodgy dog whistle like this opposition leader does, rather than the clumsy cliches that we'll hear from the opposition leader tonight and rather than their efforts to wreck super versus our efforts to build more homes—have got a housing policy that we are proud of. They will play their usual nasty, negative politics about it. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 2920 14:21 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What progress has there been on fuel efficiency standards? Why is this important? What arguments did the government reject? 14:22 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Of course, earlier today the House passed the Albanese Labor government's new vehicle efficiency standards—the standard that is right for Australia and has been developed with Australian car users in mind. It's a standard that will deliver Australians a choice of more cars, whether they are petrol, whether they are diesel or whether they are hybrid or electric. It's a standard that will save Australians thousands of dollars at the bowser and a standard that is well past time to actually be delivered in this country. It's a standard that of course will also reduce emissions and a standard that will ensure Australians can continue to buy the utes and the SUVs that they love. We have consulted very closely with the car manufacturers, the dealer representatives and climate groups to ensure that all views were considered in this standard. The legislation is widely supported by a range of stakeholders. The reality is that this is a policy the opposition had promised for decades yet failed to deliver themselves. It's a policy that the member for Bradfield tried and failed to deliver, and we have had to do the hard work that he could not. Under this reform, people will still be able to buy whatever car they want that suits them and their families, just as they can overseas. This is about making cars more efficient right across the board, whether they're petrol, diesel or hybrid or an EV. This is an important reform for the nation, and I must say there has been a lot of misinformation and mistruths regarding this reform, so let me clear some of that up. Firstly, it's said that this would increase prices and reduce choice for consumers and that somehow we would be killing the ute. That is simply untrue. As we know, the member for Bradfield said: So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction … what we'd call utes … There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here. It was true when the member for Bradfield said it, and it is true today. What the modelling actually shows is that this standard will bring more choices of more modern vehicles into the Australian market and save Australians $1,000 a year, on average, in fuel costs. Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I hear the interjections from those opposite about the debate. You dealt yourself out of this debate when you said, before you had even seen the legislation, that you would be voting against it. You didn't want to debate this legislation; you wanted to grandstand. That's what you wanted to do, and you continue to spread misinformation to regional communities, who will save thousands of dollars at the petrol bowser as a result of this government's decisions. (Time expired) Budget 2920 14:25 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Labor's third budget is the wrong budget for Australia. Economist Steven Hamilton called it 'downright reckless'. Economist Paul Bloxham said budget measures 'support underlying inflation, rather than lowering it'. Cherelle Murphy from EY said, 'We were left disappointed.' Why are Australians paying the price for this Prime Minister's wrong priorities and bad decisions? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the leader of the economic dream team from those opposite, but his partner, the shadow finance minister, had this to say about our budget: I'm sure Australians that are doing it tough right now will be thrilled to hear that there's something in this Budget for them. She went on to say—just yesterday, a day after the budget: … everybody needs $300 off their power bill. In fact, we'd like to see more. So they come in here and they say, 'Oh, no; it's all bad.' They voted against power bill relief when it was going in a targeted fashion. They've opposed those who are getting it in a broader sense, just like how on tax policy they opposed, of course, our changes and said they'd reverse the changes that gave every taxpayer a tax cut. Then the Leader of the Opposition said that we should go to an election on it. Well, I await tonight the Leader of the Opposition saying that he'll jack up that first rate from 16c back up to 19c, that he will reduce the amount at which the top rate cuts in from $190,000 down to $180,000— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the House. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Any member can raise a point of order. One point of order of relevance can be done and that is what the member for Hume is doing, so he'll be heard in silence. Mr Taylor 231027 The question referred to three economists, who have all said that this budget has failed the Australian people. He is not talking about this budget; he is talking about something else entirely. The SPEAKER 53517 I don't know what the quotes were. You're right; the question contained quotes, and at the end of the question was: 'Why are Australians paying the price for this government's wrong priorities?' I'm assuming that the Prime Minister doesn't agree with that premise, and he's arguing why and delivering quotes to support that. The SPEAKER 53517 You just said the question did contain quotes. I don't know what those quotes were, so, if it's context you're after, the Prime Minister is answering the end part of the actual question, regarding information regarding the budget. It was such a broad question at the end that he's entitled to do that. I think everyone can agree on that. Mr ALBANESE R36 I was asked about the commentating on our budget. I went to quote from the shadow finance minister, and the shadow Treasurer got up to complain and said that wasn't relevant. What a team they have! They can't decide where the nuclear reactors will be. This bloke was out there on Sunday opposing his own leader on it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 But I'm asked about reaction. Well, here's what Bran Black of the Business Council of Australia had to say: There are some helpful wins for business in this Budget, with BCA recommendations accepted including a new single front door to fast-track investment, a strong focus on skills and production tax credits for hydrogen and critical minerals projects. He went on to say: We called for an Australian response to the US Inflation Reduction Act, and a targeted investment allowance to support the net zero transition, which we have secured here. And he continued: The Government's commitment to reforming Australia's skills system is welcomed by business. We are also pleased with the investments in growing the construction workforce … The Minerals Council of Australia has come out and backed it. The Australian Retailers Association, the Australian Industry Group and the Housing Industry Association—all of these groups have come out and applauded our budget. Those opposite— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 2921 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Christian College Geelong 2921 14:30 The SPEAKER 53517 Before I give the call to the member for Corangamite, I'm pleased to inform her and the House that in the gallery today are students from Christian College in her electorate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2922 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 2922 14:30 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What is the Albanese Labor government's approach to energy policy? What policies have been rejected? Why is it important to be upfront with the Australian people about energy policy? 14:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank my honourable friend for her question. She asked about what energy policy we are implementing and what energy policy we are rejecting. We're implementing the energy policy that we told the Australian public about before the election and, in no small part, what the then Leader of the Opposition told the Australian people about in his budget replies. In the now Prime Minister's first budget reply, he announced the Rewiring the Nation policy on behalf of the Labor Party. In the now Prime Minister's second budget reply, he announced the New Energy Apprenticeships Program, which is now being implemented very well by the Minister for Skills and Training to ensure we have the apprenticeships to power our energy transformation. By the time of the then Leader of the Opposition's third budget reply, our energy policies had all been released. We'd already released the Powering Australia policy by the time of the then Leader of the Opposition's third budget reply. The current Leader of the Opposition has his third budget reply tonight, so we have the opportunity to hear from the Leader of the Opposition about his energy policy. We reject risky nuclear reactors, and we adopt and endorse reliable renewables. If the Leader of the Opposition is so proud of his nuclear policy, perhaps he could announce it tonight. I understand his sensitivity. He might be worried about the reaction in the House—not so much from this side of the House as from that side of the House—because the Leader of the Opposition hasn't split the atom, but he has split his party room. We've had those brave individuals, the dozen coalition MPs who want nuclear, as long as it's not in their electorates—those conviction politicians who support nuclear policy, as long as it's not in their backyard. We've seen other reporting of the views of the coalition party room. The Daily Telegraph reported that a backbench coalition MP described the policy as 'madness on steroids'. There's an endorsement for you. The Fin Review has reported 'a sudden sense of bewilderment' within the coalition about nuclear policy. The coalition is bewildered about nuclear policy—their own policy. They really are slow-moving 'be-wildebeests' over there sometimes. They're bewildered about their own policy. The same report said that coalition MPs are calling their own policy 'bonkers'. This is going to go swimmingly tonight, I reckon, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. It's just going to go very well. There have been absolute scenes in the coalition about this policy, absolute scenes of disunity. The shadow minister has gone very quiet for a change. We don't hear so much from him— Mr BOWEN DZS There we go—we got him. We've got a live one! The member for Fairfax has perked up. Mr BOWEN DZS Perhaps he will perk up again tonight and actually announce a policy. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister's time has concluded, and the member for Fairfax's time has almost concluded. He will cease interjecting. Migration 2922 14:34 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese government's first budget forecast net overseas migration of 235,000 people in 2022-23. In this week's budget it was revealed that the 2022-23 net overseas migration was 528,000. Labor's forecast missed the mark by 293,000. How can the Australian people believe any forecast this government makes on net overseas migration? 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. The system that we inherited was broken. We say that was the case. That's why we're setting about fixing it. We're on track to halve it next year. We've announced we'll limit our international student numbers. At the same time, we do know that we have skill shortages in our economy, and we're dealing with it. But we inherited a system that was simply broken, and indeed the member himself, of course, as we know, said at one stage when he was responsible as the education minister, 'Help us spread the word about studying here to help us overtake the UK as the world's second most populous study destination.' The Leader of the Opposition's been out there today talking about reducing the number of students coming here but he was busy talking it up when he was in government, as was the then Minister for Education. The hypocrisy is writ large. It's their system that we inherited. We're fixing it. Budget 2923 14:35 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government backing science and industry in this budget to deliver a future made in Australia, and what is standing in its way? 14:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to thank the member for their question and for their longstanding support for Australian manufacturing. Like everyone on our side, they know the importance of science and industry working together—great Aussie ideas that create great products and great jobs. Yet too often our world-leading know-how goes offshore to create jobs in other countries, and we're left importing products that should be stamped 'made in Australia'. Why is it that we import 99 per cent of our solar panels when they were invented right here at the University of New South Wales? Why is it that Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine, is made elsewhere when it was invented at the University of Queensland? And why is it that other countries back PsiQuantum and their brilliant founders when they invented their breakthrough technology at the University of Queensland as well? Enough of the goodbyes, enough of waving off jobs and economic opportunity. Our Future Made in Australia plan says that our brilliant inventors and investors should stay here and make it here. Tuesday's budget was the next step in that goal. For example, with the Queensland government, we're bringing PsiQuantum home. They're Australians who want to build the world's first fault-tolerant quantum computer in Brisbane, and it will give our industries and our economy the power needed to stay ahead of the pack. Quantum computing is vital to both our economic and our national security. The other thing we need to do in thinking ahead about our future prosperity is tackle the terrible state of R&D investment that we inherited from those opposite. That's the focus of our landmark strategic review into R&D announced in the budget. It aims to ensure we keep turning the work of our scientists and researchers into future economic strength. Now I'm asked: what's in the way? Well, those opposite. They have no plan for Australian manufacturing. The only time they talk about manufacturing is to talk it down. They're always negative, always standing in the way and always saying no to everything. When we said yes to the National Reconstruction Fund, they said no. When we said yes to energy price relief for manufacturers, they said no. When we said yes to tax cuts for manufacturing workers, they said no, and, when we said yes to a future made in Australia, they said no. So tonight there's a test for the Leader of the Opposition. Will he level with Australian manufacturing workers? Whose job is he prepared to see be sent offshore? Is it steelworkers in the Illawarra or South Australia? Is it tech workers in Queensland? Is it defence industry workers in Western Australia or medical manufacturing workers in Victoria? Or will he just agree with the member for Bradfield that it is absolutely the right decision to send manufacturing— (Time expired) Budget 2923 14:39 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Some families are paying up to a thousand dollars more for their electricity since Labor was elected two years ago. After three failed budgets, the energy rebate announced on Tuesday is finally an admission that the government broke its promise to cut energy bills. The only thing made in Australia is this inflation crisis. Why are Australian families paying the price for the Prime Minister's weak economic leadership? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. She was heard in silence. The Prime Minister hasn't begun his answer yet. I'm sure he may get a response, but wait to see what is said first. 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It must be interesting when they have shadow ministry meetings, because that question goes to the exact opposite of what the shadow finance minister said. She said, 'Everybody needs $300 off their power bill. In fact, we'd like to see more.' What we've done— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The deputy leader has asked her question. The member for Casey has continued to interject. He'll cease interjecting as well. Mr ALBANESE R36 Perhaps that will be in their announcement tonight. Apparently they're going to do multiples. That's what we've just had—a pre-emptive strike from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, saying that they'll do multiples of our power bill announcement in tonight's budget reply. Well, we await that. Perhaps they can move those as amendments. When they had the chance to support Australian families and to vote for power bill relief, they voted against it for families. They voted against it for families and they voted against it for small business, like they vote against everything. The problem with this opposition is that they take the word 'opposition' literally. They just say no to everything. They have no plans for the future and nothing positive to say about what is needed. They've had two budget replies without having any substantive policy whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition can't find the National Press Club to give a serious speech about the alternative policy of the alternative government. So we await tonight the view that we will see a fully costed policy plan. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 This is the third budget reply. We've had strike 1 and strike 2. Tonight we'll see whether it's strike 3, and, as I know there are many over there who would like to see, strike 3 and you're out. Wages 2924 14:42 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made on getting wages moving again, and what threats are there to this progress? 14:42 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Holt, someone who has dedicated her whole working life to getting wages moving for people in the retail industry. I'm pleased with the results that came out today in terms of more people in jobs. There are more than 820,000 new jobs under the Albanese Labor government, and the majority of them are full-time jobs. That's happening at the exact same time as people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn and as the gender pay gap is at a record low. Each of these hasn't happened by accident. It's happened because of government processes that were changed and laws that were changed. With every single one of them, the Leader of the Opposition has had the same response: to say no. When the Prime Minister argued that the lowest-paid workers shouldn't go backwards, the Leader of the Opposition said no. When we said we should turn up to the Fair Work Commission to give aged-care workers a pay rise, the Leader of the Opposition's position was 'no'. When we introduced the secure jobs, better pay bill, the Leader of the Opposition's position was to vote no. When we introduced the closing loopholes reforms, the Leader of the Opposition's position was to vote no. And when we said that every Australian taxpayer should get a tax cut, the Leader of the Opposition didn't just want to say no; he wanted to call an election over it to stop Australians from keeping more of what they earn, just as he'd tried to stop them from earning more. He opposed the secure jobs, better pay bill the moment he heard the title, and when arguing as to why he opposed it he said, 'It's going to result in higher wages.' Well, he's right. That's exactly why we did it. He's opposed to higher wages, and we have already heard from them that they've got a secret plan for a targeted package of repeals. Tonight is the chance to let people in on what they are. People have a right to know, if you're going after their wages, what your secret plan of repeals will be. We only know one of them so far. He's decided to go after the right to disconnect. The Leader of the Opposition's position is that you have to be available 24/7 even if you're not being paid. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I hear the groans from those opposite. Don't forget, when the secure jobs, better pay bill was going through and it was likely that the Senate deliberations were going to continue and I flagged with the parliament that we might have to return and work on the Saturday, they were outraged about having to defend their right to disconnect. But, on the concept that any low-paid worker should have to work whether they're being paid or not, that they should be constantly on call, their view is that that's up for grabs, no matter how passionate they are about their own right to disconnect. The Leader of the Opposition is determined to cut people's pay. He has opposed everything that has delivered pay rises, and it's time, tonight, that he let people know what the secret plans are. (Time expired) Climate Change 2924 14:45 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, last week you announced your government's Future Gas Strategy, which will put the pedal to the metal on gas production in this country. I acknowledge that existing gas production is necessary while we transition to a renewable economy. However, even Labor's own environment action network said that this undermines their members' confidence in your government's commitment to climate action. Minister, doesn't becoming the world's largest gas exporter completely blow all our other abatement measures out of the water? 14:46 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank the member for Mackellar for her question and for her interest in this very complex area of government policy, and I acknowledge the interest of so many members in this House—and the interest right around the house, in the other place and in all the constituencies—in this issue. I want to be really clear. I'll refer to your question and I'll refer to the Future Gas Strategy. The Albanese government is committed to climate action and to net zero by 2050. We have legislated targets, we have reformed the safeguard mechanism and we have committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Principle 1 of the Future Gas Strategy is this: Australia is committed to supporting global emissions reductions to reduce the impacts of climate change and will reach net zero emissions by 2050. It is consistent because of the work that this government is doing and will continue to do. Our reforms to the safeguard mechanism will drive down emissions across a range of emissions-intensive oil and gas operations, covering the emissions of 130 resource sector facilities. Any new gas fields supplying LNG facilities will be given a zero baseline allocation for the reservoir CO2 in their fields. This is law. This means that gas from any new offshore fields will be carbon-neutral from the very start. Since we came to office there has been a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national energy market. This has driven both the total emissions and the emissions intensity of this country to all-time record lows. We will keep driving policy and actions to make sure we hit that 82 per cent target. Because we have done those things, we do need to carefully consider how gas fits into those net zero commitments. The Future Gas Strategy seeks to do this through a solid evidence base, after a year of work and extensive consultation. Energy security and affordability is important for households, for jobs, for manufacturing capacity and for our national prosperity, and energy security is of vital importance for the geopolitical stability of our region. The findings are very clear: the role of gas will change, and gas emissions simply must reduce. The use of gas is different across the nation. I would observe that, whatever point of view you want to take on this really complex issue of decarbonising the global economy while also ensuring energy security, slogans alone will not in any way advance global net zero emissions ambitions. Housing 2925 14:49 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government's Homes for Australia Plan improving housing in the country, and what is standing in the way? 14:49 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Canberra for that question. The member for Canberra knows that Australia doesn't have enough homes and we haven't had enough homes for a long time. That's why our budget, of course, has over $6 billion in new investments to help build new homes for Australia. This brings Labor's new housing initiative investments to $32 billion since we came to office. That is $32 billion to build more homes, more quickly, in more places, right across Australia. This is what our Homes for Australia Plan is all about. Homes for Australia will help us meet our ambitious national target of building 1.2 million homes over the five years from 1 July. It includes $9.3 billion of funding for a new housing agreement—a five-year agreement with the states and territories. It also includes a billion dollars in new investments for necessary infrastructure and another $1 billion to support transitional and crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and for young people. We're helping nearly a million Australian households with $1.9 billion for the first back-to-back increase in the Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years to help renters. We're working right across government to meet the housing challenges that we inherited from those opposite. Mr Sukkar 242515 You're going to miss by 400,000. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Ms COLLINS HWM In skills, we've committed more than $90 million in the budget to boost the number of tradies. We need more tradies to build more homes. Ms COLLINS HWM In industry, we are investigating alternative methods of construction because we know we need everybody in government with their shoulder to the wheel to meet our ambitious national target of 1.2 million homes. An important part of that is social and affordable homes— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Deakin can cease having a conversation with the Treasurer. There is far too much noise. For the remainder of this answer, he is going to remain silent and so will the Treasurer; otherwise, they'll both be warned. Ms COLLINS HWM Of course, an important part of that is more social and affordable homes. The Housing Australia Future Fund is for 30,000 new social and affordable homes and those opposite, of course, voted no to that. We've got targeted support with Help to Buy to get homebuyers into new homes, targeted with 40 per cent shared equity for new homes. Again those opposite said no. What we need to hear from them is exactly what they're going to do. They've got this plan to use super for homes, but what we know is that will push up home prices, and even the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for finance say that. We know it won't build one new home and we know it will wreck people's retirement by wrecking their super. What we need to do is get on and build more homes for Australia. We're going to do that. While we're building new homes, they're wrecking superannuation. Infrastructure: Regional Australia 2926 14:52 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Prime Minister. On 22 July 2021, the Prime Minister sat in the ABC Wide Bay studio and said 'Paradise Dam should be fixed and should be fixed as soon as possible'. On 9 March 2022, the Labor government committed to rebuilding Paradise Dam, but in the federal budget the funding to restore the dam has been cut from the National Water Grid Fund. Why is the Prime Minister breaking another promise to regional Australia? 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I'd like to thank the member for the question and I'd like to remind him that he is a member of a party that promised 100 dams and built two—two very small ones. We will continue to invest in water infrastructure. We know it is important. We have committed $600 million to Paradise Dam. It is in the future. We are working with the Queensland government on that. Mr Pitt 148150 Six hundred million dollars? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Member for Hinkler, I would like to hear the answer. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I've seen the budget papers, don't worry. I've looked at them very closely, thank you. You might be interested in knowing that one project, for example, that you never delivered on was the $30 million to build a pipeline to Mount Morgan. Why did we do that? Because they were trucking water for three years! Why didn't you, in any of your 10 wasted years in office, actually deliver something for the people of Queensland? Budget 2926 14:55 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government working for middle Australia, and what are the advantages of this approach over others? 14:55 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Tangney for treading where the shadow Treasurer dares not: asking a question of the Treasurer in budget week. Maybe I could ask Mr Shanahan upstairs or someone who's been around for a while, but it strikes me as a bit strange that the shadow Treasurer in budget week at three o'clock on Thursday still hasn't asked a question of the Treasurer about the budget. The other reason I appreciate the question from the member for Tangney is that every single one of the 87,000 taxpayers in the member for Tangney's electorate will get a tax cut. Every one of the 70,000 households in the member's electorate will get energy bill relief. That's because a central, defining feature of the budget on Tuesday night was helping people doing it tough, whether it's the tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, whether it's energy bill relief for every Australian household, whether it's rent assistance for almost a million renters, whether it's cheaper medicines for people by freezing the PBS for five years for people on concessions and one year for everyone else, or a whole range of other measures designed to ease the cost of living and the pressures that people are under. The cost-of-living relief in the budget was substantial and it was responsible. Our responsible approach to make life a little bit easier for people who are under the pump differs greatly from the approach taken by those opposite. No matter what the Leader of the Opposition says tonight, his record when it comes to Middle Australia speaks for itself. When we changed the tax cuts to make them fairer for Middle Australia and to make sure that every taxpayer got a tax cut that was no longer skewed to the highest income earners, he called for an election over it. He said there should be an election over it, and his deputy leader said of course they were going to unwind it. When we put into this place last time energy bill rebates for people doing it tough, they voted against it. At every turn when we've tried to boost wages in this economy after a decade of wage stagnation, they have opposed our efforts. In the parliament we've got a simple change to make the concessions at the top end of superannuation, for people with more than $3 million, a little bit less concessional, and they don't support that either. They don't support our changes to get more tax sooner from offshore gas companies. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The shadow Treasurer is calling out in his typically courageous way—far from the dispatch box—about real wages. Real wages are growing now and they were falling under those opposite. So I say to the opposition leader: spare us the faux outrage and the fake class warfare tonight. His record speaks for itself. If he had his way, inflation would be higher, wages would be lower and Middle Australia wouldn't get a look in. That is another reminder that his nuclear negativity is no substitute for helping Middle Australia or for the economic credibility— (Time expired) Future Made in Australia 2927 14:58 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This is a question for the Prime Minister. The government's Future Made in Australia announcements sound consistent with our need to decarbonise for long-term prosperity, but we need to invest in building new industries where we have a comparative advantage. Will the government commit to investment decisions under Future Made in Australia being transparent and driven by independent expert economic analysis? 14:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question. I've noted her public comments supporting Future Made in Australia making more things here. That will be driven by the framework that will come before this parliament in legislation that the member for Curtin will have the opportunity to contribute to. Those opposite have already said they're going to vote against it. The WA Liberal Party leader, the leader of that massive group—I think there are two of them—has said that she supports the Future Made in Australia agenda. The member for O'Connor has backed it in as well, so we look forward to the member for O'Connor crossing the floor on these issues. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. I can't hear what he is saying, because there is a live conversation going on between the shadow Treasurer and the Treasurer. You can both have a conversation outside—I can make that happen—but I think you'd like to stay. You will remain in silence for the remainder of this answer or you'll both be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 This is a comprehensive plan, through measures like production tax credits for hydrogen and critical minerals. We know that Australia does have a comparative advantage in green hydrogen because we'll be able to have the space to have the green hydrogen produced by clean energy, which then could be used to manufacture things like green aluminium, green steel to give us a comparative advantage in the world. The way that will work for critical minerals is it will be 10 per cent of eligible processing costs. It will be $2 per kilogram for green hydrogen. Companies won't receive any credit until they have produced these resources. That's why it has been designed in this way, so it pays on success: it pays on creating jobs; it pays on creating not just for domestic use but for export potential as well. This incentive will make domestic production more cost competitive and will boost Australian industry. It will commence in the 2027-28 financial year and will support production until 2040. They're just some of the measures that we have. Here's a big tip: you can't build a future out of just saying no. That is what those opposite are doing. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition has ever been interested in manufacturing is division. That's the only thing. They don't have an agenda, just a vendetta. They have a vendetta against workers, against manufacturing, against fair wages, against aspiration and against ambition. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan 210911 It's on relevance. The question didn't mention the Leader of the Opposition at all. The Prime Minister seems to be obsessed with being very negative towards— The SPEAKER 53517 Once again, I want to remind anyone raising a point of order—I can appreciate the point of order on relevance, but it is not an opportunity to make additional statements. This is really creeping into points of order. Every time a point of order on relevance has been made with an extra grab or an extra hook or an extra statement, Speakers in the past have simply stopped taking points of order from both sides. Going forward, we will make the point of order on relevance without the additional comments. The Prime Minister wasn't asked about alternative policies. He was asked about decisions being made driven by experts. I'm going to make sure his remarks are relevant for the remainder of the answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 What the Future Made in Australia agenda is about is shaping the future, because unless you do that the world will just go past us. We need to seize the opportunities that are happening because of the global changes in the economy. We're in a strong position to do so, but only if we seize those opportunities. I look forward to working with the member for Curtin to do just that. (Time expired) Cost of Living 2927 15:04 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians, and what has been the response? 15:04 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Makin for that question. The Albanese government is delivering a responsible budget that provides cost-of-living help now, builds a stronger and more resilient economy and invests in a future made in Australia. In my portfolio, Social Services, we are providing more assistance for those who rely on it. This includes a further increase in the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance, benefiting close to one million households. Since we were elected, the maximum rate of rent assistance has increased by 42 per cent. We will expand eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker, to help those who are only able to work up to 14 hours a week, and give more flexibility to those on carer payment who want to do more work, study or volunteering. We've also frozen deeming rates for a further 12 months so that part-pensioners, along with other income support recipients, can keep more of what they earn on their investments. This is in addition to other cost-of-living relief across the government, including providing energy rebates for all householders, delivering cheaper medicines and, of course, giving all Australians a tax cut from 1 July. Our assistance has been welcomed by many, including groups such as the Council on the Ageing and National Seniors, with the Council on the Ageing saying this week that our rent assistance changes were welcomed by many. Unfortunately, this positive response to supporting those on payments with the cost of living is not shared by those opposite. On Sunday, the member for Hume suggested he would cut so-called unrestrained spending. The spending he was referring to includes the cost of indexing pensions and working-age payments. These are critically important to keeping up with the cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition needs to come clean with the Australian people tonight. Does he agree with his shadow Treasurer that this spending is not necessary? We all know the coalition has form when it comes to cutting support payments. Who could forget the promise that there'd be no cuts to pensions in 2013? In 2014 there were cuts to pensions across the board. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance: the minister is trailing well into historical matters. It was a fairly narrowly drafted question and there's simply no scope for her to be going where she's going right now. The SPEAKER 53517 The manager is correct. The minister wasn't asked about alternative approaches in the past; she was asked about the government's announcements and what the response has been. That's not an entitlement to talk about anything that the opposition has been doing. Ms RISHWORTH HWA I think that it's made clear by those opposite that, while they have form on this, they now are signalling that they want to cut the pension again. We all know that when those opposite start talking about cutting unrestrained spending they mean cuts to pensions and other support payments. This is unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition has to come clean with the Australian people. (Time expired) Budget 2928 15:08 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. Who will receive the $300 energy rebate announced in the budget? Is it (a) someone who earns over $500,000 a year, (b) someone who owns three properties, (c) the Prime Minister of Australia, or (d) all of the above? Mr O'Connor 00AN3 You don't want to vote for it? You're not going to support it? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Minister for Skills and Training will cease interjecting. When the House comes to order, the— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hughes was heard in silence. The Prime Minister is going to be given the same courtesy. 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hughes for her question. Tonight there'll be an opportunity to hear from the Leader of the Opposition over whether he supports the $300 going to every household. From the question from the member for Hughes, it sounds like they don't. That wouldn't be surprising, because they opposed it when it was targeted. And now they're opposing it when it goes to every household. Earlier on this year they expressed outrage that people who were going to get nine— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Ms Plibersek 83M It's completely relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for the Environment and Water will cease interjecting. The member for Hughes will state her point of order. Ms Ware 300123 Point of order on relevance: the question was quite targeted. It went to who will receive the $300 rebate. It went to the government's policies, not ours. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I know there were a number of subsets to the question, but the Prime Minister said it very early in the answer. He did confirm every household. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister is going to be heard in silence for the remainder. Mr ALBANESE R36 It was targeted at every household, because they're the people who are going to benefit from our $300 for every household. It was targeted at every small business. As well, of course, earlier this year we had outrage expressed that we needed to go to an election from those suggesting that everyone in this chamber should get $9,000 tax cuts rather than $4½ thousand tax cuts at the same time that workers earning under $45,000 should get exactly zero. They can't work out where they are when it comes to class warfare, whether they're attacking the top— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The deputy leader knows the standing orders backwards. She knows that there won't be a point of order on relevance, because that's already been taken, but she is entitled— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Minister for Climate Change! It's got to be a real point of order, not a statement or a throwaway line. The deputy leader on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I simply seek your ruling based on your earlier response to the point on relevance. This was a tight question about eligibility criteria. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The time to ask me that question was when I made the ruling. I made the ruling. If you were unhappy with it, you could have taken action then. To go back in time is not possible under the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 The fact is that they are all over the shop over there. They can't decide whether they want more or they want less, whether they want more spending or no spending, or whether they want to support aspiration or attack aspiration. What we know is that the one thing that is consistent about them is that they have no plan for the future. They have nothing positive to say, just nuclear negativity over and over again from this Leader of the Opposition and his merry band, who hand out questions but aren't capable of standing up and having the courage of asking it themselves. Budget 2929 15:12 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. In this year's budget, how is the Albanese Labor government easing cost-of-living pressures for early childhood education and care workers? 15:13 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Adelaide for his most excellent question and for his tireless advocacy for the early childhood educators and, indeed, the children in his electorate of Adelaide. Like all members of this Albanese Labor government, the member for Adelaide understands the importance of early childhood education and care for children, for families and for the economy. Unlike those opposite, we on this side value the skilled and important work that early childhood educators and early childhood teachers do. You won't hear anyone on this side of the House refer to early childhood education and care as childminding and outsourcing parenting. That's not what we do. This government has made a historic commitment to contribute funding towards lifting the wages of early childhood education and care workers, something that I'm incredibly proud of. Indeed, I watched the faces of the early childhood educators in the gallery on budget night when the Treasurer announced a multibillion-dollar provision in the budget for better wages in the care economy, including in the early learning sector, and watching the tears flow from those early childhood educators was really something that I know touched the hearts of everybody on this side of the House. Reviews by the ACCC and the Productivity Commission have highlighted to us that we simply cannot achieve the necessary reform in the early childhood education and care sector without a strong and sustainable workforce. You don't just need reports to tell you this. Anyone who has visited an early childhood education and care centre, whether it's the member for Adelaide or any of the members behind me with whom I've had the pleasure of visiting early childhood education and care centres and speaking to early childhood educators and carers, knows the pressure that they're under. As one early childhood educator told me, 'We love what we do, but love doesn't pay the bills.' The budget the night before delivered not only a historic second surplus but also cost-of-living relief measures for all Australians. Early childhood educators will get a boost in their wages, and they'll also get a tax cut just like every Australian taxpayer right across the country. We will continue our record of responsible fiscal management. We will continue to provide cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation, and we will lay the foundations for a future where all Australian children thrive, no matter who they are and no matter what their background. (Time expired) Budget 2930 15:16 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. S&P Global has said that the additional cost-of-living measures in the budget are inflationary. The Reserve Bank of Australia governor has warned that it is very uncertain inflation will return to target in the next two years and it's too early to declare victory over inflation. Former RBA member Warwick McKibbin says that claiming taxpayer funded electricity and rental bill relief are an antidote to high inflation is a political trick that will not address economic pressures. Why are Australians paying the price for the Prime Minister's wrong priorities and bad decisions? 15:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll ask the Treasurer to add to this question, because here he is. He handed down a budget on Tuesday night. He was waiting Tuesday and Wednesday. Now, we're right through Thursday at a quarter past three. We might keep question time going until the shadow Treasurer has the courage to ask him a question. Mr Taylor 231027 We asked you because you're hopeless. 15:17 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Come to the microphone. Get a question. Your microphone is off. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It sounds like they don't support energy bill rebates for every Australian household. If that's the case—from that question, the question before and questions earlier on—it sounds like they don't support easing the cost of living for people doing it tough. Thankfully, the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity in a few hours time to get to the dispatch box and tell the Australian people why he thinks Australians don't deserve some help with the cost of living, because we do. We believe that Australians who are doing it tough need help with the cost of living, and that's why there's a tax cut for every taxpayer. That's why there's energy bill relief for every household. That's why there's cheaper medicines. That's why there's rent assistance. Unlike those opposite, we are here to represent the interests of Middle Australia, and we know that Middle Australia is doing it tough. We know that when we came to office inflation had a six in front of it, and now it has a three in front of it. To those opposite who are talking about inflation with a three in front of it as still too high, I'd love to hear how they describe inflation with a six in front of it, which is what they left behind when they stacked up in the budget bigger deficits and more debt and all of these stupendous wastes and rorts, which meant that this country had almost nothing to show from a trillion dollars in Liberal debt. If they describe the situation now, which is a couple of hundred billion dollars better and where we've turned Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses, I'd love to hear how they describe the situation that they left—the mess that they left behind that we have spent a big chunk of our two years in office cleaning up on behalf of the good people, the working people of Middle Australia, the people on pensions and, indeed, all Australians. The honourable member asked me about the Reserve Bank and the view that the job, when it comes to fighting inflation, isn't over yet. We agree with that. It's not mission accomplished on inflation, which is why the budget is focused on easing the cost of living and fighting inflation to clean up the mess they left behind. (Time expired) Budget 2930 15:20 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget ensure we have the skilled workers we need to build more homes, create a future made in Australia and successfully move to a net zero economy? And why is supporting the VET sector so important after a wasted decade? 15:20 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Lalor for her question. She understands, as well as anybody in this place, how important education and training are for people, and I think it's clear that, if we don't invest in education and training, we're not going to deliver what we need to. In less than two years, the Albanese Labor government has enacted big reforms and deepened its investment in education and training. We've created Jobs and Skills Australia, which is advising government and industry to supply skills to transition our energy sector, to build more homes and infrastructure, to rebuild manufacturing, to provide care for older Australians and to provide education to our preschool kids. The fact is we're going to continue to do more. Last year alone, 355,000 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE, and a further 320,000 fee-free TAFE places are available from this year on, and that is absolutely vital. We've struck a national skills agreement with state and territories, the first national skills agreement in a decade, which is a $30 billion investment in the VET sector over five years. Centres of excellence will be created to bring TAFEs and universities together—more higher apprenticeships and improving foundation skills and more. In the university sector, Minister Clare, in response to the accord review, is implementing landmark reforms to ensure we have a more skilled and knowledgeable workforce. The fact is the budget handed down by the Treasurer on Tuesday is going to provide much relief for people in this country, but we'll also be investing in skills needed by our workers, businesses and economy. Of course, starting on 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. Every household in this country will get $300 off their electricity bill. As for skills, we reversed the savage cuts made by those opposite when they removed the apprenticeship support exactly at the time you don't do that. We've actually increased support for apprentices as a result of this budget. We've added a further 20,000 fee-free TAFE places in the housing and construction sector to supply more housing, and we will invest a further $90 million—and I'll be working with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on this—in the clean energy workforce to establish a national hydrogen skills training centre. All of this is directed to ensure we have a future made in Australia. By contrast, those opposite cut apprenticeship support, spoke out against tax cuts and called fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. Tonight, the opposition leader has a test: he will either outline a plan for Australia's future or make it perfectly clear he will play no part in it. Medicare 2931 15:23 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that, on his watch, bulk-billing has fallen 11 per cent since the Albanese Labor government came to office? 15:23 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh What I can confirm—and I've said this publicly on many occasions—is that, when we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall, particularly for GP consults. There's no surprise why it was in freefall. Under the worst health minister in the Medicare era, a years-long Medicare rebate freeze was put in place that was then continued by the second-worst health minister in the Medicare era, the member for Farrer. So, yes, the bulk-billing rate was in decline when we came to office. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN I want a ruling on whether the minister's answer is in order. The SPEAKER 53517 Relevant? Or order? The SPEAKER 53517 Well, he's being in order, because he's not saying anything offensive. He would not be in order if he was abusing the standing orders. So he's in order. The SPEAKER 53517 It's not about what I prefer, but it's up to you. Ms Ley 00AMN I ask for a point of order on relevance. The question was completely specific, Minister—one-word answer. The SPEAKER 53517 I think the deputy leader knows that, under the standing orders, I can't make or demand him to answer a question with a yes or a no. We've been around this block before. He's got to remain directly relevant. He is in order. He's been talking about bulk-billing rates. He can't spend all his answer talking about previous rates, but he can do some compare and contrast, obviously. He'll need to get to the rates under his term as minister. Mr BUTLER HWK I think what I was saying before was that, yes, from the time we came to government, I'd been saying that I was deeply concerned about bulk-billing rates, particularly for GP consults, because they were in freefall. If you asked any doctor or any doctors group for the reason, they said it was that Medicare rebates had been frozen for six long years, initially by the worst health minister in Australia's history, now the Leader of the Opposition, and also a freeze continued by the second-worst health minister in Australian history, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On Tuesday night we introduced the second-biggest increase to the Medicare rebate across the board in the last 30 years. The biggest increase to the Medicare rebate in the last 30 years was last year. Over just two years we've increased the Medicare rebate by twice as much as those opposite managed in nine long years. So yes, I've been very honest about the fact that, from the time I came to office as the health minister and had the privilege of being appointed to the portfolio by the Prime Minister, bulk-billing has been in decline. Doctors could not hang on any longer after the freeze imposed by those opposite. They made no bones about that. And I published much more transparent data about bulk-billing than was published by those opposite—very clear data about GP NRAs and bulk-billing rates by state, nationally and by electorate, and I'm sure the member for Farrer has examined that. What I will say, though, is that, after our bulk-billing incentives took effect on 1 November, the bulk-billing rate has started to climb again. Since that date, 1 November, there have been 950,000 additional free visits to the doctor. The bulk-billing rate has increased by over two per cent in just five months. So, yes, there's much more work to do, but we've started fixing the mess that was started by the Leader of the Opposition and continued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the two worst health minister is in the Medicare era. Budget 2932 15:28 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will the additional investment in Medicare urgent care clinics which was announced in the budget make it easier for Australians to see a doctor after a decade of cuts and neglect? 15:28 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the terrific member for Lingiari, because she and the member for Solomon are a formidable team—constantly pressing the case for better health care in the Territory, like the second rescue helicopter and the second plane that we've been able to deliver to CareFlight to ensure year-round coverage for the Northern Territory and finally delivering a medical school at CDU for the Territory, which was pressed for by both members. But I want to acknowledge the relentless advocacy by the member for Solomon for that project, which we delivered in this week's budget. The member for Lingiari also promised at the last election an urgent care clinic for Alice Springs, and she has delivered that project. It's been operated by the legendary Congress organisation, and it's already seen several thousand patients, all fully bulk-billed. Billy, a young, 16-year-old First Nations man, was taken to the clinic by ambulance. He was feverish and he was unsteady on his feet because he had an infection between his shoulder and his neck that had swollen to the size of a tennis ball. He was tested, he had intravenous antibiotics, he had fluids and pain relief, and he was then released home, to be brought back in for ongoing wound care. We all know that without that he would have ended up in the Alice Springs Hospital. Across Australia, there have been 400,000 patients seen in clinics right across the country delivering fully bulk-billed urgent care and taking that pressure off the hospital system. This budget, this week, delivered 29 more clinics, which will be rolled out across the country. Beyond urgent care, as I just said in response to the member for Farrer's question, bulk-billing has started to climb as well, by four per cent, for GP visits in the member for Lingiari's electorate. For Labor, that's important. For us, that's important. We know that not for everyone is it important. We remember when the Leader of the Opposition said as health minister that there are too many free Medicare services. We remember when he tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. I'm asked about the decade of cuts and neglect. It started 10 years ago this week, when the Leader of the Opposition delivered the worst health budget in Australian history, a very big reason, I'm sure, why Australia's doctors voted him the worst health minister in the Medicare era. It wasn't just the doctors; he didn't last 15 months before being punted from the health portfolio by Tony Abbott. Let's be frank; you've got to be going pretty badly before Tony Abbott considers you a political liability. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Albanese R36 I'm reluctant to cut off the shadow Treasurer. If he has a question for the Treasurer, we can keep going. An honourable member interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 I want to give you a chance, Gus. If not, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 2932 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Parliament House: Fundraisers 2932 15:31 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I wish to seek clarification on the rules regarding fundraisers in Parliament House. In October 2022, the Prime Minister wrote to you and the President of the Senate and he then requested that political fundraisers in bookable spaces in the building be banned. At that time, both you and the President of the Senate agreed to that ban. There are reports this week that some members have charged between $1,000 and $2,000 a ticket for budget reply fundraising events within Parliament House despite that rule change. These reports are concerning. In 2022, the Prime Minister said that he was seeking this change because the dignity of Parliament House should be maintained. In my opinion, members hosting fundraisers within the Parliament House offices wilfully disregards your 2022 ruling and it does compromise the dignity of this House. Could you please clarify for members: what are the rules regarding fundraisers within Parliament House? 15:33 The SPEAKER 53517 I had anticipated that this question would come forward as a result of media coverage. But I want to remind all members that the member is correct—on 17 October, the President and I did change the policy for bookable areas in Parliament House. When parliamentarians have made bookings for events, they now must declare that the event is not for the purpose of political fundraising and complies with this policy. Political fundraising cannot take place in the bookable areas of Parliament House. I made these policy changes for practical implementation so that political fundraising could not occur. I want to advise all individual members and request that they respect this policy. It's my personal view that political fundraising does not occur in this place. The dignity of the parliament must always be maintained in line with the Australian public's expectation. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 2933 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Budget 2933 15:33 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members leave the House, I want to give a short reminder about arrangements for this evening with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. As I outlined on Tuesday, the usual courtesies apply to the Leader of the Opposition's speech as they did to the Treasurer's. With respect to this evening, the Leader of the Opposition will have the call and is entitled to speak without interruption. As with the Treasurer's speech on Tuesday, standing order 1 provides that there is no time limit for the Leader of the Opposition's speech. The clock is used only as a guide. As I noted on Tuesday, if I'm required to make use of standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. Finally, I ask all members to ensure that their guests comply with the standards of behaviour applying to the galleries. I remind all members that they are responsible for their invited guests. I thank the House. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 2933 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 2933 15:34 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom In accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to an overdue question in writing, question 475. The question related to the negative impacts of this Labor government's economic policies on young people in my electorate of Groom. Mr Speaker, can I ask that you write to the Treasurer and seek an explanation as to why he has chosen not to answer my question in writing within 60 days? 15:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall write to the minister as the standing orders provide. DOCUMENTS 2933 DOCUMENTS Presentation 2933 15:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Speaker's responses to certain recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure, entitled Raising the standard: inquiry into recommendations 10 and 27 of Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. Presentation 2933 15:35 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2933 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 2933 15:35 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to address Australia's deteriorating housing 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— 15:36 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin () (): On Tuesday night, in the budget, what we saw from this government on housing was no new money, no new homes and no new ideas, just the same old Labor housing crisis. And we see today in question time this very self-satisfied group of frontbenchers talking about Labor being the champion of new homes. It's inconvenient to remind the government that they have been in government for two years. What do we find from the ABS? We find that, under this government, the number of loans provided for the purchase or construction of new homes is the lowest since records have been kept, since 2002. In the last 22 years we have not seen a worse outcome for new homes then we have under this government. There are no new homes and no new money in the budget, and we see fewer homes being built than we have seen in at least 22 years—and, if the ABS had kept longer records, I suspect it would be for decades more than that. We have a failure at the hands of this government, with fewer homes being built. What's the one thing you wouldn't do, as a government, if you had record low numbers of homes being built? From the collective wisdom around the cabinet table, what do you think is the one thing you probably would not do? You would not ramp up migration to the highest levels we have seen in our history. In the 18 months to December, under this government, we've seen 265,000 homes built. It's important to mention that, among those 265,000 homes, there's a portion—it's hard to calculate, but it's anywhere from 15 per cent to 25 per cent—that are not net increases in homes; they're just knockdown rebuilds. It's a new home, but it's replacing an old one. There have been 265,000 homes built in the first 18 months of this government, and how many migrants do you think this government brought in over that period? About 900,000. Where on earth does the government think those people are going to live? What do we see? We see vacancy rates now at lower than one per cent in some of our capital cities. What does that mean? We all see the videos that go around online of the people queueing up, around the block, when there's an 'open for inspection' for a rental. What do we see? We see it becoming more and more difficult for people to find a rental in the suburbs in which they are living, especially for families with children at a local school. There are people in this country who just cannot find one and, devastatingly, end up homeless—and we've seen homelessness spike under this government—or who have to move a long way from where they're established, where their children go to school and where their community is. What do we see from this government? We just see a group of ministers grinning and talking about how wonderfully well they're doing with housing. Well, the truth is, as I said, we have fewer homes being built. We have first home buyers at their lowest level since the last time this mob was in government. They have completely waved the white flag on first home ownership. When I was the housing minister in the former coalition government, we got the number of first home buyers in a year up to 180,000. There were 180,000 first home buyers in 2021. It was not by accident; it was through programs like our Home Guarantee Scheme or the HomeBuilder program or the First Home Super Saver Scheme. What do we have them running at this year? This financial year thus far we are at 90,000 first home buyers, about half as many as under the former government. This government is failing on building homes, it is failing for renters and it is failing for new home buyers. I have some bad news for the House and for Australians. If you think we are in a housing crisis now, if you think it is intolerable that you can't get a rental, that your children may never face the prospect or have the opportunity of owning their own home, it is about to get worse. The latest housing approval data we have seen has approvals down even further. That means over the next 12 to 18 months, over the next two years, even fewer homes are going to be built. You will have fewer homes built over the next 18 months to two years. You have to take the government at their word when they say, 'We are going to reverse our form from the last two years. We are going to reduce migration. We are going to have a stunning form reversal and we are now going to now reduce migration.' Well, as the shadow minister quite rightly pointed out in government, let's look at what they promise versus what they deliver. In their first budget, the government only missed their forecast in migrants by a rounding error of 297,000 people, just 297,000 people out. There is nothing at all in the budget on Tuesday night that will give any Australian comfort that this mob even understand the problem. The truth is you have to accept that you have created a problem. You have to put your hand up and admit that you have caused untold damage to this country before you can get to fixing it, and we don't see any of that from this government. We see nothing from this government. The only policies assisting first home buyers in this country are those policies that were put in place by the former government. We see no new ideas from this government. What did they announce in the lead-up to be budget? They announced $11.3 billion of extra money. That was the announcement. That was what the media release said—$11.3 billion of extra money. What did we find out? Of the $11.3 billion of so-called extra money, $9.3 billion of it was to continue an agreement already in place for 15 years. So it is an agreement that has been in place for just a lazy 15 years that, through their good graces, they are going to renew and that is somehow new money. Then we saw there was another billion dollars for the National Housing Finance Infrastructure Facility, a facility that I established and created as minister—a very worthy policy. But if you then look at the fine detail, the minister announced that money on 31 October last year. What forced her to do that? It was the dirty deal they did in the Senate with the crossbench. They are now trying to rehash old announcements, bundle them together, which, again, highlights that they do not get the problem. They do not appreciate they have created an unprecedented housing crisis in this country. As a product of migrants, I love migration. I am a great beneficiary of it. But it has to be planned migration. You have to have an idea of where on earth the people will live, because we have a duty to the Australians who are here now. We have a duty to the people who live here now that they can get a roof over their heads. If you're bringing in 900,000 migrants when there are only 265,000 homes being built, which does not even keep our head above water for our natural population increase, it is an absolute stain and a shame that this government will never live down, because they're selling out the next generation of this country. We will not wave the white flag on homeownership on this side of the House. On this side of the House we believe that every Australian should have the opportunity of homeownership, like generations before us. We are very proud of our policies to support those first homebuyers. As I said, whether it's helping people get a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent through the Home Guarantee Scheme or getting access to their own money in superannuation to buy their own home—because that is their money. If they choose to leave it in their superannuation, good luck to them. But they should have the choice to use that to supplement their savings for a deposit to get into a home. There's a generation of Australians this government and this Labor Party have left behind. They want big corporates owning all the houses. They want lifelong renters. We want Australians to have that opportunity and we'll fight for them. The Leader of the Opposition will be fighting for them tonight. 15:46 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam It takes a lot of courage for the member for Deakin to come to the dispatch box saying he's in support of a motion on housing affordability, because there's not a person in this House that has done more to make housing in this country more unaffordable for Australians trying to get into the housing market. On his watch the average price of housing went up 30 per cent. There is not a person in this House who has done more to make housing less affordable for young Australians who are trying to get into the housing market than the member for Deakin. I expected when he came to the dispatch box that he'd present at least an apology or, if not an apology, an idea—an idea that was going to do something to build more houses and make housing more affordable. There was lots of sloganeering, lots of negativity but not one new idea. The big idea of those opposite to resolve the housing problem that young Australians are facing—particularly those who are either renting or who want to get into the housing market—is to bust the superannuation system. We know because expert after expert—indeed, coalition MP after coalition MP—have pointed out that this is a wrongheaded policy. If you want to make housing more affordable, you don't tip millions and millions of dollars into the demand side, pushing up the prices. You don't have to take it from us; have a look at independent research that has looked at this. The consequence of their policy is to drive up median house prices over $75,000. The member for Deakin wants a pat on the back. He already drove house prices up 30 per cent over the three years when he was housing minister. He wants to add another $75,000 to the median price of a house. And he says this is going to do something about housing affordability? These blokes have got rocks in their heads! They call themselves responsible economic managers; they don't know the basics about economics. They don't know the basics about supply demand. Not one new house will be built under their policy. You don't have to take my word for it. Look at what members on their own side have said about it—because this is not a new policy. It's been recycled every three years for the last 30 years. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton had this to say: 'It's not good policy.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: Young people need their super for retirement, not to try to take pressure off an urban housing bubble … The member for Deakin himself had this to say when he was housing minister: If all a government does is try to pump further liquidity into the residential housing market, inevitably all you do is push up housing prices. From his own lips. Thirty per cent. When he last had an opportunity to do something about the housing crisis, their singular policy wouldn't have built one new house. It'll put a few more people in the queue at every housing auction on a Saturday. There'll be more people in the queue bidding up the price by $75,000 for an average house at auction—$75,000 more unaffordable under their policy—but not one new house. Not one new house will be built under this policy. I'll be interested to see what the shadow finance minister has to say after the Leader of the Opposition makes his speech tonight. They've been out briefing the gallery that this is their singular big idea to resolve housing prices—wreck the superannuation system. Senator Jane Hume, when she was asked this question said, 'I would imagine in the short term you might see a bump in house prices.' So, young people who are thinking about whether they're going to be able to afford a house at the housing auction or the sales next Saturday will know this: as hard as things are right now, if this mob get their way then there will be $75,000 extra on the price of the median house in any auction they go to around the country. That's a hard number: a $75,000 increase in housing. You don't have to take it from us. Take it from the Leader of the Opposition: 'It's not good policy.' Take it from Senator Jane Hume, the shadow finance minister, who still has some sway in their show, I understand. She imagines—and she's right—that you'll 'see a bump in house prices'. We are faced with a stark choice. There is the policy of the government, which is to build more houses and to assist young people into the housing market. Then there is the policy of the opposition, which is to fulfil their long-held desire to smash the superannuation system. It won't build one new home, but it will smash the superannuation system. There is the policy of the government, which is to make housing more affordable, and the policy of the opposition, which is to make housing more expensive. There is the policy that is about helping Australians, particularly young Australians, to buy a home, and there are the policy proposals of the opposition, which will make it even harder. The government has an ambitious agenda to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade through our Homes for Australia plan—in this budget an additional $1 billion to get homes built sooner and a new $9.3 billion five-year national agreement on social housing and homelessness. The shadow minister, when he was minister, couldn't even utter the word 'homelessness', could not even speak the word 'homelessness', did not think it was a part of his portfolio responsibility. Under our policies, there is record investment in social and affordable housing, including the additional $2 billion that was provided to state and territory governments last year to ensure that we could get urgent investment into social and affordable housing. The member for Deakin mocked this policy, but it's actually working. He seems to think there is something wrong in going to a stock of public housing that is currently unfit for human habitation and renovating that housing to ensure that it can be used. You've got an empty building, empty units, unfit for habitation, and you invest in renovating and upgrading that, and you can move more people into it, including homeless people—and that's somehow a policy failure? Well, I see that as a policy success, because it gets more houses into the market sooner and gives more people who are currently homeless a roof over their head. This is the sort of approach we are deploying. The member for Deakin thinks it's something to laugh at. We think it's a good thing that we're putting roofs over the heads of people who need them the most. We're putting in place new provisions to incentivise the boost in supply of rental housing by changing arrangements for investments to ensure that we can boost build-to-rent accommodation, because we understand that this is an entire ecosystem. Yes, we need to ensure that we've got more social and affordable housing. Yes, we need to ensure that we've got build-to-rent housing, because there will still be a strong demand for rental accommodation, particularly for key worker housing or for workers who are temporarily locating to a particular area. We need more rental accommodation, and our build-to-rent policies are designed to meet that need. We are not only ensuring that young Australians are not asked to give up on the dream of owning their own home but also ensuring that young Australians don't have to make a choice that nobody else in this parliament was ever asked to make. Under the plan proposed by the coalition, young Australians are being asked to make a choice between whether they save for their retirement or whether they own their own home. There is not a person in this House who has been asked to make that choice. Our message to young Australians is that we want to ensure you can own your own home. We are putting in place the policies to ensure that you can do it, whether it's the Help to Buy scheme, whether it is the Home Guarantee Scheme or whether it's our record investments in affordable housing. They are all designed to ensure young Australians can live up to their dream—that every generation prior to that has had—of owning their own home, but not at the expense of raiding their superannuation. We know what the cost of that policy is—devastating for young Australians. According to Treasury analysis, a 35-year-old median income earner who withdraws $74,000 will be $100,000 worse off, a 22 per cent reduction. The proposition is simple: we do not believe that Australians should have to make a choice between their superannuation and owning a home, and that is the difference between us and them. 15:56 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Labor promised before May 2022 they would fix the housing crisis. What are they doing now they are in office? They are piling in more people. Immigration is up to 1.7 million, up 200,000 from the last budget, because 'Chalmernomics' isn't based on supply and demand; it's based on government and more government. Labor's central housing policy, the Help to Buy Scheme, is not a homeownership policy; it is a home nationalisation policy, a scheme passed using a gag motion, like we saw today when the government gagged debate on the national vehicle efficiency standard. The Albanese government is an arrogant and secretive government hell-bent on delivering a big government agenda and avoiding any scrutiny while doing it. Labor gaslights Australians, saying, 'Things are getting better,' but they are not. The Australian public know it. They have figured this government out in record time for a first-term government. While the Australian dream of buying and owning your own home is disappearing, Labor is living its best life, living its dream of big government, controlling people's lives. Now they are taking equity in people's houses. Construction of new homes is in freefall under this government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has highlighted the weakest two quarters of construction in more than a decade, with just 38,397 homes commencing construction in the December 2023 quarter, and 163,836 in the 2023 calendar year. Peak bodies have confirmed the government will miss its promise of a 1.2 million homes by 2029. The State of the Housing System report estimates that by 2029 just 943,000 homes will be built, while others say it could be as low as 800,000. The Centre for International Economics modelling recently showed four out of five new homes that could have been built under Labor's housing policies will never see a shovel hit the ground due to productivity-sapping industrial relations changes and volatile conditions which will erode 80 per cent of the gains in projected housing stock. Housing approvals for detached homes are already at their lowest level since the Gillard government. New homes starts have sunk to an 11-year low. Domain's First-home buyer report earlier this year indicated that it takes almost five years to save a 20 per cent deposit to buy a home. Under Labor, house prices are at record highs, with only 13 per cent of homes being sold considered affordable on an average income. Real disposable incomes have collapsed by 7.5 per cent per capita since Labor came to power through price increases outpacing wages, rising taxes and rising mortgage repayments. In the two years since the election, Australians have paid an extra $2,000 per month on an average mortgage, and lending for the purchase or construction of new homes remains at a 20-year low. Under the former coalition government, interest rates were cut nine times and rose only once, but, in just two years, rates have risen 12 times under Labor. The fact of the matter is that Australians are being locked out of the housing market. Labor's federal budget housing announcements offer no new money, no new ideas and no new homes—nothing for first home buyers and nothing for renters. Labor is clutching at straws and completely out of ideas. By contrast, when the coalition was in government we created the Home Guarantee Scheme, which is now supporting one in three first home buyers. No matter how often Labor tries to take credit for it, it's actually our deal. Since 2019, the coalition's housing policies in government supported more than 300,000 Australians into homeownership. On our watch, there were 160,000 first home buyers in 2021, a 70 per cent increase on the average of the previous decade. The coalition is the party of housing affordability, private home ownership and supporting first home buyers, and we are proud of it. 16:01 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara You can listen to only so much of the nonsense of those opposite, when they literally had a policy that they would not build a single home when they were in government. They were not interested. They said that social housing provision was the responsibility of the states. That's what the previous minister said—that it was the responsibility of the states. Under the Abbott-Morrison-Turnbull coalitions, they said that they weren't going to build social housing. We took a different approach. As soon as we came into government, we established the Housing Australia Future Fund. True to form, when they were in government, they had a policy not to build social homes, and, when they were in opposition, they took that same policy and voted against the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund. They came in here and twisted themselves into a thousand different knots and pieces and put themselves into this absolute twizzle. The truth is that they voted against the construction of social housing homes in this place. Round 1 of the Housing Australia Future Fund applications has closed, and, lo and behold, community housing providers right around the country have lined up to apply for funding and for the funding model that has been very carefully produced by the Minister for Housing. There is an oversubscription to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which I think is a fantastic endorsement of a carefully thought-out policy that is going to, over the long-term, provide a consistent stream of funds and investment into social housing. That is just the first thing that this government has done since coming into government around the provision of housing, and it's all about ensuring that the federal government is at the table, working together with our states and territories to ensure that housing is a priority for this government. Those opposite like to come in here and say, 'There's no new money in this budget.' I commend them on their laziness and their ignorance, because if you actually opened up the budget papers you would read that there are billions of dollars of new investments to go on top of the billions of dollars of investments that have already been made since we came into government. The first one that I want to mention is the $1 billion under the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for the creation of new housing for young people as well as women and children escaping violence. That's not nothing, in my book. A billion dollars for women and children escaping violence is not nothing. Those opposite should reflect on whether they say that that is nothing, because it is not. Nor is investing in the provision of housing for young people. I've spent a lot of time with housing providers recently. I had the absolute honour on Youth Homelessness Matters Day to launch the April edition of Parity,a publication put out by those in the housing sector. It was at the Melbourne City Mission in South Melbourne, in my electorate. It is a publication by the Victorian Council to Homeless Persons. On that day, we heard from young people who had been in and out of the housing sector and in and out of the social housing sector. One of the things that are essential is that for young people to have a home it can't just be any home. It needs to be one that is appropriate for young people; it needs to be one where, for people under the age of 18, there are levels of supervision and support. It needs to have all the wraparound services to ensure that schooling and education and health needs of a young person can be met. One of the things this money will do is go directly towards those young people who have the needs and requirements of a young person so that they can get back on their feet, so that they can get their lives back in order and so that, whatever their circumstances were when they found themselves homeless, those young people know it is not their fault but that they are often a victim of circumstances. This funding going towards those young people is something I am extremely proud of. I'm also extremely proud of the funding going towards the too many people turned away from crisis accommodation and domestic violence shelters. There is new money. There is an ongoing pipeline of work that I am truly proud of. We will continue to invest in affordable housing and we'll continue to work hard to get more people and more Australians into safe and secure homes. 16:06 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper In my electorate of Cowper there's the township of Bellingen—they don't normally vote my way—and there is a group called Housing Matters Action Group. When Housing Matters and the Royal Freemasons, who own a dilapidated aged-care home in Bellingen, came up with a proposal to change that into 42 one- and two-bedroom units for women over 55, I thought it was a brilliant idea. I advocated and fought for it as hard as I could, as did the state member, the member of Oxley, and we both attained $5 million each to put towards changing this old aged-care home into 42 units. All the approvals went through. All the red tape was cut. All the green tape was cut. Nobody suggested it was pork-barrelling, because it was going towards something that would provide housing for women over 55. We know that women over 55 who are facing marriage breakdowns and domestic violence are those at the peak of danger. As we all know, costs have gone up significantly over the past 18 months to two years. We see it in all the funding that has been through. When the RFBI and Housing Matters were getting final approvals and signing everything off, they came back to me and told me the costs had gone up by 30 per cent. That's not unusual. So we wrote to the minister, Minister King. We explained the circumstances. We explained the proposal. We said how important it was. Do you know what the response was? 'No more money. We're not giving you any more money for this project.' That meant the money that was there could only fund 21 units. We went back to the minister and said, 'Can we work within the parameters of the agreement?' They said: 'No. If you're only going to provide 21 units, that is outside the 30 per cent within the agreement.' So now it's all up in the air as to whether or not the Royal Freemasons will go ahead. They're providing the land. They're providing the certainty that these units would get built. The former coalition provided the money—it's not costing any more in those Labor budgets. It has been put aside; it's a line item. Yet Labor comes in here and says how important it is to provide housing. Well, I'm sorry, but the response from the minister's office doesn't tell that tale. I call on the minister to review that. I call on the minister to provide that additional 30 per cent funding for this project, for those women who are facing homelessness in the Bellingen Shire and surrounds. For Labor to come in here and say we don't care about homelessness! There's another project in Kempsey, where we fought for $6.5 million for 26 one- and two-bedroom units for mums and kids fleeing domestic violence and for those on the street—long-term accommodation. So, when you come in here and you accuse us of doing nothing, these are the stories you need to hear. What we don't want to see is division and political partisanship on these very issues. If the minister wants to listen and have a look at that proposal again, I would welcome her up to cut the ribbon. I don't even have to be there. Minister King, you can go up and cut the ribbon. All I'm concerned about is the 42 women over the age of 55 who will have a roof over their heads. 16:11 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck The Liberal Party's descent into deceit knows no bounds—fabrication after falsification. Putting aside even the dubious grammar of this particular MPI, there very well may be genuine criticism or a difference in policy approach worth raising as a matter of public importance. But you would never know it from the utter nonsense the Liberal Party opposition put up in these debates. Do the opposition truly believe, as they bring this motion, that there is anyone anywhere in Australia, from Leichhardt to Forrest, who believes that the housing crisis which the country is facing today and which this government, the Albanese government, is addressing in concert with the states somehow started yesterday? Housing doesn't happen overnight, nor does a housing crisis. The crisis that we now face was caused by the serial failure of successive coalition ministers over the nine too-long years of a coalition government. Where was the Abbott government on housing? Where was the Turnbull government? Where was the Morrison government on housing? In truth, none of these coalition governments could ever get their own house in order, so it's no wonder they weren't able to manage housing policy and left us with the issues that we now face. Given that abject failure, you would think that a reasonable opposition would be just a little contrite and concerned for the people who need housing and would perhaps fall in behind the government's efforts. Instead, we find the opposition trying to block this government's housing agenda at every turn. The Housing Australia Future Fund is a magnificent piece of legacy legislation. It was opposed by those opposite. They voted against it. The opposition voted against billions of dollars of investment in perpetuity for social and affordable housing. The Greens initially voted against it because they saw that they could get some political mileage out of doing so. That has meant that every dollar that comes out of the fund will be delayed by six months. That's the Greens' contribution: delay in affordable housing—disappointing. But the coalition's position is much worse. The opposition voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. We took it to the election. We had a mandate for it. Those opposite love talking about mandates when it suits them. They voted against it. They voted against affordable housing in perpetuity. In other words, when people who need housing access it through programs funded under the Housing Australia Future Fund, they will not be able to thank the coalition. They'll be able to thank the Greens for the delay and they'll be able to trace the existence of that housing back to Labor policy, but they won't be able to thank the opposition for it—not a bit. Thanks for nothing—in perpetuity. I think that was a mistake. I don't just mean a policy mistake. Of course they got the policy wrong. I mean I think it was a big political mistake. I think people are going to judge the coalition quite harshly on it, especially those who need housing. You'd hope that, having made that mistake, the coalition would actually learn from it. They've had some time—we passed the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation in September last year. But, no, they've learnt nothing, because now we have the coalition opposing the Help to Buy legislation. The states are all waiting on it. It is abundantly clear that those on the opposition benches feel particularly uncomfortable in budget week. They should feel even more uncomfortable when speaking on housing policy. Who voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund? Who opposes the Help to Buy scheme? When we've got funds out to the states through the Social Housing Accelerator, who is complaining? Only the coalition. Time and time again, they have voted against our efforts to implement sensible housing policy aimed at increasing supply and affordability. They have obstructed progress at every turn, choosing instead to prioritise their own narrow interests over the needs of the community. And what do we see them doing now? They're talking up the raiding of super accounts for housing, a policy which they all said was a bad idea just a few years ago. The member for Dickson said it was a bad idea in 2017. Senator Hume, then too, said it would push up prices. The raiding of super accounts was roundly criticised by the West Australian last week as a 'really dumb idea'. We are grateful and fortunate to have an Albanese government to fix the housing crisis. 16:16 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies There is an element of theatre to question time and to matters of public importance. I'm sure I'm not alone in recalling emails or calls where the public have wished there was a little bit less theatre. The title of what we're discussing here is 'matters of public importance'. After the day-to-day stresses of cost of living, there is no more important matter to the public right now than housing. I hear it from grandparents who are worried that their children and grandchildren won't have the opportunities that they had. They'll say: 'I know I've done well. I own my house. I have one or two'—or more—'investment properties. Something's got to change.' I hear that again and again. On social media, young people will often express themselves through satire and parody. For those of you on X, I ask you to go and look at the account Reserve Bank of Property. It's humorous but it's cutting. On YouTube, there is a person called Biko Konstantinos who speaks about this every few days, with passion and concern. They do so because the extent of the problem is so bad. The average Australian earns $95,000 a year. The median income is $65,000. Let's look at professions that we care about that take a lot of education and practice. Nurses start off at $62,000 in Victoria, police on $75,000 and teachers on $77,000. We value them and care for them. But, right now, looking at my home state of Victoria, in my home city of Melbourne, for them to save a deposit of 20 per cent it's going to take 21 years. That's the median. Then, assuming they do that or they are fortunate enough to come from a family where their mum and dad or grandparents can bankroll them—and not everyone has that opportunity—the disconnect with those average and median wages that they earn means that, in the entirety of the 321 suburbs of Melbourne, on the average income there are three where they can afford the median house price levels. If you take all the prices on realestate.com.au or domain.com.au and you pick the middle price of that suburb, at that price they can afford only three of the 321 suburbs. With units, it's 21. That's on the average income, which includes billionaires—and we've heard a lot about billionaires this week. On the median income—you pick 10 Victorians and take halfway through their incomes—people can afford zero houses out of the 321 suburbs. There is no home for them. With units, it's zero. Some may say: 'Who buys a house on their own? Who buys a unit on their own? They're usually part of a couple or a household.' We have that data. On the median household income with the median price in the 321 suburbs of Melbourne, that household can afford zero houses and can afford a unit in 15 of the suburbs. That's as good as it gets. That's where we are right now. What does that mean? That means young Australians are giving up on the very dream that their parents and grandparents perhaps took for granted and the very dream that drives migrants to move heaven and earth to come here, like my family and so many in this chamber. What will it mean for generations to come? It will mean that Australia will be a place that is less about hard work, intellect and taking risk and more about whether you are born into the right family and whether you are from a landowning family. That's not the sort of Australia people move heaven and earth to come to. That's not the sort of Australia we pride ourselves in. No government is perfect. There is a lot of whataboutism in this debate, but we have to start by recognising the scale of the problem. It matters to Australians of all generations, and it must matter to us here in this place. 16:21 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide There is nothing as important as housing. It is the first tick in the box when you want a family or a human being to feel secure. You need a roof over your head. That is one of the aspirations of just about every human being around the world. As governments, we very much have a responsibility to ensure that we can provide, through the policies in this place, for people to be able to buy affordable housing or to rent to get a roof over their heads. I was quite surprised when I sat here and heard the shadow minister, the member for Deakin, open his speech. He started off with something like, 'No new money for housing, no new ideas, no new programs, no new money.' For a moment, I thought he may be making a confession about the last 10 years of the former government, where there was no new money, there were no new ideas and there were no new programs. We remember the minister and others back in the Abbott-Turnbull years saying that it was not their responsibility. This was a government wiping its hands of housing, saying it was not its responsibility but the responsibility of state ministers. After 10 years of inaction, they want to come in here and move a matter of public importance such as this. It's shameful. You look at their actions for 10 years—wiping their hands of housing and saying it's not their responsibility but the responsibility of the states. They do nothing for 10 years, and then, as soon as they're in opposition, they want to talk about housing. We saw the cost of housing in the last 10 years rise by approximately 49 per cent and by 30 per cent in the last three years of their government. There was absolute inaction by them then. What did they do? They came up with a botched plan about getting people to use the savings of their superannuation to spend on housing. Not one single house would be built through their proposal, but it would destroy superannuation. It would destroy people's retirement funds, and that's the real reason they want that policy—because they've always been against superannuation. They've never liked it, because it assists workers to retire with dignity. This is a backdoor way of absolutely destroying workers' accumulated funds for their retirement. They voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund again and again, and now they're blocking the Help to Buy scheme. They've done nothing to boost supply but are now planning to increase demand with policies that all experts say will make housing less affordable. In fact, we heard the Assistant Treasurer say that, through their policies, all that will happen is that approximately $79,000 will be added to each property that's sold and there will be a longer line of people competing for housing, which will do nothing for one new house. Absolutely nothing. It's a policy which won't build a single house, a policy which will push up prices and a policy which will ruin people's retirement. That's the plan from those opposite—a plan they themselves have roundly criticised. We heard other speakers quote the Leader of the Opposition, the then housing minister and others. We know that, as I said, housing is so important. Since coming to office, the Minister for Housing on this side has brought the state and territory housing ministers together seven times because it is a real issue and an issue that needs the attention of government to do all that we can. They never brought the housing ministers together at any point in time. The former government's legacy of inaction and poor policies saw housing construction costs increase by 49 per cent in the decade up to 2022 and over 30 per cent just in the last three years. The HomeBuilder program is a case in point. This poorly designed policy, which cost five times what was originally planned, brought forward a surge in construction costs and renovations that stretched supply chains already impacted by the pandemic back then. As the Reserve Bank government pointed out, the results were spiralling construction costs and growing delays. To quote the Leader of the Opposition: I'm good at the sort of pulling down and wrecking part, and then I need to get the builder to clean it all up. They were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired) 16:26 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman It's my pleasure to rise to speak on today's matter of public importance: The Government's failure to address Australia's deteriorating housing crisis. Homeownership has always been the great Australian dream, and history, of course, tells us that the coalition has always been the party of homeownership, leading the way with policies that make it simple and affordable for all Australians who want to own a home to do so. In contrast, history also records that homeownership and rent affordability are always worse under a Labor government. Regardless of the spin, the numbers and data don't lie. Under this Labor government, the number of loans provided for the purchase or construction of new homes is at the lowest level since the data started being recorded in 2002—even worse than the lowest previous year, when another Labor government was in power in 2008. The data also shows us that just 38,397 homes were started in the December quarter last year and just 163,836 were started in the entire 2023 year—both the lowest figures in over a decade. The future also looks even more bleak, with approvals on new dwellings in 2023 the weakest since 2012, another year when the Labor government was in power. Why is this so? There are many factors that contribute to this. First is the crazy immigration policy that has seen immigration reach unprecedented levels. In February alone there were 100,000 immigrants, all of whom need a place to live. This, coupled with the last 25 years of telling our young people that, if they didn't have a university degree, they were stupid and a second-class citizen, has caused us to have massive trades shortages. Let's not forget the 12 interest rate rises that this Labor government has presided over. They have forced the Reserve Bank to use the only mechanism it has—interest rates—to mitigate the poor economic decisions and mismanagement of the Australian economy by this Labor government. Make no mistake: this crisis is due to no other reason than this government's poor handling of the Australian economy. These interest rate rises, of course, flow on to those who rent. Most rental properties are owned by everyday Australian mums and dads as an investment to help them in retirement. Many of these homes have a mortgage that they pay with a combination of the rent they collect and a top-up from their own earnings. When the average mortgage increases by $400 a week, how else can these everyday Aussies meet their mortgage commitments apart from putting up the rents to some degree and then tipping in a few more dollars from their own earnings. I doubt they're going to get a $400-per-week pay rise to cover the increased mortgage payments, so mortgage holders and renters both miss out. The law of supply and demand doesn't stop there. We know that, if there are 500 people looking for a home and there are 200 homes available, the price will be higher as demand outstrips supply. If there are a thousand homes available for those 500 people, the price will be lower as there'll be competition as supply is greater than demand. So we need to ensure we are building more homes faster than the population is growing. This means curbing immigration and ensuring we are doing all we can to get people to take up trades. The budget was so disappointing. There was nothing for new homebuyers but a rise in rental assistance, which in the main, of course, will go into the pockets of landlords. Even community housing providers, in the main, take the entire rental assistance payment of their tenants plus, in some cases, a top-up. So a rise in rent assistance will go straight to them and not to the tenant. Public housing is a joke as well. In the six-year period from 2015 to 2020, the federal government provided $1.7 billion to the Queensland state government for social housing. In that same period, we saw a net increase in public housing of just 241 dwellings. That's an average of over $7,300,000 per home, which is a complete joke and a waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money. For solutions, what should we be doing as governments around the country? First, address the supply-and-demand issue. Reduce immigration until housing supply catches up to the demand. Second, incentivise and encourage young people to take up a trade so we have the workforce to build the homes to meet the demand. Third, stop giving state and territory governments money for housing, and instead give it to not-for-profits like Salvos, BlueCare, Lifeline or the like, and clearly state how many dwellings we expect for the taxpayer funds we provide. Fourth, stop foreign ownerships so only Australian citizens and permanent residents can purchase a home here. Fifth, state and local governments ensure that land is released in a faster manner to ensure we have supply. Sixth, get the economy back under control so the Reserve Bank can lower interest rates and make homeownership more affordable again. And, seventh, allow Australians to use their own super—their own money—to use as a deposit for their first home. 16:31 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Just two days ago, we sat in this place to listen to our wonderful Treasurer, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, deliver a carefully considered, effective budget; therefore, I want to say that the use of the words 'failure' and 'government' in the topic matter of the MPI today is laughable. If those opposite had actually read the budget, they would know why I am compelled to be on my feet today responding. The Albanese Labor government understands that many Australians are facing serious housing challenges after a decade of neglect by the Liberal-National government. It is clear that Australia doesn't have enough homes. This is why the Albanese Labor government is intensifying the construction of new homes right across the country, including in my electorate of Pearce, which is one of the largest and fastest-growing areas in Australia, and we welcome this news greatly. We are building more homes for homebuyers, more homes for renters, more homes for Australians in every single part of the country. The 2024-25 budget includes $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes, more quickly, bringing the Albanese Labor government's new housing initiatives to $32 billion. My electorate of Pearce has nearly 50,000 families who call our fabulous community home. Compared to singles or groups, my Pearce families comprise 80 per cent of our population, compared to 70 per cent Australia wide. We know that Australians need more affordable housing, and for that we need more homes. The Albanese Labor government has a definitive and decisive plan in the budget for this. The Homes for Australia Plan will help meet Australia's ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes from 1 July this year. Constructing homes requires significant time and effort; it's not an instant process. We know this. However, increasing supply stands as the most effective and constant solution to Australia's housing deficit, and the Albanese Labor government doesn't shy away from hard work and supporting fellow Australians. We're also providing relief for renters, who are under increasing pressure. The $6.2 billion in new investment in the budget will rapidly increase construction, with a $1 billion boost for states and territories. We'll provide 20,000 fee-free TAFE and pre-apprenticeship places to enable more tradies to build the homes that Australia is so desperate for. It will help nearly one million Australian households with the cost of rent by delivering $1.9 billion for the first back-to-back increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. Let me repeat that: it will be the very first back-to-back increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. It will provide up to $1.9 billion in concessional finance for community housing providers and other charities. It will deliver additional funding for the new $9.3 billion national agreement on social housing and homelessness, which will begin on 1 July. This includes a doubling of the Commonwealth homelessness fund to $400 million every year, matched by states and territories. It will improve conditions and address overcrowding through an additional $842.8 million investment in remote housing in the Northern Territory. The budget will also include $1 billion in the National Housing Infrastructure Facility towards crisis centres and additional accommodation for women and children who are, sadly, experiencing domestic violence. Our Homes for Australia Plan is working across the board to deliver more help to build, to rent and to buy. The Albanese Labor government understands that we cannot afford to aim low or to lack ambition, which is what those opposite continue to do. They continue to say no. They laugh. This is why our housing reforms are the most significant in a generation and are so incredibly important. To finish off, all of the above signifies the failure of those opposite, who are missing in action. Not only are we building houses; we're building infrastructure right around the country. The Albanese Labor government is clearly doing what we do best: looking after our fellow Australians who have chosen to call our beautiful country home. Whether you were born here or you're an immigrant, you deserve to live somewhere, to be a part of a community, to be loved, to be cared for and to be supported. I am so incredibly proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, who care about community and who don't look at words on a piece of paper and effectively look people in the eye and say, 'We don't care,' which is what those opposite appear to do on a very regular basis. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 2942 BILLS Digital ID Bill 2024 2942

Digital ID Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 2942 16:41 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The House divided. [16:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 87 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. 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. 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. Reid, G. J. 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) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 NOES 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) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. Le, D. 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) Sharkie, R. C. C. 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. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 2943 16:47 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 2943

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 2943 Third Reading 2943 16:48 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 2944

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 2944 16:50 The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that amendments (2) and (4) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:54]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 15 AYES Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Spender, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 75 NOES 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. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 2953 16:58 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 2953

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 2953 Third Reading 2953 16:59 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 2954

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Report from Federation Chamber 2954 Third Reading 2954 16:59 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 2954 COMMITTEES Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee 2954 Membership 2954 17:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. 17:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Ms Daniel, Ms McKenzie and Mr Wallace be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. Question agreed to. BILLS 2954 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 2954

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

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

Second Reading 2954 17:02 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo As we know, tax is imposed at a rate of 15 per cent on earnings equal to the percentage of superannuation balances that exceed $3 million for an income year. What the government is looking to do here, with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, is to impose an additional tax, above the existing 15 per cent, bringing the total tax payable on superannuation balances above $3 million to 30 per cent. That sounds reasonable in the sense that we only have around 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million, but my concern with this bill is that there is no indexation. While we're only talking about 0.5 per cent—less than one per cent—of superannuation accounts right now, we know that, with inflation, it won't be long before that become two per cent, five per cent or 10 per cent. In future generations, $3 million is probably not going to be considered a lot. While the underlying principle with respect to the balance makes sense, I have a real concern about what is effectively a version of bracket creep. We will be increasing tax on superannuation, and in the perhaps not-too-distant future $3 million will not be considered a very substantial superannuation balance. I'd also like to talk briefly about the other issue of concern, which is that this tax will be applied to unrealised gains. This violates the principle of the Australian tax system that capital gains taxes are paid on realisation and not accrual. Accrual taxation of gains creates valuation and liquidity issues. This is particularly problematic for those who have placed large assets into super funds, such as farms and businesses—and that will very much affect many constituents in my electorate. The other challenge is that a farming property's value fluctuates, perhaps not so much in my electorate but more broadly, across more marginal farming land. Those valuations can fluctuate between 20 and 30 per cent, particularly in times of drought, in times of flood, in times of disaster, when we know that the overall value can diminish. So, we could potentially have people paying tax on those unrealised values, and potentially that value could fall. I had a constituent in my electorate not very long ago who wanted to talk about why we don't have a national superannuation fund—a fund that we as Australian citizens could choose to put our retirement savings into. It would not be a national fund dictated to or managed, or a cash flow option for unions or indeed private organisations, but an Australian fund that belonged to Australians and was managed by government. Many nations have this. I guess you could say we have something similar in the Future Fund. I do hope that this government or future governments will consider this idea, which I think is a very noble one. I think that potentially there are many Australians who would like to put their money into, effectively, a fund to grow Australia, a fund to support Australia, a fund to invest in Australia. My other concern with this piece of legislation is that there is no transition period. Those who are already retired may not be able to restructure their superannuation arrangements. As I said previously, businesses and farmers will, I think, be disproportionately negatively affected by this legislation. I hope the government addresses particularly the indexation part of this bill. What might seem like a bit of a tax on very wealthy people now will perhaps in decades to come not be considered so. It's very difficult for governments to walk away from tax revenue streams. So I think if we're going to do this piece of legislation we need to make it fairer. I think we need to have indexation and I think we need to address the issue with respect to unrealised gains. Thank you. 17:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson For the benefit of the House, can I suggest that what we do now—I think the member for Mayo was the last speaker listed to speak on this bill—is deal with the second reading amendment and the second reading vote and, at the end of that, when the Speaker announces that we are moving to consideration in detail, I'll move that consideration on detail be adjourned and that it become an order of the day for the next sitting. At that point I will move a suspension of standing orders in the terms that have been agreed with the member for Warringah and the opposition, which would then allow a one-hour debate from that time, which can be extended if we require. For people who might want to speak—just to give an early indication—the whips have not filled the time. It's the sort of issue where sometimes people do spontaneously want to come to the chamber and speak. So, that opportunity is certainly there, and it is there deliberately, given the gravity of it. But I suggest that if we finish the second reading debate now, have the second reading amendment and then the second reading vote, then adjourn, and then move to the debate that's been the subject of discussion during the course of the day. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.    

The House divided. [17:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 10 AYES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. (Teller) Wilkie, A. D. 55 NOES Ananda-Rajah, M. Broadbent, R. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Goodenough, I. R. Hill, J. C. Howarth, L. R. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Khalil, P. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:22 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that this bill be now read a second time.    

The House divided. [17:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

76 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) 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. 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. 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. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 64 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. 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) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

 COMMITTEES 2957 COMMITTEES Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Committee 2957 Membership 2957 17:31 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. 17:31 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That Ms Claydon, Dr Mulino, Mr Rae and Ms Thwaites be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 2957 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 2957 17:31 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Member for Warringah moving a motion without notice immediately; (2) debate on the motion being limited to one hour, unless a Minister requires an extension of time for a specified period; (3) time limits for Members speaking on the debate being: (a) mover—10 minutes; (b) seconder—10 minutes; (c) all other speakers—5 minutes; (4) amendments to the motion not being permitted; (5) the question on the motion being put at the conclusion of the allotted time or if no further Members rise to speak; and (6) any variation to the arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. This is the result of discussions that have happened across the chamber with the full cooperation of the member for Warringah following the seeking of leave to move a motion earlier today. The nature of this debate is such that the time limit is one hour. Obviously, given the subject matter, if we do end up with one or two people, as we get closer to the hour, particularly wanting to speak and the clock running short, please come and talk to the minister at the table about extending the time a little bit. We do have some limits, because there's a minimum period of time for which parliament needs to be suspended so that the attendants can prepare the House for the budget reply speech tonight. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 2958 MOTIONS Domestic and Family Violence 2958 17:33 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I move: That the House: (1) notes that: (a) currently in Australia, one woman every four days is murdered by her current or former partner and 2.3 million Australian women have experienced violence from an intimate partner; (b) as of 16 May 2024, at least 21 women have been allegedly murdered by a current or former intimate partner and at least another 11 women allegedly killed in violent acts by male perpetrators in Australia this year; (c) the rate of women killed by a current or former intimate partner in Australia increased by 28 per cent in 2022-23, compared to the previous year; and (2) further notes that some in the women's safety sector have called for immediate action and urgent investment increases in the following areas to keep women safe now and achieve the 10 year goal of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, including: (a) frontline services for domestic, family and sexual violence, including crisis services, refuges, emergency housing and perpetrator interventions; (b) Legal Aid and Women's Legal Services Australia to allow more women to access the legal help they require; (c) undertaking an immediate national review of sentencing laws, with a special focus on strengthening state and territory level responses with use of AVOs, electronic monitoring of domestic violence and sexual assault offenders, and removal of character references during sentencing in domestic violence cases; (d) establishing a national database to record all those convicted of family, domestic and sexual violence offences; (e) establishing a national mechanism to track family, domestic and sexual violence deaths across all states and territories to identify red flags and risk factors; and (f) community education and prevention work including respectful relationships education to bring about culture change. I thank the Leader of the House and the opposition for allowing this motion to be moved. I am angry. Australian women are angry. They are frustrated and they are tired. Too many women are being killed by men, by domestic violence from current and former intimate partners. It is a national crisis and it needs an emergency response. Sixty-four women were killed by domestic violence in Australia in 2023. So far in 2024, according to Destroy the Joint, at least 28 women have allegedly been killed by domestic violence. That means on average in Australia one women is murdered by her current or former partner every four days. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are three times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women, 11 more times likely to die due to assault and 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of that violence. When two young men died in New South Wales, the New South Wales government introduced urgent mandatory sentences for one-punch attacks. When it was terrorism, the laws were changed urgently to jail people on apprehended risks of crime. That is the urgency we seek. But when Australian men kill Australian women, the government national plan is to take 10 years. I appreciate there is much sentiment to the work on this, but what we need is a crisis response—this is a crisis situation—a mobilisation of resources, urgent legislation. Business as usual is simply not good enough. This week we have had the handing down of the budget and we cannot have a situation where we move on from that to a situation where there is more of the same. So many services, so many people are desperately looking to this place, to all of us here, to make the change needed, to increase the urgency, to respond to a crisis with that kind of emergency response. Instead, when another woman becomes a domestic violence statistic, we continue to witness sympathy and handwringing. I'm not saying that is not genuine. But we always talk about it being complex and how it will take time, and I don't disagree. The why, the cause, behind this is complex, and culture change will take time. But there are very real levers to keep women safe now that can be pulled immediately and that is what I want to speak about. We need an urgent injection of funding for legal aid services, for front-line services. We need to urgently look at this problem. Whilst the national cabinet came together, there were many disappointed that there were no urgent immediate actions that we could really grasp and say, 'This will change women's safety now. This will keep women safe. It will keep them alive.' It is so common that I am sure every member in this place has heard from services in their electorates that they are turning away more and more women every week. This can be stopped and it can be stopped now. We hear repeatedly about court processes that fail. Every time there is an horrific murder, we hear from the investigation that ensues that time and time again the processes have failed. But there is no collation of that and there is no change in the laws. We have not come in here and seen any immediate changes. Access to legal aid and legal services are essential in interactions with the courts. I know that; I have been there as an advocate—as a barrister. This is a lever that the government can pull now and could have pulled in its budget, but it didn't. Many walked away disappointed by that. Urgent additional funding can be allocated now. At the very least, if we aren't going to change the laws and the sentencing laws immediately, and get the states to agree to do that, then we should equip them with legal aid—with some advice—so they can at least engage with the legal system and get it to work to its best advantage. These changes can be made now, they can be done quickly and they can save women's lives. While I have been in this place we've had condolences and we've had moments when everyone is sorry and commits to work and do better. But what we need to do urgently is to challenge the laws which are failing to keep women safe and to make that urgent injection of funding. What else is the government, is the parliament, here for but to keep the community safe? It's ultimately that social licence—the absolute commitment. It's why there is so much support for huge spends on the defence budget; it's because we agree as a society that we keep our community safe. But women within our community are not safe; we are not safe within it. So I'm calling on the federal government to commit an extra billion dollars a year to frontline services—to commit to long-term funding of those services to ensure they stop turning women away and that they have sufficient space, beds, crisis services, community education and ongoing consistent prevention work. It's why I was so disappointed and frustrated with the budget: there was nothing new announced. Whilst I welcome the small amount of support that there is for individual women who can access the Staying Home Leaving Violence support, more is needed. Domestic violence is estimated to cost the economy some one to two per cent of GDP. In the words of Dr Angela Jackson, that gives us a measure of the sense of urgency and of the scale of the response that we should be committing to to ensure we are saving that money—saving that lost GDP—by investing in the services that will produce the outcomes we want. One to two per cent of GDP is 50-odd billion dollars that we are losing because of this scourge. We can save that money by putting the kind of money that's needed into frontline services and legal aid. That sense of urgency is what we are calling for. I welcome that everyone is noting that in this debate, but we then need to see progress. So many NGOs desperately want to see that action from the government. It is fantastic to see bipartisan support in acknowledging the scale of the problem but we now need to move to that step change. We've seen positive developments this week in New South Wales, where they are now committed to fully funding Staying Home Leaving Violence across the state. This program has been shown to work but it hasn't been delivered in every LGA. Of course, the northern beaches completely missed out, but that is now going to change. Warringah will be included, and this will save women's lives. In Warringah, northern beaches women's shelters are currently turning away approximately 25 women each month because they're full. The shelters have applied for more funding to ensure they can grow their facilities under the Safer Place program, but they have been rejected because they don't fit within the bureaucratic boundaries and guidelines within that program. They are funded to help 208 women a year, and last year they helped some 836. So we need to get past the bureaucratic system that's preventing them from being able to provide more. The Safe Places Inclusion Round is a great initiative, but it's useless if it doesn't deliver the funding. So I call on everyone in this place: please, let's move to save women's lives. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is there a seconder for the motion? 17:44 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I second the motion from the member for Warringah. This budget was the moment for comprehensive and properly funded measures to prevent violence against women—for words to turn into meaningful action and for the scale of the investment to reflect the national emergency. But I'm afraid that, despite the horror of the last three months and despite the national protests that followed the spate of murders, this budget didn't deliver enough for women and their children. Where was the money for frontline family, domestic and sexual violence services? The sector is outraged, and rightly so. Women's legal services turn away an estimated 1,000 women a week, 52,000 every year, due to lack of capacity. Sexual violence trauma counselling services around the country have dire waiting lists, with many victims-survivors having to wait months. Critical men's-behaviour-change services that can break the cycle of violence desperately need funding to keep their doors open. Frontline services need sustainable, consistent and certain investment now, not in the future—now. Buck-passing between state and federal governments must stop. This is the moment for cohesive action. We can no longer say this is too hard. Desperate women and children who need support to leave violent men are not getting the help that they need, and as a result they're trapped in abusive relationships. Think for a moment, if you haven't been in that situation, of how terrifying their daily lives must be. And, for those who do leave, it's dire. Each night more than 200 women and children across Victoria are being sent to motels because there aren't enough crisis accommodation places available. When victims-survivors are placed in motels there's no onsite security, monitoring or support, and motels carry significant risks for victims-survivors, including suicidality and easy access for perpetrators. Several women in this situation have taken their own lives this year in Melbourne. Women and children escaping violence need 24/7 wraparound support, not a lonely and life-threatening motel room. The government talks a lot about gender-responsive budgeting. Well, right now we have a gender based violence national emergency. On average in Australia right now, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every four days, while one in three women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15. So far, in 2024, it's Hannah McGuire, Molly Ticehurst, Rebecca Young—and on and on and on it goes. The Australian Institute of Criminology report released a couple of weeks ago showed that the rate of women killed by an intimate partner in Australia is up by 28 per cent. Coercive control, using technology as a weapon, trackers in teddy bears, hidden cameras in fridges, abuse via bank transfers—all are tactics used by perpetrators. Imagine, for a moment, going to the fridge to take out the milk and getting a message on the smart screen that says, 'I'm watching you.' Imagine, for a moment, logging into your bank account and seeing a series of 1c transactions with messages such as: 'I know where the kids are.' This is happening. As Dr Angela Jackson, National Chair of the Women in Economics Network, told the National Press Club recently, the budget should have anticipated rising family and domestic violence—rising, worsening. Where was this anticipation in the budget? Where was the understanding of the link between women's economic insecurity and women's safety? Financial insecurity is a factor in perpetuating violence. Around one in five women return to violent partners because they have no financial support or nowhere to go. From the government, the $5,000 to leave is welcome, but in isolation it simply won't be enough. More than 200 women leaders wrote to the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the budget, urging him to provide economic security for women leaving violence by raising the rate of JobSeeker. This did not happen, even with unemployment benefits in Australia half the OECD average. The government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent, but this is only $11 a week for a single mother with one or two children. The government expanded eligibility for the single parenting payment in the last May budget, but this payment remains wholly inadequate for ensuring that single parents and their children do not live in poverty. Where was the recognition of how perpetrators are weaponising the system, how the justice system is used against women and how AVOs are failing? The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee report both recommended delinking child support from family payments. This is a tool of financial abuse. I'm disappointed that the government hasn't yet invested in proper data collection for family homicides. To better identify risk, we need consolidated data to identify red flags that are being missed in the system. Data is critical in driving down men's violence against women. There were some gains for women in this budget: $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children escaping violence. But frontline services are asking: when and where will these houses be available? The Treasurer spoke about unavoidable spending in his budget speech. Well, women's safety should have been unavoidable spending. The federal government has the levers to pull to change the lives of women and children affected by family and domestic violence. I note the Prime Minister says this is personal. It is personal—for many women and children. For those watching today: I see you. Those I know, those I don't know: I see you. I hope and expect that the government and the opposition will support this motion and, in noting it, that they will now act with bipartisan urgency. The family home is the most dangerous place for an Australian woman, and surely that is a national emergency. 17:51 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I too rise to speak on the motion by the member for Warringah. I know her commitment and everyone's commitment to ending violence against women and children. I know that all members in this House agree that family, domestic and sexual violence destroys lives and that any life lost to gender based violence is one too many. We know the impact of this violence extends throughout communities. It is a national crisis, and indeed it has been for some time, and it must end. The safety of women and children experiencing violence is a priority for the Albanese Labor government, and it has been since day one. Indeed, all Australian governments are united in our shared goal to end family, domestic and sexual violence in a generation. We're all committed to our work under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, which has been bolstered by our investment of more than $3.4 billion so far. We must acknowledge in this debate also that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are disproportionately impacted by domestic, family and sexual violence. It's important that we all acknowledge that. Tuesday night's budget, as we heard, will deliver $925.2 million over five years to provide financial support and support services for victims-survivors leaving a violent intimate partner relationship, by permanently establishing the Leaving Violence Program. Victims-survivors will now have the certainty of knowing that, if they need it, there will be a safety net where they can access up to $5,000 in financial support as well as safety planning, risk assessment and referrals to support pathways. The budget includes a new decision to direct a billion dollars of funding towards crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. This decision will supplement the more than $9 billion five-year National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness. We are also investing heavily in improving information sharing and policing through the National Criminal Intelligence System, building an evidence base on the perpetration of family, domestic and sexual violence. We're injecting urgent funding into the legal assistance sector and investing in women's economic equality by paying superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. This is all on top of the significant work that our government has led over the past two years. It includes reforms to family law, justice responses to sexual violence, national principles to address coercive control and the appointment of the first ever Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, who is ensuring that the voices of victims-survivors, their lived experience, is at the heart of advice to government. Of course, I'm very proud that one of the first bills we passed in this parliament legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for all employees. Across previous budgets we've boosted funding to frontline services. This has included delivering funding to the states and territories for frontline workers and restoring funding for services which were running out. We continue to deliver more safe places for women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence, which will assist more than 2,800 women and children each year with an additional 720 new places available under the next round. We're putting the focus on perpetrators by developing a national risk assessment framework, as well as trialling new perpetrator interventions. These are just some of the many actions our government has taken. We all know there is more to do. We all acknowledge that. All of us, as governments at all levels, need to do more—and the community as well. Governments, the community and business need to work together to end violence against women and children, and we must all continue to make that commitment. We have demonstrated our commitment as a government over these last two years, which sees our record investment in women's safety go to $3.4 billion. We take this very seriously. In late April, we saw thousands across the country march at rallies against gender based violence. I attended the rally on the Gold Coast and spoke about the government's actions. I outlined our record funding and our commitment to ending violence against women and children in a generation. I also spoke about my time as a former frontline police officer, in which I attended literally hundreds of situations involving domestic violence. I have stood in the lounge rooms and kitchens and seen firsthand the destruction this causes for women and children. For anyone listening today or watching, if you need help, call 000 if it's life-threatening, or please call 1800RESPECT—that's 1800737732—for support. The fact is one life lost is too many, and the deaths of women at the hands of men have to end. 17:56 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Janice Walker; Alison Robinson; Nerol Doble; Alana Martin; Keira Marshall; Bonnie Lee Anderson; Donna Baraket; a 26-year-old Western Australian woman; Amarjit Kaur Sardar; Rebecca Young; Min 'Sue' Cho; Natasha Nibizi; Joanne Perry; a 60-year-old New South Wales woman; Chaithanya 'Swetha' Madhagani; a 66-year-old Western Australian woman; Hannah McGuire; Molly Ticehurst; Emma Bates; Erica Hay; Yolonda Mumbulla; and Joan Mary Drane—these are the names or descriptions of women who have been killed at the hands of their partners this year already. It is a national tragedy. As I move around the country meeting with community groups, support services and small-business owners, the domestic violence crisis is what women are raising with me, more than anything else, as one of Australia's biggest issues. The sector is experiencing double or even triple the need for client support. This is a good sign, as women are feeling supported to come forward and seek assistance. However, we need more support workers on the ground in our regions helping women detach safely from men who use family violence. Improving the safety of women and girls is above politics. Too many women have been killed as a result of violence in 2024. The numbers are going in the wrong direction, and immediate action is required. Unfortunately, governments alone cannot fix this crisis. A lot is about culture and education. But, to the extent that governments can contribute to the solution, they must pull on every lever. It requires all levels of governments to continue to work together, because, from bail laws to federally funded support programs, the policy levers span across Commonwealth and state lines. The coalition has repeatedly committed to working with the government to combat the scourge of domestic violence in Australia. Every woman who has lost their life deserves this, and every single family member or friend who has lost a loved one needs to know that they're not alone. But it's also vital that, when governments make commitments to the women of Australia, they deliver on them. The Albanese Labor government committed 500 frontline service and community workers to support people experiencing family and domestic violence. This was a commitment that was funded back in October 2022. To date, we're yet to see enough of these critical community workers on the ground, particularly in rural and regional communities. The sector is experiencing double or even triple the need for client support, and some areas are yet to see any extra workers on the ground. Senator Liddle, in the other place, uncovered that only two family and domestic violence workers had been employed by February 2024. Minister Rishworth responded in March, saying that actually 17 full-time-equivalent workers were in place. The latest figure is around the 40 mark. Senator Liddle has since discovered that some of these workers are not new. The money has gone to turning part-time contracts to full time, and paperwork has gone out in some states only in the last week or two. Where policies are announced, the Prime Minister must also prioritise the delivery, so I am respectfully asking the Prime Minister to please urgently prioritise the 500 community workers that were promised and budgeted for in the October 2022 budget. I support members bringing attention to this issue at every opportunity and I commend those involved in today's motion. There should be and there will be many more. If I reflect on my 20-odd years in this place, we have become very good at breaking the silence but not at breaking the cycle. As I and many women and men stood at rallies around the country recently, hearing the voices of the women who stepped forward on that day to recount the heartbreaking stories that have become all too familiar, one thing that really struck me was that, in every woman's case, their family and community knew exactly what needed to happen to keep that woman alive, and those actions were not taken. But, in every case, families and communities could relay the chain of events, the series of occurrences, where the intervention should have happened. I know we have all talked about our strong records. The coalition delivered $3.4 billion in 2022-23 and $2.1 billion, including $1.3 billion to drive women's safety, in the subsequent budget. But we all know that more always needs to be done. 18:01 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I've had many constituents in Curtin meet with me or write to me about their personal experiences with violence against women. The thing that strikes me every time is how these women are having to fight against an entire system. From the YouTube personalities modelling misogyny to violent porn, to the social stigma of being a victim of violence, to the lack of adequate funding for services, to the lack of alternative housing options, to the weaponisation of the justice, child-support and family court systems and the poverty that follows, the chips are stacked. I worked in community services and saw the way that frontline services can only support a fraction of the women who come to them. In one rural town, one of our services could accommodate five women with their children escaping violence. They had 100 people on their books needing support. So far this year in WA there have been 3,300 breaches of family violence restraining orders. Anecdotally, so many women ask: what is the point of getting a restraining order? For me, like so many others, this issue is personal. Last year my sister was attacked with an axe by a man known to her. The restraining order she had against him had no effect at all. He very nearly killed her, and I am now seeing the ongoing consequences of that violence in my own family. Her situation was not domestic violence, but it was gendered violence. In domestic violence so often women suffer in silence because they know the system can't protect them, and this topic is shrouded in shame. When you look at this complete picture it is hard to believe the words we hear in this House today—that we all care about this issue and we want change. What is missing is a sense of urgency. Actions will speak louder than the words we hear today. This motion includes a list of actions that the experts are saying are needed: more funding for frontline services and Legal Aid, a review of sentencing laws, a database of offenders, and community education and prevention work to bring cultural change. Some of these actions can happen this year. Some will take longer. But they all must start this year. We can't accept that this is good enough. Every Australian needs to ask themselves how they can contribute to changing the narrative and shaping the future. This is everyone's problem. I'm grateful for this motion and I deeply hope that this motion can translate into action from all levels of government and from our sporting clubs, schools, community groups, families, and individuals. I commend this motion to the House. 18:04 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this motion to the House tonight. Everyone who is going to speak on it and the many who won't get a chance to speak on it yet are determined, as am I, to see the end of violence against women and children in our nation. There's not a woman I know who isn't frustrated, who isn't angry, who doesn't want to see an end to male violence in this country. Many of us, and I'm not exceptional in this regard, have stood in this parliament each and every year for more than 10 years, calling out every woman that has been killed in this country. It's the toughest speech I ever give in this place. So there are no bones about the determination of this government, Australia's first-ever majority female government, to see an end to male violence in Australia and to see an end to violence against women and children within a generation. No government in Australia has ever had that ambition. I know that we are joined by everybody in that ambition, and for that I think we should all be very grateful, because it will take the most determined effort of every single person in this parliament, every single person in our communities and every single person in our workplaces to turn what has been a shocking trajectory in this country. There is nobody here who would want to not shine a very big light on the seriousness of violence in this country. I think the ongoing consequences—the devastating, cumulative and long-lasting consequences—of this violence are something we all need to be very, very mindful of. There is no short-term fix for this, and I think anybody who's worked in the sector knows that. There are very few women in this House who are not either a direct survivor of violence or, as we've heard in many stories, very closely connected to it, so we carry that scar. We wear that every day in this chamber, and it is a heavy burden. It is a heavy burden that all women in Australia have carried for far too long, in my view. I really do look forward to seeing many more men stand up and join us, because it's going to take the most enormous change in male culture in this country to turn this right around, and I welcome the leadership from this government in doing that. I acknowledge that there are some terrific flags to suggest that we are in a position to really deliver on that ambition of ending violence against women and children in a generation, but it will take determined effort from each and every one of us. There are things that I have campaigned on for more than 10 years of my life that we are only just now dealing with in this parliament: paid domestic and family violence leave; and the fact that we have finally got rid of this outrageous presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in Australian law reform, which put many, many women and kids in danger unnecessarily for a long time. These are important hallmarks. Making sure that there are adequately funded and supported services is absolutely an essential part of that. Also, the role of this parliament is going to have to be to do the really long, hard yards. No-one is going to be able just to pat themselves on the back at the end of this term and say, 'Job done,' that's for sure. So it is important that we have motions like this. I think it gives us all have an opportunity to recommit ourselves, to refocus and to say that we're not going to let Australian women down again. It is our job to do everything we can here. We should be hauling in every level of government and everybody in our communities to join us in this task, because that's what it will take to turn this around. I really hope that this debate today is an opportunity to see every single person in this parliament reaffirm their commitment to ending violence against women and children, and doing it now. 18:09 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I don't stand here at the dispatch box and pretend to know how it feels to not be able to go for a walk on your own or down an alleyway by yourself or to be under a roof with a partner and not be sure how they're going to react when they come home at the end of the day. I don't pretend to know how that feels at all. What I do know, having been in the role of shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence and having travelled around Australia and spoken to the agencies, victims-survivors and police officers, is that we have to—we must—invest in prevention and intervention. We must match dollar for dollar in every single budget until we resolve this critical issue. We have to look at changes in prevention and intervention rather than to response and recovery. I appreciate this motion on gendered violence, and thank you to the member for Warringah for putting the motion on. I agree with everything that's in there. But much of it is reactionary. It is response and recovery. What I am being told on the ground out there by the agencies—by those who provide the services to victims-survivors, to women and children—is that, until we treat the root problem, this will continue. From when I was a young police officer in Kempsey in 1989 up to my being the member there today, nothing has changed. In fact, domestic violence has only become worse because we're not treating the root cause. Let's not make any bones about it: the root cause is men with behavioural issues—broken men. Until we deal with and treat those broken men, this will continue. We've got to invest in men's behavioural programs. I've seen extremely successful ones in Queensland and in Tasmania. This isn't rewarding men for their behaviour. We have to put that mindset aside. It's about trying to change their core. I've seen men who have been offenders and should be punished go back and become presenters on those men's behavioural changes, because what they learnt was so profound. They identified their behaviour, and it broke that generational cycle. We know that young boys who see and experience domestic violence from their fathers or from their mothers' partners are more likely to become offenders when they get older. If we can break that cycle, we can make real change. We also need to insert respectful relationships into the national curriculum—not one day a year, not one day a month. It has to be reading, writing, arithmetic and respectful relationships. I had the pleasure and the privilege of speaking to the education minister of Indonesia. He's a tech billionaire, and the president asked him to become education minister. The first thing he did was implement respectful relationships in their curriculum, from kindergarten to year 12. After two years, they were seeing in the classrooms a change in the way people treated each other—not just boys to girls, but the way children and teenagers treated each other, because it was in the curriculum every week. They're tested on it, and they have to pass that test to matriculate. Just as the support workers say to me: until we implement all of these measures and deal with the root cause, we will eternally be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. 18:15 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I want to thank the member for Warringah for bringing this important motion into this parliament. It was only this morning that I stood in the Federation Chamber and talked about the ending of violence against women and children and that that should be a national priority for this country. The levels of domestic, family and sexual violence across the Northern Territory are unacceptably high, particularly in my electorate of Lingiari. In fact, the Northern Territory has some of the highest rates of domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia, if not the world. Women in remote and regional communities in my electorate are 25 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence than women in major cities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience some of the highest rates of physical violence, resulting in injuries that affect brain function and that can cause permanent disability from severe head trauma. That was part of the work that I spent too many years doing—and I'm not going to count them—as the local member. Before I came to the federal parliament. I was a member of the Northern Territory parliament for 12 years. I walked in many rallies with people like Rosalie Kunoth-Monks and Alison Anderson. There was a famous woman, Kumarn Rubuntja, who led the way in Alice Springs and who was brutally murdered at the hands of her husband. Part of what we need to do—and I was listening to the former speaker and listening to you, Deputy Speaker Claydon—is get a shift amongst our men. There has to be a critical shift. I know that, in the regional and remote communities that I visit in my electorate of Lingiari, there is a lot of conversation between the women and the men about the men needing to stand up and change. Recently all the men in the Central Land Council stood up and passed a resolution that violence against their women must end. So Aboriginal men do want to be part of the solution. We have to start bringing them in and allowing them to be that solution so that our young boys and our young men change the way in which they think. They think it's their right to pummel their wives, if not kill them. When I was elected to the federal parliament, the Northern Territory government at the time was lifting the stronger futures legislation. I talked in my maiden speech about how alcohol is probably the No. 1 factor and cause of a lot of this violence. I want to take the time to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister. I don't say this just because I'm on this side. I've had a lot of conversations with the Prime Minister, and I want to acknowledge his leadership. I acknowledge Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Women; and Amanda Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services. I want to quickly acknowledge the work that I'm doing in the Northern Territory with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister Linda Burney; and the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. I think one of the speakers talked about the 500 women. We're trying to look at how we can develop health promotion. We need bilingual speakers who can work within this space. That takes time because you've got to be able to recruit the right people. And it's not just women in this space. We don't just need women to be the bilingual speakers to work towards this issue. We have to recruit and try to get some of our men in there. This is a harrowing motion. I have seen too many women killed. My own niece was killed at the hands of her husband. She suffered over three nights of being brutally bashed before she couldn't take the beating anymore and she died. I think all of us have these stories. They're terrible stories. You're right, Member for Warringah; we've got to get some outcomes out of that. But I am proud to be part of this government, who is doing something, because we can talk about it and we can feel it, but we've got to do something about it, and we are. 18:20 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I won't speak for very long. I'm not really prepared for this speech, but I feel compelled to rise again in this place to speak on this issue. I think I have probably spoken on this issue in this place more than any other issue that I have spoken on in this place. But nothing really seems to change. Everybody here I know is really well intentioned. Everybody feels this despair, this desperation, to do something about this. But it's not changing, and it's not good intentions that are going to change that. We need to be very intentional about how we are directing our funding. It's not enough for us to go out and say we're investing record funding into addressing this issue if we're just throwing it into the wind. We know that there's more work needed in prevention and there's more work needed in frontline services. Every time I speak in this place on this issue, I get a flurry of correspondence to my office with more stories—more horrible stories—of the circumstances in which women in our country are living now, every day; there were two yesterday. It is bigger, I think, than we even realise it is. It comes to our attention when women die, but there are women living in extraordinarily horrible situations every single day in this country, and we aren't seeing them. I acknowledge that the government has attempted to address that in this budget with their leaving violence payments. It's not enough, and I don't think it's the right place to direct that funding. That's when women are at the most risk—when they're leaving. And $5,000 is not a lot of help to leave. We're hearing that through our office through the trial of that program. It's difficult to access, eligibility is not straightforward and people are waiting too long to get that. I acknowledge the work that the government have done since they have come to office on all of the measures that we've heard about. They are good and welcome, but we have to do more. I am pleading with you as somebody who does have lived experience of this, as I know many others in this place do. It ruins people's lives forever, even if they survive it. Please do everything you can. Do more for frontline services. They have the answers. They're doing the work. But they're doing it on the smell of an oily rag. Please, please do more. 18:22 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I too thank the member for Warringah for bringing this very important motion, and I thank all the speakers that we've had here tonight, because it is clear that this is something that this parliament and of course this government do take very seriously. I do want to especially thank the member for Lingiari for bringing the perspective from her electorate and for bringing the perspective of First Nations women to this discussion because it is so clear that we must have First Nations women front and foremost in how we are addressing violence against women in First Nations communities. I pay absolute respect to the work I know you have done over so many years in such a difficult space. So thank you to you. Violence against women is a national crisis. It is, in fact, our national shame. Like so many Australian women and, I know, women in this place, I am tired, I am angry and I am frustrated. But I am also heartened because I do think what we have at the moment is a government that is prepared to look at this deep and enduring issue at a systemic level, at the type of level where you start to make change, probably not as quickly as we'd like it—definitely not as quickly as we'd like it. We are definitely not shifting everything from 'terrible' to 'done' in five minutes. But this is a government that is prepared to do the work at all levels—prevention—a government that is investing in services, a government that is doing national work on law reform and safety and a government that is doing national work on providing housing and safe places for women and children who need to leave family and domestic violence. This work hasn't just come out of nowhere. It has in fact been informed by the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This plan was informed by victims-survivors. It was informed by the people who have lived experience of this terrible national shame. It was informed by the people who do the frontline work with them. We can't lose hold of all of that good work, because those women, those people, deserve better from us in this place than for us to think that their voices, all that effort they put into that plan, should be swept aside. We've got to stay true to their intent, and we've got to meet the very ambitious goal that this government has set to end violence against women and children in a generation. As I said, I wish this could happen more quickly than in a generation, but let's be honest: it is generations in the making. I am not the first woman who has stood in this chamber and made this speech. As the Deputy Speaker said earlier, there have been so many women over the years who have called this out, who have called for action. As I said, what I think is different at this stage is that we are getting action at a systemic level. In many ways I'm one of those who thought this generational shift would have already happened. We saw younger people, particularly younger men, being brought up in a new world where violence against women wasn't being seen as an acceptable thing to do. We thought the gender norms and the disrespect shown to women, which we know contribute to the violence against women, would no longer be seen as acceptable, would no longer be seen as something that you talk about with your mates. I'm really disappointed that does not seem to be the case. From what we've seen we know that so much of that these days does seem to be driven by online behaviour. This is something that governments have to tackle, but it is also something our entire community has to tackle. I do think there is a particular role for men in this space. There's a role for men to tell their sons that it's not cool to follow that influencer bro on social media, that he's not the guy you look to for information about how you should treat women. There's a role for men to show their sons how they should grow up to respect women and to see power dynamics in the relationships with the women in their lives. That is an area that I know we are tackling as a government, but it is also an area that needs to have particular work done on it right across our community. I want to also touch on the fact that, for the first time ever, we had a National Cabinet dedicated to this issue. I know that can sound like it doesn't mean much in terms of action, but for the first time the leaders of every state and territory and our national leader got together to talk about this particular issue. It's a start. There's a lot more to do. This government will continue to drive it. I hope the entire parliament works with us. 18:28 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise this evening, like so many here in this chamber, to support this motion moved by the member for Warringah. I thank her for bringing it forward and I thank every member who has made a contribution; there's not a word I don't agree with. This is a deep and deeply distressing issue. I want to acknowledge the words of the member for Lingiari, who drew attention to rural and regional issues, and in particular the issues that face our First Nations women and their families. I want to add some more about rural and regional Australia, because it's really important. I absolutely support every part of what the member for Warringah is calling for, but we must always ensure that we are context specific. I have met, and continue to meet, many frontline services, including people from Women's Health Goulburn North East, Centre Against Violence, the No to Violence group, the Federation for Community Legal Centres and the CWA, as well as the many midwives I know. I also have my own lived experience. I know that if you are a woman experiencing family and domestic violence and you live in the country it's really hard to access services without people finding out. You're likely to know the receptionist at the doctor or the people at the baby health clinic. You are absolutely constrained by the number of services that are even available to you. There is also the deeply disturbing research that shows that intimate partner violence in rural and urban areas share similar risks, but the outcomes are worse for rural women. It's not a race to the bottom here, but there are rural themes, such as isolation, male bush culture and, tragically, access to guns that demonstrate that we need very specific solutions in regional Australia to combat family violence. I would add to that the research that's demonstrated that, after times of national disaster emergencies such as bushfire and flood, the rates of family and domestic violence increase, and rural women are more exposed to those emergencies, tragically. The other thing I want to say is that there is compelling research—long-known research now, and this is something I experienced when I was a midwife—showing that pregnant women are more likely to experience family and domestic violence at that period of their lives, for the first time or repeated, than at any other; that screening by midwives is critical; and that there is an intervention point there that we shouldn't miss. We are missing it. When I think about the number of times that there are partners—men—at the antenatal visits with midwives, there's an opportunity for interventions that I think we can do more about as well. Part of that is understanding coercive control. Part of that is understanding anxiety and depression in men. Again, I would just say to the government and to all my colleagues—all of us who want to do something about this—that we need to be context specific. We need to think about early intervention points. We absolutely need to think about resources and the context in which we apply those resources. I thank the member for Warringah again for bringing this motion. Mrs Elliot DZW In accordance with the earlier resolution of the House, I require that debate on the motion be extended until 6.45. 18:31 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley Firstly, thank you to all my colleagues in the room who have shared their stories, their experience and their support. I am a representative of the government of the day—women and men who have been advocating hard for the support of women and children who have died at the hands of men due to domestic and family violence. I represent the Dunkley women and children impacted by domestic and family violence. Dunkley is a community where domestic and family violence and sexual violence are at the highest rate in Victoria. It is a significant issue, and I'm very conscious, having worked in the sector for Anglicare and Family Life, of the impact that it has on women, men and children and on their capacity to be educated and to participate in life. I know this well, because I too have experienced domestic, family and sexual violence over 20 years, as a child, a young person and an adult. I know what it is to fear for my life at the hands of a man. My lived experience has meant that I pursued a career of over 30 years in the community sector, working with women, children and men. I pursued this career in the hope of supporting the women, men and children to recover and heal from domestic and family violence. Then I took the plunge and founded the Women's Spirit Project, which has supported women and children—particularly women—to recover and heal from trauma. This project was established in the Dunkley and Flinders local government and electorate areas. I want to acknowledge the work and the diligence of Minister Rishworth, her team and the people that she has consulted with over the last few years. They have developed a unique 10-year plan—a plan that is the first of its kind and that didn't exist before now. This national first has a range of recommendations, which we are implementing. But there is much, much more that we need to do, and everyone in this chamber knows that and feels that. We need support from each other to be bold and brave and to make changes so that more women, their families and men are supported. We need to be bold as parents and as individuals in how we lead, how we communicate and how we deal with toxic masculinity. We must advocate for changes to media and social media, as we've been starting to do, to reduce the amount of content that our young boys, our young people, our young men are watching and listening to. We also need to call out the perpetrators. I've been listening in my 11 weeks in this role. I know that there are lots of things that are being actioned and discussed and are in the inboxes of all of you here. I commend the government's investment of $3 billion through the living away from home allowance, because I know that that particular money was not committed by government until recently. The government has committed funding through the budget in a number of other areas which I know are critical to supporting women to recover and heal and to escape from trauma. That includes housing and access to parental payments for family and domestic violence leave. This is an intricate web of issues to solve. The journey to do that is very extensive, but it is everyone's responsibility. It requires all of us in this space, as I said, to be brave and bold. Yes, there is much, much more to do. Several weeks back, when I walked with many of you here in this chamber, I felt a growing swell of energy and commitment to doing more, as I did in March 2021 when I left here with Peta. I hope that all members of parliament here tonight continue to take the role in leading this change. 18:37 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney As I stand in support of this motion moved by the member for Warringah, I feel compelled to share some powerful words from a young North Sydney woman who actually wrote to me today. She says, 'I'm writing to you to please advocate on behalf of the people and especially the women of North Sydney, to fight for change in the government's response to gendered violence against women. Thirty-two women have been killed by men's violence this year alone. In 2024, we can and we should expect better. I'm writing to you to ask you to get the government to commit to real action to make Australia a safer place for women and girls. 'Immediate action for government could include a sentencing review to ensure accountability and consequences for perpetrators. The next steps would be to target the aggravating factors, like violent online porn and misogynistic social media influences. We need sustainable and consistent investment in frontline services. Long-term cultural change must be our goal. Boys must be taught the difference between healthy masculinity and toxic masculinity. Women cannot protect themselves from murder by men; only men can stop this. Not all men disrespect women, and not all women are disrespected by men, but all violence against women begins with disrespect. 'We cannot allow the next generation of girls to grow up in a climate of fear. I refuse to let that happen as a young woman, and I'm calling on you and our government to act now. We do not have another decade of deaths to deal with.' I want to acknowledge the words of this young woman. She's 18, and she's called on our government today with a very clear message. She's seen what the sector has been calling for and she knows that throwing money at a broken system and getting stuck in conversations is not going to take us anywhere. The points contained in the motion as moved by the member for Warringah and as seconded by the member for Goldstein will make a difference for women today. They would make a woman safer tomorrow. They're the things we need to prioritise in this place. 18:39 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for Warringah for bringing forward this motion, and I thank everyone who has had the opportunity to speak on this already today. Domestic violence affects every single one of us. It affects every single person who is in this chamber right now. It affects people in the gallery. It affects everyone who is outside this place. Whether it has affected you personally, a family member, a friend or an acquaintance, you will know someone who has been a victim of domestic violence. That is a very sad fact, but it is a true fact that domestic violence is something that none of us can escape. We can no longer continue to be silent. Many of us aren't, but we can't, as a whole, continue to be silent. We actually have to stand up and talk about domestic violence, and then we have to turn those words into actions to prevent this insidious crime from continuing right across our nation. I've spoken to many victims of domestic violence, but, perhaps more importantly, I've listened to them and listened to their stories. It's heartbreaking to listen to what they have experienced and, in many cases, continue to experience. It's hard for a woman to leave a violent situation. Where does she go? It's hard to find somewhere to live. It's hard to be able to afford somewhere to live, if you can, in fact, find something in the first place. It's hard to financially support yourself and your child or children while you try and protect them. It's hard being constantly scared that he will find you, that he will find your children and that he will never ever let up. It's hard to get an AVO. It's even harder to have an AVO enforced. So, wherever you go, you are constantly looking over your shoulder. You are constantly aware of the situation around you. You're alert. You are constantly conscious of what you wear so that you do not stand out so it's not easy for him to find you. These are the stories of many women who are facing extreme challenges, and I believe very strongly that it's our responsibility to do all that we can to end this violence against women. If I can very briefly speak about the issue of coercive control, we've heard some of the stories here of the messages that get sent, the deposits that get made to the bank account—'I know where you are. I know where the kids are.' I hear stories of men who are addressing mail to themselves at their partner's or former partner's new place of residence, who are signing them up online so that they get information sent to them about expensive houses, who go online on Facebook and other social media and talk about how good their life is, how philanthropic their endeavours actually are, while they're not paying child support or they have huge bills for child support back payments that they are not making. The things that they do to these women are, quite frankly, beyond belief, but you have to believe it when you hear it so often. There are so many things that have been mentioned today that we could and should be doing. We've heard about the need to make sure that there are changes to male behaviours, because, quite frankly, we all understand that this is an issue that is affecting generation after generation. Young boys are seeing their fathers, their grandfathers, their uncles or a significant male in their life abusing their mother, and that behaviour, over time, becomes normal to that young boy. He thinks that that is normal behaviour. Because of that, he continues that by perpetrating the violence against his partners when he is old enough to do so, and that is happening at an increasingly younger age. So much needs to be done, but I would strongly recommend and hope that we look at changing the male behaviours, to stop this action before it even gets started and to do all we can to make sure that no woman in Australia or across the world ever has to stay in a violent relationship. Question agreed to. 18:44 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Obviously, I speak for everyone in thanking the member for Warringah for bringing the motion forward, and I thank everybody who has contributed to the discussion. Not unexpectedly, it is the case that there are more members wanting to speak, but we wanted to have carried the resolution tonight. I ask leave of the House to move a motion that the House take note of the resolution that was just carried. Leave granted. Mr BURKE DYW I table a copy of the motion and I move: That the House take note of the document. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 2968 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2968 18:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In order to allow the budget address-in-reply speech to take place, I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 2968 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 2968

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

Second Reading 2968 19:31 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Tonight I want to outline part of my vision for Australia to get our country back on track, to keep our nation safe and secure, to make life easier and better for all Australians, because this Labor government has made life so much tougher for Australians, because this Labor government has set our country on a very dangerous course. Almost two years ago Prime Minister Albanese was elected, promising a reduction of $275 each year in your power prices, cheaper mortgages and that you would be better off under a Labor government. All of those promises have been broken. This government has been focused on the wrong priorities, starting with the Prime Minister's Voice referendum. Not only did it waste $450 million which could have helped families with the cost-of-living pressures that they're now facing but the referendum also divided our nation. And let's not forget that the Prime Minister called 'no' voters Chicken Littles and doomsayers. Today millions of Australians are struggling to pay their bills. Even going to the supermarket and petrol station has become stressful for so many. Prime Minister, Australians are genuinely hurting under your government, and they're not Chicken Littles. Electricity bills haven't gone down by $275 as was pledged on 97 occasions; they've skyrocketed. The Treasurer will give you a $300 rebate, but he knows full well that your annual electricity bills have increased, in some cases by up to $1,000, since Labor formed government. Interest rates have gone up on 12 occasions under Labor, and a typical Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off—and that's if you're lucky enough to own a home. Under this Prime Minister, the great Australian dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare. Even finding somewhere to rent is near impossible. The government has brought in an additional 923,000 migrants in just two years. On the available data, the government has only contributed 265,000 new homes and units to accommodate those people. Then, of course, there's Labor's tax on the family car and ute. You're having to fork out literally thousands of dollars simply for choosing some of Australia's most popular vehicles—like the Toyota RAV4, including the hybrid, or the Ford Ranger—all because the government is trying to force you into buying an electric vehicle. If you want to buy an electric vehicle, that is your choice. But, if you choose to buy a vehicle that is a hybrid or a diesel, that is your choice, and it should be restored. All of this has happened in a very short period of time, in just two years. Paul Keating famously said that when governments change the country changes. Prime Minister Albanese and his government have changed our country, but, as so many Australians can attest to, not for the better. You, your family, your children and our country can't afford another three years of this government. I know how to make decisions to get our country back on track. Tonight, I will remind Australians of the coalition's economic plan to lower your cost of living and restore confidence to our economy. I will also outline several policies which Australians can expect from a coalition government under my leadership—policies to get power bills down and to shore up our nation's future energy security; policies to help alleviate our housing crisis and revive the great Australian dream of homeownership; policies to improve workforce participation and health services; and policies to make our communities, our society and our country better and safer. But, first, I'll respond to the Treasurer's budget from Tuesday night. As I've said previously, we're an opposition which support good policy and stand against bad policy. Since Labor formed government, we've backed more than 180 bills which have passed this parliament. But we've opposed some bills where Labor and the Greens have collaborated to pass legislation which is not in our country's best interests. Just as we endorsed some sensible measures in Labor's first two budgets, we do the same for its third budget—in particular, the $3.4 billion for medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the extension of emergency payments to support women and children fleeing domestic violence, which the coalition first established in 2021. In my 22 years in parliament, I have seen good and bad budgets. But the budget handed down on Tuesday night is one of the most irresponsible I've seen. Inflation is a huge problem for Australia. On comparative inflation, Australia is worse than the US, Singapore, Germany, Spain, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, South Korea, Canada, France and the entire Euro area. The reason interest rates have gone up 12 times is that the government can't control its spending and its reckless energy policy. In three Labor budgets, the government has lifted spending by a staggering $315 billion, or $30,000 per Australian household. The Reserve Bank governor has sounded the alarm on inflation being homegrown, and she's exactly right. In the last 48 hours, every credible economist has issued scathing assessments of this budget because Labor has us in an inflationary hole and is still digging. Make no mistake; any further interest rate increases that fuel inflation now will continue also to rest squarely on the shoulders of this Prime Minister and Treasurer. Magic-pudding spending and $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for billionaires don't help the economy or make your life easier. Let's also be clear about Labor's $300 energy rebate, which will cost the economy $3.5 billion. We will support this relief because we know Australians are hurting. But the government is treating the symptom, not the disease. Labor's 'renewables only' policy is the reason your power bills continue to skyrocket. Here are some facts which show the troubling state of our economy: more than 16,000 businesses around the country have gone insolvent since 1 July 2022. Behind each of those is a family who may have lost their home and certainly have lost their savings. Productivity has plunged by 5.4 per cent on this government's watch, and household buying power has gone down by 7.5 per cent, which you feel every time you go to the supermarket. Last year, Australians suffered the biggest increase in average tax rates of any citizens in the developed world. There have been double-digit increases for your essentials, like electricity, gas, milk, bread and rent. Tragically, so many more Australians are living in cars and tents. Because of spending in this budget, the economic outlook is one of deficits as far as the eye can see. To alleviate cost-of-living pressures, we need to get inflation down. To get our economy back on track, we need a back-to-basics economic plan, and that's what a coalition government will deliver. First, we will rein in inflationary spending to take the pressure off inflation. As a start, we will not spend $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for green hydrogen and critical minerals. These projects should stand up on their own without the need for taxpayers' money if they're worth the investment. Second, we will wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. For example, we will not force large firms to spend more than $1 billion a year policing the emissions of every small business they deal with, as Labor is trying to do. We will condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape which is killing mining, jobs and entrepreneurialism. Only yesterday Santos indicated it will have to let 200 employees go because of slow project approvals. I want mining to boom in Western Australia and around the nation. More mining means more revenue. More revenue means more roads and less congestion, more schools and more hospitals. A turbocharged Western Australian economy means more national prosperity. And we don't need to give out billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to get mining projects started. Third, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on businesses. For example, we'll revert to the former coalition government's simple definition of a casual worker and create certainty for our 2.5 million small businesses. Fourth, we will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn—and you'll hear more about our tax plan ahead of the election. Fifth, we'll deliver competition policy which gives consumers and small businesses a fair go—not lobbyists and big corporations. And, sixth, we will ensure that Australians have more affordable and reliable energy. Our economic plan, with its tried and tested principles, will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. I've run a small business, as many of my colleagues have, unlike most Labor parliamentarians. The coalition understands small businesses. Tonight I announce that we'll extend the value of assets eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and make this ongoing for small businesses. This will simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses by cutting red tape, boosting investment in productive assets, lowering business costs and prices, and driving productivity in the economy. A respected senior journalist recently wrote that energy is not a part of the economy; it is the economy. The government's renewables-only policy continues to drive up power prices. Electricity and gas prices have gone up by 18 and 25 per cent, respectively, under this government. You can see this rise in your household power bills. But the energy bills of farmers, of businesses and of manufacturers have also skyrocketed. That means the cost to make anything from food to furniture has also gone up. That's why you're paying more at the supermarket and at the shops. If energy is not affordable or reliable, more manufacturers will simply shut up shop. They'll move offshore. We'll lose the jobs and the economic productivity. And we'll just re-import the products at a higher price. That's Labor's formula at the moment. That's why there's been a threefold increase in the number of manufacturers who have closed their doors over the last two years. And, for all of the government's talk about a future made in Australia, their current approach has no chance if energy isn't cheap and consistent and comparable to other competitive nations. Renewables have a role to play in our energy system; of course they do. But we cannot rely on weather-dependent energy alone. We need power 24/7, especially for our hospitals and for our factories and freezers that need to operate around the clock. Concerningly, the government's renewables-only policy will see 90 per cent of that 24/7 power switched off over the next decade. So it's a fair question to ask: how are things progressing for the government's plan for five gigawatts of renewables per year? Well, last year 1.3 gigawatts were committed, almost 75 per cent off target—another Chris Bowen special. Rewiring our country will cost at least $1.3 trillion. Who will bear that cost? It will be you and your family, it will be farmers, it will be manufacturers and it will be other businesses. So, if you think you're paying higher prices for power today, they will only get much higher under a renewables-only rollout under this government. Our nation has three energy goals: cheaper power, consistent power and cleaner power. We won't achieve these goals under Labor's renewables-only policy. But we can achieve all three, and we can do that by showing the leadership and following the top 20 economies of the world which are using zero-emission nuclear power or are taking steps to put it into the mix. Australia is the only one of the top 20 economies in the world not to do so. By ramping up domestic gas production for affordable and reliable energy in the more immediate term, we can help keep the lights on and push power prices down. After two years of interventions into the gas market, skyrocketing prices and repeated warnings of shortfalls, Labor's new gas strategy is just words on paper. There's little chance of Labor bringing new gas supply into the system, because it's ideologically opposed to gas and it's more worried about winning votes from the Greens in inner-city seats than it is worried about people living in suburbs or in regional towns around the country. Unlike Labor, a coalition government will speed up approvals to unlock gas in key basins like the Beetaloo; defund the Environmental Defenders Office, which is halting vital projects through lawfare; ensure gas is delivered to where it's needed by reinstating the National Gas Infrastructure Plan; and commit to an annual release of offshore acreage for exploration and development in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. On nuclear power, some 50 countries are exploring or investing into zero-emission, next-generation technologies for the very first time. We hold the largest deposits of uranium on the planet. You have to ask yourself the question: do the Prime Minister and Minister Chris Bowen have it right, and does the rest of the developed world just not know what they're talking about? I mean, ask yourself that question. Would you side with Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen or the rest of the developed world? It's a fair question, and I think most Australians know the answer to it. The government have ordered nuclear powered submarines, so it raises a reasonable question: why is the technology safe for our submariners but unsafe for our citizens? Because of nuclear power, residents in Ontario, Canada pay up to a quarter of the cost of what some Australians pay for electricity. With nuclear power, we can maximise the highest yield of energy per square metre and minimise our environmental damage. We do that by putting new nuclear technologies on or near the brownfield sites of decommissioned or retiring coal-fired power plants using the existing grid. There's no need for all of the proposed 58 million solar panels, almost 3,500 wind farms and 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires. Bob Hawke was a strong Labor leader who strongly supported nuclear power, as does John Howard, along with the Australian Workers Union and many others who have a vision for the future of our country, including some 65 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 34 years of age. Making Australia a nuclear powered nation is right for our country and will secure a future of cheaper, consistent and cleaner electricity. We need the right policy for you and for our nation. Beyond Labor's energy crisis, we're also facing a Labor created housing crisis. The great Australian aspiration of homeownership has become out of reach for so many. Now, it's wonderful that parents, in some circumstances with financial means, can help their kids into a home, but I will never accept a situation where the only people who can afford to buy a home in our country are those with the support of their parents. The coalition is already committed—and tonight we recommit—to allowing Australians to access up to $50,000 of their super to buy their first home and extended this policy to separated women to help restart their lives. The money initially withdrawn from super will need to be returned when the house is sold, to support retirement, and in most cases it will be with an uplift that will see retirement even more secure. But there's more that we need to do. For almost 20 years I've chaired my local Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal. Two weeks ago, at our annual fundraising breakfast, I heard a heartbreaking account of a man in his 70s having to live in his car. It is such a soul-destroying experience. It's sad, but it is not an uncommon story, and it's one that I've heard at Foodbank and at many places around our great country. Australians are struggling to find homes to rent and buy, and it's not always due to a lack of money. Amidst this housing crisis, Labor is bringing in 1.67 million migrants over five years—more than the population of Adelaide in five years. We celebrate the contributions of migrants over many decades. We're a great country because of what they have helped to build, and the great Australian achievement of modern Australia is something that we celebrate every day. But by getting the migration policy settings right, the coalition can free up more houses for Australians. The Prime Minister has promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2029 but, on the government's current trajectory, they will fall short by 400,000 homes or 33 per cent. The Prime Minister is making the housing crisis much worse, and Australians need homes now. We are at an 11-year low of building approvals. To help Australians into homes, we need to make sure we prioritise them for existing homes, the homes that have already been built. The other impact Australians are feeling from the Albanese government's poor management of the migration program is congestion on our roads and pressure on our existing services, which are stretched, like trying to get to see a GP. Tonight I announce several measures a coalition government will implement to meet our housing crisis head-on by alleviating pressure on the housing market. We believe that, by rebalancing the Migration Program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, the coalition can free up almost 40,000 additional homes in the first year and well over 100,000 homes in the first five years. Firstly, we will implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia. Secondly, we will reduce the permanent Migration Program by 25 per cent from 185,000 to 140,000 for the first two years in recognition of the urgency of the crisis. The program will increase to 150,000 in year 3 and 160,000 in year 4. We will ensure there are enough skilled and temporary skilled visas for those with building and construction skills to support our local tradies to build the homes and units that we need across the country. Similarly, we will return the refugee and humanitarian program planning to 13,750, closer to the long-term average. The humanitarian program will remain one of the most generous in the world on a per capita basis. Thirdly, we will reduce excessive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities to relieve stress on rental markets in our major cities. We will work with universities to put in place a cap on foreign students, and we will enhance the integrity of the student visa program by introducing a tiered approach to increasing the student visa application fee and applying it to foreign students who change providers. The usual CEOs and some of the big businesses may not like this approach, but my priority is to restore the great Australian homeownership dream. While reducing migration numbers to ease pressure on housing, the coalition government will encourage thousands of people to engage more in the labour market. We recommit to increasing the amount that older Australians and veterans can work without reducing pension payments if they choose to do so, if it is right for them. We will double the existing work bonus from $300 per fortnight to $600. It's estimated this will benefit over 80,000 pensioners and veterans who choose to work. We'll look to further expand the work bonus arrangements beyond this commitment, in consultation with older Australians and veterans and in consideration of labour market conditions prevailing at the time. Pensioners will continue to accrue unused work bonus amounts up to a maximum of $11,800, which can exempt future earnings from the pension income test. We'll also lift the number of hours student visa holders can work by 12 hours a fortnight. Amidst our cost-of-living crisis created by Labor, people's health and wellbeing are suffering. That's why we are committed to restoring the number of Medicare subsidised psychological sessions from 10 to 20 on a permanent basis. As health minister I increased hospital funding year on year. I also established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, which, to this day, provides billions of dollars to medical research projects. Indeed, when I became health minister in 2013, we inherited a bulk-billing rate from Labor of 73 per cent and increased it to 84 per cent. When we left government, bulk billing was 88.5 per cent. What Labor tried to hide in its budget and a figure that wasn't mentioned by the Treasurer is that bulk billing has decreased under Labor to 77 per cent, an 11 per cent drop. Always look at what Labor does, not what they say they will do. The health of all Australians, particularly given our ageing society, is always a priority for the coalition. Last year, I committed to an investment in best practice for women's health issues, including endometriosis. Tonight I welcome the government's commitment of $50 million in this budget for longer consultations for endometriosis and pelvic pain. The coalition will continue to support measures for women's health, particularly in primary care settings. More needs to be done to support women's health, including for menopause and perimenopause. We will continue to develop and support good policy to this end. We will work with the RACGP, AMA and other stakeholders who want to see more support for women in our community. Concerningly, Australia is facing a looming shortage of GPs—some 11,000 by 2031. We need more GPs, especially in our suburbs and in our regional areas. Junior doctors who enter general practice earn about three-quarters of the salary of their counterparts in hospitals. Working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, a coalition government will invest $400 million to provide junior doctors who train in general practice with incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements, and support for prevocational training. We'll also make sure that we support better outcomes for Indigenous Australians through the health system. Led by Senators Liddle and Nampijinpa Price, we will provide practical solutions to improve education, health and safety outcomes for Indigenous women and children, especially in our most disadvantaged remote communities. In recent times, under this government, our nation has been rocked by many shocking and tragic events. The stabbings at Bondi were truly horrific, where six people were murdered. There have been knife attacks on a bishop in Western Sydney, and a man in Perth by radicalised youth—incidents reinforcing the enduring threat of extreme Islamism. There have been 28 women killed in violent circumstances this year alone. More than 150 hardcore criminals, including murderers and sex offenders, were released from immigration detention into the community by the Albanese government, with some already having reoffended. And, since Hamas's barbaric terrorist attack on Israel, there has been a 700 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents on our soil. Australians are unsettled by crime on our streets, ruptures to our social cohesion and threats to our national security. A coalition government will provide much-needed leadership in tackling knife crime. We will work with states and territories to develop uniform knife laws across all jurisdictions, laws which will give police the powers to stop and search using detector wands, like Queensland's 'Jack's law', and laws which will limit and restrict the sale and possession of knives to minors and dangerous individuals. As a former police officer, the horrific scenes of beaten women and distraught children I encountered stay with me to this day, as do the memories of taking women who were shaking with fear to shelters and safe homes and helping them relocate with their children to safety. It's why I've dedicated much of my career to protecting women and children. It's why, as home affairs minister, I established the $70 million Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and recommit to doubling its size. Recently, Molly Ticehurst, a 28-year-old mother from New South Wales, was murdered because her violent ex-partner was on bail. Our bail laws need to be tightened in this country, and, under a coalition government that I lead, they will be tightened. Offences relating to partner and family violence generally fall under state and territory legislation, but there is also a role for the Commonwealth to play. A coalition government will make it an offence to use mobile phones and computer networks to cause an intimate partner or family member fear for their personal safety, to track them using spyware or to engage in coercive behaviours. We will toughen the bail laws that apply to these new Commonwealth offences. I've been a minister for immigration and home affairs. They are demanding but rewarding jobs. I granted thousands of visas to sick children, to parents with medical conditions, to victims of sexual assault and to refugees who have gone on to become wonderful Australians. The public rarely hears about that side of the job. But, in those roles, you also need to make tough decisions. I cancelled more than 6,300 visas of dangerous non-citizen criminals, with a priority on those committing sexual offences against women and children, driven by my desire to make sure that they don't harm any further Australians. If a minister doesn't have the backbone to do that, they're letting our country and our citizens down. I made our country and our citizens safer, and, as Prime Minister, I will do it again. It will take a coalition government, once again, to stop the people smugglers and to deport criminals. It will also take a coalition government to turn the tide of antisemitism afflicting our country. Antisemitism is not just a threat to one segment of our community; it's a threat to our social cohesion and to our democratic values. Some of the most strident antisemitic standard-bearers have come from our university campuses. We will also provide the moral and political leadership which makes it abundantly clear that we expect the law to be enforced readily, not reluctantly, against those inciting hatred and violence. Tackling crime in our community also means doing the same online. There's been an uptick in young Australians committing crimes where they're filming and uploading their crimes to social media. A coalition government will make it an offence to post criminal acts online. Those convicted will be banned from using digital platforms and liable for up to two years of imprisonment. As a father of three children who all grew up in the digital age, I'm troubled by the material our children are exposed to. That's why I announced in my budget reply last year that a coalition government will ban gambling advertising during the broadcasting of sporting games. However, I'm more worried by the criminal dark underbelly of the internet. At the fingertips of our children is a concerning volume of sexually explicit and violent material, as well as content designed to indoctrinate. We welcome the government's belated decision to back our policy for an age verification trial. But, unlike Labor, a coalition government will include social platforms like Instagram and TikTok in such a trial. Authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are emboldened. They're expanding their militaries, conducting cyberattacks and engaging in foreign interference. The Prime Minister and his deputy rightly say that we're living in the most precarious period since the Second World War, a view echoed by our intelligence agencies and allies. Strenuous efforts are needed to maintain peace and to deter acts of aggression like those recently aimed at our Navy and Air Force. If the 1930s taught us nothing else, it was that appeasement and weakness of leadership do not end well. In this critical period of risk, I will offer our country strong leadership backed by a significant investment into the defence forces. Labor's priorities are clearly wrong and, frankly, dangerous. The government has announced an additional 36,000 public servants in this budget, costing Australian taxpayers $24 billion over four years. The coalition sees areas like defence as much more of a priority than office staff in Canberra, given the precarious times in which we live and the threats in our region. We will re-prioritise Canberra-centric funding and make an additional investment into defence to rapidly enhance the capability of our men and women in uniform. We're working with leaders in defence industry to identify projects and investments that can be made in Australia to keep us safe in an uncertain world. I want to say to every Australian tonight that my vision is to get our country back on track, to make your life easier and to make us safe and secure again. The job of the Prime Minister is to be strong, not weak; to be fair and firm; to be compassionate and definite; and to unite, not divide, especially through referendums. As each day passes, this government increasingly shows how disconnected it is from the views, the values and the vision of everyday Australians. Labor has forgotten the main principle of governing. It isn't the people who serve the will of government; it is the government who serves the will of the people. I came to this parliament having served my community as a police officer and as a successful small business owner, employing 40 people. I've had the honour of serving Australians on the frontbench since 2004 in many portfolios under four prime ministers. My team and I have the experience to get our country back on track and to support everyday Australians. We live in the greatest country in the world, but at the moment Australia and Australians are being held back. Australians are being left behind, and they feel it. They're being left behind by this weak Labor government who has the wrong priorities. Our country deserves so much more. Ask yourself this question: are you better off today than you were two years ago? Do you feel safer or more secure than you did two years ago? When governments change, the country changes. Australians can't afford another three years of the Albanese Labor government. The next election will be a time for change—a change for the better for you, for your family and for our country. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 20:07 NOTICES 2974 NOTICES Presentation 2974

Thursday, 16 May 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 2976 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Climate Change 2976 09:30 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein This budget week, the government has turned its attention to what it would like to do to make up for lost time in addressing climate change. We must be sure the Future Made in Australia program is effectively managed and targeted to achieve the government's aims and to get us into the business of processing critical minerals and new technologies that are currently somewhat unproven, like green hydrogen. The plan remains vague. That said, we've already wasted a decade in denial and delay, and the danger is that as a result our children will not enjoy the same prosperity to which we've become accustomed. As if that were not enough, it's not much more than a week since the Guardian newspaper polled experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their current predictions on the course of global warning. Nearly 80 per cent of them now anticipate global heating of at least 2.5 degrees, a full degree above the internationally agreed target of 1.5 degrees. The recent decision of the government to lock in dependence on gas until at least 2050 is bad news for all of us working for a cleaner, greener future. The government's approach is at odds with the global, national and personal approaches needed for climate action. That applies to the Sandy Eco Expo, which I had the privilege to attend last weekend at the Sandybeach Centre in the heart of my community in the electorate of Goldstein. It was quite something, and I congratulate Village Zero, the City of Bayside and the Sandybeach community centre for getting it off the ground. The expo was all about what we can do as individuals and as a community to reduce pollution, improve the quality of the environment and reduce our carbon footprint. I was particularly taken with an initiative developed by Our Kinds to get rid of single-use cups, the pollution that they cause and the fossil fuels used in their manufacture. It involves the use of a QR code on the base of the cup. You bring it to your local cafe, have the QR code registered, buy your coffee, drink it, wash the cup and bring it back for more—one small step to help consumers to reduce their carbon footprint. But I think those of us at the expo would agree that the government cooling its own climate change policies is at odds with its expectations that all of us will do our bit at the local level. Dare I say it, the government might be better advised to stop contradicting itself while communities stretch to change their habits, and change its own. Mildren, Mr John Barry, OAM 2976 09:33 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I rise to speak on the recent death, on Anzac Day, of John Mildren OAM, who served his community as the member for Ballarat from 1980 to 1990. John's passing last month marked the end of an era in our home town. John didn't enter politics for fame or power; he did it to make a difference in his own community. First and foremost, John believed that being the member for Ballarat was about service to our local community, and it was something he was always at pains to stress to me. Being elected after a career as an academic and lecturer—in fact, he taught one of my brothers—John never forgot the power that good politics and good policy have to change the lives of working people for the better. The last time I met with John was to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Medicare, a lasting reform of a government of which he was a part. John spoke about how he would meet with women in the electorate office that I'm now in who were in tears because they didn't qualify for the government funded scheme for people with lower incomes and couldn't afford private health insurance, so they were in that missing middle—those two million Australians who would've gone bankrupt in the event of a health issue. He said that they were in floods of tears trying to get access to care for their babies. Before Medicare, people had nowhere to turn. After its introduction, it made a huge difference, and that is very much part of John's legacy, which I'm proud to say we continue to build on today. Personally, John was a mentor to me over many years. His example of how to represent a regional community like Ballarat is one that I will forever cherish. Today, Victoria's great regional cities are represented by Labor members, but that is only because of the contributions of people like John. Before John, Labor was in the political wilderness for a long period of time in my hometown. He was elected after 25 years of Liberal representation. His service and example reconnected our party with regional Victoria, a legacy that lives on to this day. Following politics, John took just as much interest in his community as he ever did before. Drawing on his own life experience, John played an important role as chairman of Pinarc Disability Support, supporting members of our community living with disabilities, and was also actively involved with Dementia Australia. Whether it was in politics or in his career, John took every opportunity he could to change the world for the better. In his later years, John could still be found holding court at L'Espresso, solving the problems of the world and talking about politics. His sharp mind remained with him absolutely to the last, and I know just how happy and moved he would have been at the funeral taking place at St Patrick's Cathedral in Ballarat on May Day, once more connecting two of the great pillars of his life. My thoughts are with John's children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren and all who loved him. We in the Labor Party say: vale, John Mildren. Thank you so much for your service. Casey Electorate: Health Care 2977 09:36 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Firstly, I do want to extend my condolences to the member for Ballarat and to John's family. All Australians deserve to have access to affordable and accessible health care. In the Yarra Ranges, this means a strong and reliable healthcare system that is close to home and supports our community when we need it most. Currently, in the Yarra Ranges, an area of 2½ thousand square kilometres, options for urgent health care are limited. At a time when local families are struggling to pay the bills, access to bulk-billing clinics is limited, with only several across the electorate of Casey. On top of this, across our community, which spans 2½ thousand square kilometres, there is not one single emergency department. That's not good enough. Our community deserves better access to quality health care. Improving the accessibility and affordability of Yarra Ranges health care would improve community health and stop minor issues becoming more serious and adding to our already stretched hospitals and healthcare systems. That's why I launched a petition to establish a Medicare urgent care clinic in the Yarra Ranges which would provide walk-in appointments for urgent medical needs, eliminating the stress of finding a GP appointment; bulk-billing services, ensuring everyone in our community can access affordable health care; and extended hours, including evenings and weekends, so you can receive care when you need it most. Locals know why we need this improved health care, and that's why, within 72 hours of launching my petition to establish a Yarra Ranges Medicare urgent care clinic, over 1,500 people had signed it and joined our campaign for better local health care. My community and I were pleased that, in Tuesday's budget, the government committed to establishing 29 urgent care clinics across the nation. I give credit where it's due. But, unfortunately, there are still no details as to the locations. Residents and families are relying on improved local health care, so it is important for the government to establish a Medicare urgent care clinic in the Yarra Ranges. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to listen to the thousands of Yarra Ranges residents who signed my petition and deliver better local health care for our community. Together, we'll continue to fight for improved access to affordable health care in our community, because we deserve no less. This is the test for this Prime Minister, to see whether he understands the challenges of our community. Across 2½ thousand square kilometres, there is not an emergency department in sight. This is the perfect location for an urgent care clinic, so we await the details of the 29 locations. Northern Territory: Domestic and Family Violence 2977 09:39 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari Ending violence against women and children is a national priority. Levels of domestic, family and sexual violence across the Northern Territory are unacceptably high, particularly in my electorate of Lingiari. In fact, the Northern Territory has some of the highest rates of domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia and the world. Women in remote and regional communities in my electorate are 24 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence than women in major cities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience some of the highest rates of physical violence, resulting in injuries that affect brain function and can cause permanent disability from severe head trauma. I am very pleased to announce a critically important and highly innovative health campaign being developed by the Alice Springs Hospital in partnership with the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the Menzies School of Health Research. These leaders are at the cutting edge of medical innovation for managing concussion and severe closed-head injuries that promises broad application across Australia in best practice care. Known as the 'healthy head' campaign, the key strategy aims to implement consistent clinical practice, screening protocols and improved data collection to increase frontline health staff knowledge and skills in treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who have experienced traumatic brain injury from violence. The campaign also has a preventative health education component labelled 'strong heads, strong minds and strong futures'. Through this component, community awareness and understanding of the prevalence and short- and long-term effects of concussion and head trauma, and the strategies for managing them, will be managed. The capacity of remote community controlled government and non-government organisations will be enhanced to better support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who have returned home following their discharge from hospital. The provision of this specialist, coordinated and intensive support and treatment pathway is critically overdue to effectively respond to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's immediate and long-term recovery from the cognitive, physiological and behavioural consequences of family violence. I met a number of times with all the specialists that are pulling this project together. They've had a very good meeting with Minister Linda Burney, and I'm hoping that when they come to Canberra in the last week of May they will get to meet other ministers. I think this is an important project going forward. Water Safety 2978 09:42 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to speak about so many tragedies when it comes to drownings, especially in the multicultural community. On Mother's Day a four-year-old boy, Ali Aminzadah, tragically drowned in Officer, in my electorate of La Trobe; our thoughts and prayers go to that family from the Afghan community. In the past year there have been several devastating drownings in our region. In April 2023, a father and son from Narre Warren lost their lives while attempting to rescue each other; the son was 21 and the father was 59. I went to the wake with the family and the community. It was so devastating. In January 2024 a Melbourne nurse, two university students and a tourist from India tragically drowned off the coast of Phillip Island—the worst drowning tragedy in Victoria for two decades. Last month a father and grandfather from Clyde North drowned in a hotel pool on the Gold Coast. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those families. As the shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I find the multicultural community very much over-represent the drowning figures. When you get to the root cause, quite often people are coming from countries such as India where access to swimming is difficult. Councils play a major role in Australia when it comes to swimming; they provide learn-to-swim schools, which is fantastic. The fees for someone to learn to swim at the moment are, for 10 lessons, between $200 and $250. My concern is this: when the councils manage the pools and operate the learn-to-swim centres, there is a conflict of interest when it comes to maintaining the safety of those swimming compared to the financial interests of the learn-to-swim schools. What I've personally witnessed is a father with their son or daughter being targeted and asked: 'Are you giving professional lessons to your children? Are you a coach?' It can be a family friend who, quite often, in the past has been a squad swimmer and is a very able swimmer, but they get targeted. In actual fact, a number of councils have a code of conduct where it says that that person can be evicted for giving so-called coaching lessons. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if the person gives lessons to a child if that child is an able swimmer. It's crazy to have lifeguards at swimming pools being encouraged to go up to people and ask: 'Is that your child? Is that your friend's child? Are you a professional coach?' The councils have one responsibility: to make sure that they help kids learn to swim in a fun and safe environment, not to target those who can teach their kids. Twentyman, Mr Leslie Jack (Les), OAM, Cuttler, Mr Ian 2978 09:45 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Today I wish to pay tribute to two men whose passing in recent times has left a void that cannot be filled but whose legacies live on. The first is Les Twentyman, a Victorian to his core, a son of the west and a fierce youth advocate. Les made it his business to tear away the veil, to speak to the human cost of disadvantage, addiction, poverty and hardship. Les was irreverent and self-deprecating. He had a dogged determination that was forged in the furnace of his old footy coaching days and growing up in Braybrook. He was an AFL fan and a Western Bulldogs tragic. He was as much a part of the great city of Melbourne as our mighty MCG, and the people whose lives were changed by Les could fill that famous ground five times over. He was not bothered about looking good but on doing good. He became an icon, but he was never an ornament. We've lost a great Melburnian; a great Australian. Our thoughts are with his wife, Cherie; his family; and his colleagues at the Les Twentyman Foundation. The other great Australian I honour today is Ian Cuttler, a stalwart of my old union, the Australian Workers Union; and a life member of the Australian Labor Party. He was one of nature's gentleman: kind, friendly, charismatic and compassionate. He started his career as a shearer, taught the art by his father, Bob Cuttler, who was one of the AWU's longest-serving members. With a deep understanding of the stresses and strains of the shearing shed, Ian worked to bring dignity and respect to the calling. He had a knack of bringing people together, of making even the quietest voice felt heard. He got on with everyone. He was a unifying force amongst the diverse membership, a skill he called upon through the tumultuous years of the divisive wide-comb dispute. Ian was one of my mentors, teaching me how to organise in shearing sheds, and, as part of the grassroots movement later on that drove the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, bringing with him the lived experience of caring for his much-loved son Jonathan. When Ian developed Parkinson's disease, he was forced to slow down a bit. It gave him time to pursue his passion for writing bush poetry, even producing a book to raise money for Parkinson's research; thinking of others to the last. Indeed, Ian wrote a poem, which I will briefly share with members. He writes: A shearer caught a chill when he showered in Broken Hill After which he vowed he'd never shower again. To a man his peers did curse as his stench went from bad to worse Then the team resolved to formally complain. With desperation reached Those mates of his beseeched "What do you know about Cashmere Bouquet?" He answered, "Nought, of course, Never heard of such a horse And I don't believe in betting anyway." Ian was a laconic character of the sheds and a leader of the union. Ian Cuttler is survived by his beloved wife, Judy; his children, Jonathan, Paul and Sally; and his grandchildren, Harry and Jack. Ian Cuttler and Les Twentyman, two men who represent the great and timeless Aussie tradition of showing kindness in another's troubles and courage in their own. Profoundly missed but never forgotten. Longman Electorate: Charitable Organisations 2979 09:48 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Amongst all the real issues that people are facing in the Longman community and, indeed, around Australia, with a housing, cost-of-living and domestic violence crisis, I am so proud that amongst all the darkness, doom and gloom there are lights shining and giving hope, with so many not-for-profit, charitable and faith based organisations in the Longman community standing up and helping those in need. I've always believed that these organisations are best equipped to assist those doing it tough in our community, as they are local and understand our unique needs best. They are staffed and run primarily by volunteers, who provide help to others out of a genuine desire to help their neighbour, not because it's a job. Just this year I've seen five new organisations arise to assist in feeding the homeless. Most are run out of local churches, and it's great to see the church community and other community groups providing real, practical support to those in need. This Sunday it'll be my honour to attend the opening of Eat 4 The Streetsin Centenary Lakes in Caboolture, yet another new organisation that will supply food, by way of a free community barbecue at lunchtime on Saturdays not just for the homeless but also for those doing it tough. They are also working on an exciting new initiative that will provide an app and a website that advises people of the various locations people can obtain help to receive a meal and, in some cases, groceries. This app and website will make it so much easier for those people who are already stressed due to their circumstances to contact such organisations as: Caboolture Community Action, which provides hampers and runs an op shop to provide household goods, including furniture and homewares; Churches of Christ in Caboolture and Rivers Church in Kallangur, which provide over 200 grocery hampers per week; New Creation Church, which has a community pantry in Burpengary and a monthly barbecue on Saturdays at lunchtime; Hope Point Church in Moodlu, which runs a mobile kitchen in Caboolture on Thursday nights, feeding the homeless; Global Care and Freedom Church, both of which provide hampers and groceries on Bribie Island; and Emerge Church in Morayfield, which provides hampers, does a cook-up and feeds the homeless on a Monday night. I'm so proud to represent a community with such a generous spirit and culture, that wants to help others and give up our most precious commodity, which is time. Thank you to every volunteer who stands at a barbecue, delivers furniture, packs a hamper or drives to collect food for hampers. You are truly unsung heroes who make a difference. Congratulations to Michael and his team at Eat 4 The Streets. I welcome you to our wonderful community and wish you all the best with your endeavours. Thank you for what you will do in our community in the future. Middle East 2979 09:51 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid We live in a world that is growing increasingly polarised, with contested spaces and ideas preventing us from finding our common humanity. While the threads of our common humanity are fraying, there is a strand that remains strong: our collective belief that innocent children must be protected. We extend that protection to the children in Ukraine experiencing the devastating consequences of war. We extend that protection to the children of Sudan and Yemen, who have witnessed protracted civil conflict and famine. And we must extend our protection to the children of Gaza. What is happening to them is wrong. As the conflict in Gaza drags on into its seventh month, we cannot turn away from the devastating consequences this conflict has had on an entire generation of innocent Palestinian children. At the end of March, I received a briefing from UNICEF, the humanitarian aid organisation providing assistance to children in Gaza. I wanted to find out what the situation was like for children on the ground. The picture they painted was horrifying. Of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in this conflict, 70 per cent were women and children. More than 1,000 children have lost limbs, and one in six children are acutely malnourished. Those figures have only gotten worse. We cannot turn our backs on the children in Gaza, because they are the ones paying the heaviest price for Hamas's terrorist attack on 7 October. We must find our common humanity to demand that the Israeli government protect the innocent Palestinian children and civilians. We must also find our common humanity to demand that Hamas release the Israeli civilians currently being held hostage. In the next sitting week, I have organised a briefing from UNICEF for all parliamentarians in this place, so that they too can get a better understanding of the tragic impact this conflict is having on children in Gaza. The Australian government continues to press for a humanitarian ceasefire, because this conflict must end. However, there is only one end to this conflict that allows both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security, and that is with a two-state solution. Australia voted for expanded Palestinian participation in the United Nations. This vote, and the pressing for a two-state solution, is a clear repudiation of the goals of Hamas. Hamas has already stated that they do not want a two-state solution. We must find our common humanity in the Middle East and we must hold on to our common humanity here at home, too. Sadly, antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the rise, and there is a role for us all to play to promote social cohesion and harmony, not division. South Coast Marine Park 2980 09:54 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise to inform the chamber of preliminary results of an online survey I'm conducting on the controversial South Coast Marine Park that the state Labor government plans to enforce in my vast Western Australian electorate. The marine park threatens to ban commercial and recreational fishing from large exclusion zones along a 1,000 kilometre stretch of coastline from Bremer Bay, east to the WA border. In the coastal town of Esperance last month, more than 1,000 people gathered to protest against the park. Residents along the state's south coast are confused by Labor's convoluted consultation process. They fear their livelihoods, economies and lifestyle may be under threat. You see, fishing is a way of life from Windy Harbour in the far west of O'Connor through Albany and Esperance and onto the border town of Eucla. Some of Australia's best fishing can be done along the WA south coast, where crowds are not a big problem and people from around the globe come to land a big one. Acting upon community dismay at more than 35 consultation documents released by the state, I launched my own 30-second survey on 3 May. The single question I put is not loaded. I simply ask whether respondents support the marine park in its current form—yes or no. Responses so far have been outstanding, with over 3,000 people responding. Of those respondents, 1,548 are from the Esperance town—the largest town in the marine park area. Of the Esperance respondents, 1,485 say they don't want the marine park in its current form at all. In contrast to my short survey, the state swamped the community with 520 pages of reports. That's too much information. It reflects a technocratic and heavy-handed approach to natural resource management. The first piece of advice the state gives respondents to its processes is that their submission should be clear and concise. In leading the south coast community up the garden path with its prolix processes, WA Labor has failed to heed its own counsel. Last week, environment minister Reece Whitby, who is peddling the marine park, claimed that my survey was a political stunt that would confuse the process. I make no apology for simplifying what is a flawed and possibly preordained policy-making procedure. Thousands of people who have contacted my survey bely Mr Whitby's armchair critique. If he succeeds in restricting fishing east from Bremer Bay to the border, there is no guarantee he then won't extend his sights west to Albany, Denmark and Walpole and on to Windy Harbour. These places are also fishing hotspots whose lifestyle and economies would suffer. WA Labor should respect the views of the south coast community. WA Labor should start consulting in a meaningful and genuine manner. Either that or WA Labor should abandon its marine park altogether. My survey is open till 27 May. In the interest of effective community consultation, I'll release— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 144732 I call the member for Bean. Alexandrou, Mrs Georgia, Bean Electorate: Senior Australians 2981 09:57 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean It is with deep sadness I rise to inform the chamber of the passing of Georgia Alexandrou, a long-serving leader within the Cypriot Australian community. Georgia was president of the Cyprus Community of Canberra and ACT from 2022 to 2023. Her strong and enduring leadership provided a long period of stability for the Cypriots in the Canberra district and all of Australia. In 2021 she was elected president of the Pan-Australian Justice for Cyprus Coordinating Committee. She was instrumental in advancing relations with Cyprus and Greece, working closely with the Cyprus High Commission and the numerous visiting missions of high-ranking Cypriot dignitaries and officials. She had enduring connections with this place. Her volunteering and community work were also recently recognised by the Greek Herald, as Miss Alexandrou was named finalist for the Greek Herald Woman of the Year 2024. Her energy, vibrancy and community spirit over many years were examples to all who met her and helped foster a successful and cohesive Cypriot community in the ACT and Australia-wide. Georgia continued to lead her community despite a long illness. She was a fighter not only for Cyprus but also for her family—her son Andreas, her husband Christos, her mother, her sister and all her loved ones. May she rest in peace. A few weeks ago, I hosted a series of forums across my electorate to launch my 2024 Bean Retirees and Seniors Guide, to provide an opportunity for service providers and seniors to facilitate face-to-face conversations across my community. Forums were held in Woden, Tuggeranong and Denman Prospect, with hundreds of seniors attending across the forums. I'd like to recognise the service providers and organisations that attended, including the Weston Creek Bowling Club, LDK, Carers ACT, COTA ACT, Services Australia, the Services Australia scams team, ADACAS, the Stroke Foundation, and the Department of Health and Aged Care's Aged Care Group. We were also joined by the terrific Lanyon Seniors Ukulele Group. The performance by Roy and his team really struck the right chord! I was impressed by the depth of knowledge shown by service providers, organisations and public servants, and also by their clear passion for assisting senior Australians to live a comfortable and safe retirement. I would also like to thank the seniors who attended these forums. It was great to see new faces and to catch up with regulars. These forums serve as an invaluable opportunity for me to engage in discussion with the seniors community in Bean, and I look forward to next year's forums. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 2981 BILLS Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 2981

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 2981 10:00 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak on the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024. The title of this bill is pretty vague; I doubt that a lot of members of parliament, let alone the average Australian, would give it extensive consideration. Such an innocuous title could make you think, 'Nothing to see here.' But this is a bill about how government spends taxpayer money—a key government responsibility. The act this bill amends, the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, is a key source of legislative authority for Commonwealth spending via mechanisms such as grants. The bill clarifies that sections 32B and 39B provide the authority for spending via grants. By doing so, it seeks to put beyond doubt the validity of many government spending programs. Tens of billions of dollars are spent by the government every year through grant programs. This is not loose change, and I support the government's intention to ensure that grant programs have legislative authority. Grants are so important to regional electorates like Indi and are an effective way to get money directly into the community where it's needed. The Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program were allocated $1 billion in the government's October 2022 budget. In my electorate, local governments; health services; disability and family violence organisations and support services; and arts councils all applied for much-needed funding under these programs. I hope that we're going to see announcements for successful applicants very soon. Let me be clear: I support the government's powers to spend money on these valuable services—I do. I don't want to see this money stop because of a lack of legislative authority. But, as the government have said repeatedly when touting their 'responsible' budget, there is not unlimited money to spend on every worthy project—there is not. That's why I want to see governments having the proper processes in place to ensure that the money we do have is awarded to the projects that need it the most—those which have the most merit and where we know that taxpayers are truly getting bang for their buck. I want to make sure that taxpayer money is not wasted, and I know every Australian feels the same way. Most importantly, I don't want to see valuable hard-earned taxpayer money used to buy votes in marginal seats—to do what is colloquially known as pork-barrelling. The bill before us does nothing to prevent this practice. This bill is really another way to justify what governments from both sides of politics have time and time again called 'discretionary executive spending powers' in order to deliver election commitments. It's what some politicians from the major parties call a 'feature' of Australian democracy. Well, I would say that pork-barrelling must not—must never—be accepted as a feature. It's a flaw, and it's a critical flaw in our democracy. We've seen egregious pork-barrelling in recent years, and I've spoken about many of these pork barrels many times in this place. Indeed, when this government was in opposition they railed against blatant pork-barrelling by the then government. At best, pork-barrelling is poor administration, but, at its worst, it is corruption. Eighty per cent of Australians view pork-barrelling as corrupt conduct. Pork-barrelling undermines public trust in governments and in politicians, who are elected to make decisions on our behalf in the public interest and for the common good. It truly undermines trust in our democracy, and that's a very serious matter. It perpetuates a cynicism in the community that giving your vote is about getting stuff rather than about getting good, evidence based policy. The bill before us is an opportunity to get the right processes in place for the government to spend taxpayer money transparently and to be accountable for their decision-making; to make sure the projects that are most in need of funding have the best chances of getting it; and to make sure that, if the government decide to pork-barrel, voters know about it. I will be moving amendments to this bill which set out a best practice model in government spending. My amendments would require all grants programs to have clear and publicly available merit based selection criteria and guidelines. It's surprising that it's not something that's routine now. My amendments would ensure robust reporting to parliament about what grants are awarded to whom and why. We don't have that now either. This would include the requirement for ministers to report to parliament in a timely manner when they've gone against advice from government departments about who is best placed to receive a grant. My amendments would create a new joint parliamentary committee on grants administration and investment mandates. This committee could oversee grants administration, including compliance with guidelines. That would deal the parliament right back into oversight on grants. Surely, that's a fundamental role of our parliament. These amendments are not radical. They don't take away the discretion of ministers to award grants, something that can be especially important in times of emergencies like floods or fire. These amendments don't stop parties from making election commitments to spend money if they win government. But what these amendments would do is set out a simple and practical framework for ensuring that when a minister makes a captain's call or when a major party delivers on an election commitment it's done transparently, fairly and responsibly. Surely that's what we are here to do. In the event that the government does not back this first set of amendments, I will move further amendments which would replicate the current Minister for Finance's own private member's bill introduced in the Senate in 2021, only three short years ago, called the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill—a straightforward title. In this bill, Senator Gallagher quite rightly sought to address this problem that we face. In this bill she sought to force ministers who award grants in their own electorate or against departmental recommendations to report the decision to the finance minister within just 30 days of the approval, and then the finance minister would have to table that report in the parliament within five sitting days. Now, the government will no doubt say that ministers are currently required to report this information to the Senate, but I'm here to tell you that this is only once per year, and it's absolutely not good enough. It stifles transparency in government grant-making. Indeed, when Senator Gallagher introduced her bill she said her bill would: … dramatically reduce the time ministers are able to hide their dodgy decisions from the Australian community, and there is no reasonable argument for any senator in this place, particularly those on the government benches, to oppose this bill. Well, I agreed with her then and I would agree with her now. I know Senator Gallagher, like me, supports integrity in public expenditure, and I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss my private member's bill the Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill. But if the government fail to support amendments that simply replicate a bill previously introduced by their own finance minister then I really won't know what to say. This is a government that campaigned on a platform of integrity. I know they know more can be done to end pork-barrelling, but they are choosing to do less, not more. That truly disappoints me, and that truly disappoints Australians all over our fine country. I know that voters are very disappointed about that. So, if the government fails to support these amendments, I think the Australian people truly deserve to know what has changed since 2021, when Senator Gallagher put forward her bill. Let's not forget we are not in this place simply to wield power; we are here to represent our electorates and to serve the people who voted for us. It's a privilege to be elected to parliament—I know every parliamentarian feels that—and we must never take the votes of our constituents for granted. Votes should be earnt, not bought by whoever has the biggest chequebook. I urge the government: send a message to the Australian people, especially as we approach the next election—it's coming at us like a steam train—that their vote matters, that taxpayer dollars are being spent fairly and transparently. I urge the government to back my proposed amendments and end pork-barrelling. 10:10 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin This bill, the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024, is a technical amendment bill that seems innocuous, but it draws attention to a much bigger issue that goes to the heart of government accountability for spending our money. Under the Constitution, federal government can only make laws about certain listed topics, but there's a really fundamental question that's actually unresolved and is currently being dealt with through a combination of carefully worded court decisions, some bandaid legislative amendments and an assumption that no-one is really going to challenge it anyway. That big question is: when can the executive government spend our money—on anything it wants or only on things specifically authorised by parliament? As background, laws need to be approved by a majority of both houses of parliament, but regulations can be made by the executive government of the day and then challenged or disallowed by parliament on a case-by-case basis, so there's an assumption that they're valid unless specifically questioned. At the moment, based on some court decisions and some legislative amendments, the executive government can spend taxpayer money under regulations, which it can change, and it doesn't actually need a law passed by parliament to justify the spending of money. The amendment bill we're talking about today firms up an aspect of this authority but doesn't really go to the core question of whether we think executive government spending should have parliamentary oversight. There are some obvious advantages to executive government in being able to spend money based on regulations. It's faster, because the executive doesn't need to wait to pass laws when there's a need to spend money quickly, like during the pandemic. Another advantage to the government of the day is that it has a broader power to spend. But there are disadvantages for taxpayers. There's less parliamentary oversight. When a piece of legislation is debated in parliament, it gives the public the opportunity to consider whether this is what the country needs. If money can be spent based on regulations, not laws, there's less specific consideration about whether this is how taxpayer funds should be spent. This could potentially undermine trust in government. It was only in 2009 that the courts found that spending should be linked to a substantive power—that is, the executive can't just authorise itself to spend money in any area. It can only be spent in areas the Constitution lists as areas of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Now, this hadn't been challenged before. Generally, when the government's spending money there isn't anyone who has enough of a specific interest to argue against it. Then, in 2012, the High Court held that there must be parliamentary authorisation before money can be spent. The government response was section 32B—legislation that sought to retrospectively validate 400 non-statutory programs and said: from now on, if money is spent under regulations then that will be adequate. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pretty big deal to say, 'By the way, all that spending was okay and we can now spend money on whatever we want if we make some regulations about it.' The courts have since interpreted this narrowly and found that it still has to be within constitutional heads of power. In 2012, 75 per cent of spending was made using special appropriations—that is, under legislation—and 25 per cent was not. I don't know how that percentage has changed since 2012, but it gives you a sense that this is not a small amount of money we're talking about. So we have this section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act, inserted by a previous government and today shored up by the current government, which purports to make everything okay and gives the government the power to spend taxpayer money without a specific piece of legislation authorising it. This amendment that we're discussing today is a small technical change that changes words that may be construed as limiting this catch-all power. It just shores up a shaky extension of the power of executive government to spend what it likes. Various committees and experts have drawn attention to this awkward hole in accountability. Regulations can still technically be challenged, but it's harder and gets less attention. Loads of regulations pass every month, and to challenge them parliamentarians need to know about them and move to disallow them within a short period. Is this enough oversight when it comes to spending our money? Professor Anne Twomey has said that section 32B is part of an incautious approach by Australian governments to the Constitutional risk of spending on grants and programs outside of the Commonwealth's legislative heads of power. She points out that the amounts of money are large and the scrutiny of them is limited. It amounts to a 'she'll be right' approach to government spending. Although I accept that many regulations need to be able to be made nimbly to respond to changing circumstances, it seems reasonable to me that if taxpayer money is being spent, it needs to clearly fit under a law that has been considered by the parliament. No government is going to voluntarily increase its accountability, but taxpayer money should not be granted without appropriate scrutiny. We have a Constitution for a reason, and we have limits on the powers of the Commonwealth for a reason. This amendment reduces the likelihood of a specific type of legal challenge to government spending, but it doesn't address this broader issue, which I think deserves attention. If we want to rebuild trust in government, Australians need to believe that their money is spent carefully and in line with the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. This is not a new issue, and this government is not the first to want to shore up its spending power. I will be supporting the member for Indi's proposed amendment to this bill, which would bring the provisions of her Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill into this bill. The effect of those changes is greater accountability for grants programs. We spend billions of dollars on grants that have pretty shaky business cases. These come to our attention only when they are particularly egregious, like the last government's sports rorts. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 11:23 Ms CHANEY 300006 To continue, these come to our attention when they are particularly egregious, like the last government's sports rorts. But spending money in marginal electorates has become completely normalised, and unless there's someone with standing who's motivated enough to challenge it, it just happens. The member for Indi's amendment would require all grants programs to have clear and publicly available merit based selection criteria and guidelines. It would also require robust reporting to the parliament about grants, create a committee to oversee grants administration and require the minister to report to parliament about how money is being managed. In the interest of greater accountability for government spending, I would like to see this bill referred to a Senate committee to consider this broader accountability issue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question before the Federation Chamber is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 2984 11:25 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3), as circulated in my name, together. Leave not granted. Dr HAINES 282335 I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: I have put to this chamber some important amendments. They are best practice, and they are the gold standard for how a government should spend public money. They would also end pork-barrelling, a corrupt practice that buys votes and that Australians are absolutely sick and tired of. My amendments would require all grants programs to have clear and publicly available merit-based selection criteria and guidelines. A requirement for each grant program to have guidelines and selection criteria might seem perfectly obvious, but right now it is optional under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines. This has serious consequences for fairness in spending public money. It means that public money can be spent without rules and safeguards. Clearly, this is ridiculous, and these amendments will fix this so that the government can be upfront about who can apply for grants and the criteria that must be satisfied to be awarded that grant. We are talking about tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars after all. This is common sense. This is the very least that our nation would expect of any government. I think this is very fair and sensible amendment, and I asked the government to consider that amendment. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T 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. 11:28 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name: (3) Page 12 (after line 34), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Grants administration reforms Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 1 After Part 2 Insert: Part 2A — Grants administration Division 1 — Preliminary 42 Simplified outline of this Part This Part defines the resource management framework as an overarching accountability framework for the proper use and management of public resources, including for grants administration. This framework provides responsible Ministers, accountable authorities and officials with the flexibility to: (a) administer grants that contribute to a range of government outcomes; and (b) work together with non-government stakeholders, such as industry, small business and the not-for-profit sector. Division 3 sets out, as part of this framework, some specific requirements for grants administration. Division 4 establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration, which has a role in the resource management framework. 42A Definitions In this Part: Committee means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration (see Division 4 of Part 2A). Commonwealth entity has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. corporate Commonwealth entity has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. CRF has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. grant has the meaning given by section 42B. grant agreement means a written agreement formalising a grant. GrantConnect means the Australian Government's central grants public reporting repository. Note: In 2024, this repository could be accessed at https://help.grants.gov.au. grants administration includes all processes involved in the grants lifecycle, including: (a) designing grant opportunities and activities; and (b) preparing program guidelines for the relevant grants program; and (c) assessing and selecting grantees; and (d) preparing and executing grant agreements; and (e) ongoing management of grantees and grant activities; and (f) evaluating grant opportunities and activities. program guidelines, for a grants program, has the meaning given by section 44L. proper has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. public resources has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. resource management framework has the meaning given by section 43A. responsible Minister has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. 42B Meaning of grant (1) A grant is an arrangement for the provision of financial assistance by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, or by or on behalf of a corporate Commonwealth entity: (a) under which relevant money or other CRF money is to be paid to a grantee other than the Commonwealth; and (b) which is intended to help address one or more of the Australian Government's policy outcomes while assisting the grantee achieve its objectives. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a grant may take a variety of forms including payments made: (a) as a result of competitive or non-competitive selection processes; or (b) where particular criteria are satisfied; or (c) on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Note: Types of grants include, for example, research grants, grants providing for the delivery of services, grants that help fund infrastructure, and grants that help build capacity. (3) Despite subsection (1), none of the following arrangements are grants: (a) the acquisition of goods and services by a Commonwealth entity for its own use, or on behalf of another entity; (b) an act of grace payment approved under section 65 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; (c) a payment of compensation made under: (i) an arrangement relating to defective administration; or (ii) an arrangement relating to employment conditions; or (iii) an arrangement established by a law; (d) a payment to a person of a benefit or an entitlement established by a law; (e) a tax concession or offset; (f) an investment or loan; (g) a payment: (i) to a State under section 96 of the Constitution; or (ii) to a State or Territory for the purposes of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009; unless the Commonwealth has a determinative input into the final recipients of the payments; (h) a payment made for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995; (i) a payment made for the purposes of the Australian Education Act 2013; (j) a payment made for the purposes of the Higher Education Support Act 2003; (k) a payment of assistance for the purposes of Australia's international development assistance programme, which is treated by the Commonwealth as official development assistance; (l) a payment of a charitable donation by a non-corporate entity from monies received from individuals for that purpose; (m) a membership payment for the purposes of complying with Australia's obligations under international treaties; (n) a payment, or notional payment, from one Commonwealth entity to another; (o) a notional payment by a Commonwealth entity to itself. Note: Additional guidance on the range of arrangements referred to in this subsection is available on the Department's website (http:///www.finance.gov.au). Division 2 — Resource Management Framework 43 Background to the Resource Management Framework Ministers, accountable authorities and officials, and the third parties they deal with, operate within an environment of legislation and government policy. Within this broad context, the resource management framework consists of the legislation, policy and guidance governing the management of public resources. This framework contains an overarching requirement that accountable authorities govern Commonwealth entities in a way that promotes proper use and management of public resources. The key legislative requirements in this framework are located in this Part and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and in rules made under that Act. Ministers, accountable authorities and officials are subject to these requirements. Officials need to advise their Ministers about the requirements that their Ministers are subject to. 43A Meaning of resource management framework (1) The resource management framework is the overarching accountability framework for the proper use and management of public resources, including for grants administration, and consists of: (a) requirements in this Part; and (b) requirements in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and (c) requirements prescribed by the rules for the purposes of that Act; and (d) requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and (e) policy guidance in instruments made by the Finance Minister under subsection 105C(1) of that Act. Note: For paragraph (e), in 2024 the relevant instrument is the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. Part 2 of that instruments sets out key principles for grant administration. In 2024, those Guidelines could be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.finance.gov.au). (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(b), that paragraph includes requirements in the following provisions of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013: (a) section 15 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity governing the entity in a way that promotes the proper use and management of public resources); (b) section 19 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity keeping the responsible Minister informed of the activities of the entity etc.); (c) sections 21 and 22 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity complying with policies of the Australian Government). 43B Governing Commonwealth entities in accordance with the resource management framework (1) The responsible Minister, accountable authority, and officials of a Commonwealth entity must comply with the requirements in the resource management framework. (2) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must ensure that the entity complies with any requirements in the resource management framework to which the entity is subject. Note: These requirements include those set out in Division 3. Division 3 — Additional requirements for grants administration Subdivision A — Objectives and general requirements for grants administration 44 Objectives of grants administration (1) The objective of grants administration is to promote proper use and management of public resources through collaboration with government and non-government stakeholders to achieve government policy outcomes. (2) This objective is achieved through compliance with the following: (a) the legislative, policy and reporting requirements and guidance set out in the resource management framework that are applicable to grants administration; (b) whole-of-government and individual Commonwealth entity grants administration practices. 44A Requirement for internal guidelines, controls etc. relating to grants administration A Commonwealth entity's: (a) internal guidelines and policies, and operational guidance and controls, relating to grants administration; and (b) program guidelines for grants programs; must be consistent with the resource management framework. 44B Requirements for performing grants administration A Commonwealth entity must perform its grants administration in a way that: (a) is proportionate to the risks identified and outcomes sought; and (b) achieves value with relevant money; and (c) involves effective and efficient governance and accountability; and (d) achieves probity and transparency; and (e) is consistent with the resource management framework. 44C Requirement to record legal authority and constitutional head of power supporting grants A Commonwealth entity must, before a grant is approved under the entity's grants program, record: (a) the legal authority supporting the grant; and (b) the constitutional head of power supporting the grant. Note 1: Examples of legal authority are: (a) section 32B; and (b) specific legislation such as Part II of the Disability Services Act 1986; and (c) section 23 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Note 2: Ministers, accountable authorities and officials also have obligations under the resource management framework relating to approving the commitment of relevant money, including: (a) a Minister being satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that the expenditure would be a proper use of relevant money (see section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013); and (b) approvals of proposed commitments of relevant money be recorded in writing (see rules prescribed under that Act). Subdivision B — Requirements for planning and design of grant programs 44D Initial planning (1) An official of a Commonwealth entity must establish and document whether a proposed arrangement is a grant before applying the resource management framework to it. (2) An official of a Commonwealth entity who is involved in the entity's grants program must: (a) prepare draft program guidelines for all new grant opportunities under the grants program, and prepare revised draft program guidelines if significant changes are made to the program; and (b) have regard to any key principles for grants administration set out in instruments made by the Finance Minister under subsection 105C(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and (c) ensure the draft program guidelines and related internal guidance are consistent with the resource management framework; and (d) brief the responsible Minister for the entity on the draft program guidelines; and (e) advise the responsible Minister for the entity on the relevant requirements of resource management framework, if the responsible Minister is considering approving the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under the grants program. 44E Third party administering grants for a Commonwealth entity (1) If a Commonwealth entity has an arrangement with a third party for the third party to administer grants on behalf of the entity, the accountable authority of the entity must ensure the arrangement: (a) is in writing; and (b) promotes the proper use and management of other CRF money; and (c) requires the third party to administer the grants so that the resource management framework is fully complied with. Working collaboratively across government (2) The accountable authority and officials of a Commonwealth entity involved in grants administration must work together across government and with non-government stakeholders. (3) When determining what the acquittal or reporting requirements are for those grants, the officials must have regard to information collected by Commonwealth Government regulators that is available to the officials. Subdivision C — Approving commitments of relevant money for grants 44F Role of officials Approver is the accountable authority or an official (1) If the accountable authority, or an official, (the approver) of a Commonwealth entity approves the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program, the approver must record in writing: (a) the basis for the approval relative to the program guidelines for the grants program; and (b) how the approval achieves value with relevant money. Obligations on officials if approver is the responsible Minister (2) If the responsible Minister for the Commonwealth entity is to approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program, an official of the entity must provide written advice to the Minister that, at a minimum: (a) explicitly states that the spending proposal being considered for approval is a grant; and (b) provides information on the applicable requirements of the resource management framework (particularly any ministerial reporting obligations), including the legal authority for the grant; and (c) outlines the application and selection process followed, including the selection criteria, that were used to select potential grantees; and (d) includes the merits of the proposed grant relative to the program guidelines for the grants program, and whether the proposed grant achieves value with relevant money. (3) While the official does not have to rank all grants when briefing the responsible Minister on the merits of a specific grant or group of grants, the official should, at a minimum, indicate: (a) which grant applications fully meet the selection criteria; and (b) which applications partially meet the selection criteria; and (c) which applications do not meet any of the selection criteria. Any specific recommendations regarding grant applications for approval can be in addition to this information. 44G Role of the Minister as the approver (1) The responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity must not approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program before receiving written advice under section 44F from an official of the entity on the merits of the proposed grant. (2) If the responsible Minister gives that approval, the Minister must record in writing: (a) the basis for the approval relative to the program guidelines for the grants program; and (b) how the approval achieves value with relevant money. 44H Minister approving grants within the Minister's own electorate (1) A responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity may approve the proposed commitment of relevant money in relation to a grant within the Minister's own electorate. Note: A Minister includes a Parliamentary Secretary (see the Ministers of State Act 1952). (2) However, if the Minister does so, the Minister must: (a) prepare a report about the grant that includes a brief statement of: (i) the reasons for the approval; and (ii) if the approval was contrary to the advice or recommendations of an official of the entity (see subsection 44J(1))—the reasons for giving the approval contrary to that advice or those recommendations; and (b) table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day of the approval; and (c) publish the report on GrantConnect no later than 2 business days after the day of the approval. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if: (a) the Minister is a Senator; or (b) the grant is one that has been approved Australia-wide, state-wide, or across a region that is larger than the Minister's own electorate, on the basis of a formula. 44J Minister approving grants contrary to advice or recommendations (1) The responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity may approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant contrary to the advice or recommendations made by an official of the entity under section 44F. (2) However, if the Minister (including a Senator) does so, the Minister must: (a) prepare a report about the grant that includes a brief statement of reasons for giving the approval contrary to the official's advice or recommendations; and (b) table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day of the approval; and (c) publish the report on GrantConnect no later than 2 business days after the day of the approval. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the Minister has already prepared, tabled and published a report about the grant under section 44H. Subdivision D — Public reporting for grant programs 44K Scope and role of accountable authorities (1) This Subdivision applies to a Commonwealth entity's grants administration for a grants program it is delivering or is proposing to deliver. (2) The accountable authority of the Commonwealth entity must ensure that the entity complies with this Subdivision for the grants program. Note Effective disclosure and reporting arrangements for grants administration is essential for reasons of transparency and public accountability. Reliable and timely information on grants awarded is a precondition for public and parliamentary confidence in the quality and integrity of grants administration. 44L Making and publishing program guidelines (1) The responsible Minister for the Commonwealth entity must, by legislative instrument, determine program guidelines for the grants program that include the following: (a) the grant opportunity process; (b) the process (including selection criteria) for assessing grant applications and selecting grantees; (c) the process for notifying selected grantees and entering into grant agreements with them; (d) the key responsibilities and expectations of grantees under the grant agreements; (e) the process for monitoring and evaluating grantees and grant activities. Note 1: For paragraph (a), the grant opportunity process is the specific grant round or process where grants are available. This process includes mentioning whether grant opportunities are open or targeted. Note 2: A draft of the program guidelines must be prepared by an official of the Commonwealth entity (see subsection 44D(2)). (2) The program guidelines for the grants program must be determined under subsection (1) at least 30 days before the first day applications for grants may be made under the grants program. (3) The Commonwealth entity must ensure that the program guidelines are publicly available on GrantConnect: (a) as soon as practicable; and (b) at least 7 days before the first day applications for grants may be made under the grants program. (4) Subsection (2) and paragraph (3)(b) do not apply for the grants program if the grants program relates to a national disaster or emergency. Note: As they are a legislative instrument, the program guidelines will also be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 sitting days after being registered (see subsection 38(1) of the Legislation Act 2003). 44M Reporting information about each grant under the program (1) The Commonwealth entity must report information about each grant under the grants program: (a) on the entity's website on or before the day the grant takes effect; and (b) on GrantConnect no later than 7 days after the day the grant takes effect. The information can be removed from the entity's website once it is accessible on GrantConnect. (2) Information reported under subsection (1) about a grant must specify: (a) whether the grant agreement for the grant contains any confidentiality provisions; and (b) if the grant agreement does so—the reasons for doing so. (3) If an official of the Commonwealth entity determines that reporting some information about the grant would be contrary to a law (such as the Privacy Act 1988), or the grant agreement for the grant, the Commonwealth entity must: (a) comply with subsection (1) as much as is legally possible; and (b) document the reasons for not fully complying with subsection (1); and (c) take reasonable steps to ensure that future grant agreements do not prevent full compliance with subsection (1). Note: For paragraph (a), it may be possible, for example, to omit the name of the grantee and other personal information that may contravene the Privacy Act 1988, and report other grant details. (4) If an official of the Commonwealth entity determines that complying with subsection (1) about the grant could adversely affect the achievement of government policy outcomes, the responsible Minister for the entity may seek an exemption from the Finance Minister. 44N Additional reporting requirements for grants programs worth at least $100 million (1) This section applies to the grants program (the reportable program) if the total amount of money forming part of the CRF that is available for grants under: (a) the reportable program; and (b) each other grants program (if any) of the Commonwealth entity that: (i) is being or is proposed to be delivered in a financial year in which the reportable program is being or is proposed to be delivered (the current financial year); or (ii) was delivered in any of the previous 3 financial years; and that relates to the same or similar subject matter as the reportable program; is at least $100 million (the reportable program threshold). Note 1: The $100 million threshold is not limited to grants actually given in the current financial year or in the previous 3 financial years. Note 2: This section applies separately (in parallel): (a) for each of the other grants programs covered by paragraph (b) that is being or is proposed to be delivered in the current financial year; and (b) for each financial year in which the reportable program is being or is proposed to be delivered. (2) The Commonwealth entity must prepare a report about each of the following stages of the reportable program: (a) the making under subsection 44L(1) of the program guidelines for the reportable program; (b) the assessment and selection of grantees; (c) the entering into of grant agreements with selected grantees; (d) the conclusion of the reportable program (which should include an evaluation of the program's effectiveness). (3) The Commonwealth entity must give each report prepared under subsection (2) about a stage of the reportable program to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration: (a) within 30 days after the day that stage was completed; or (b) such longer period as the Committee allows. (4) Each report prepared under subsection (2) must comply with the requirements: (a) approved by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration; and (b) prescribed by the rules. (5) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day the Committee receives it. Division 4 — Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration 45 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration As soon as practicable after the commencement of this section and the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration, is to be appointed: (a) according to the practice of the Parliament; and (b) as required in this Division. 45A Membership of the Committee (1) The Committee is to consist of 16 members as follows: (a) 6 members of the Senate appointed by the Senate; (b) 10 members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House. (2) No more than 8 of the Committee's members may be from a recognised political party that forms part of the Government. (3) The Chair of the Committee must not be from a recognised political party that forms part of the Government. (4) A member of the Committee ceases to hold office: (a) when the House of Representatives expires by effluxion of time or is dissolved; or (b) if the member ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which the member was appointed; or (c) if the member resigns the member's office as provided by subsection (5) or (6). (5) A member appointed by the Senate may resign the member's office by writing signed by the member and delivered to the President of the Senate. (6) A member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign the member's office by writing signed by the member and delivered to the Speaker of that House. (7) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the Committee appointed by that House. 45B Functions of the Committee The functions of the Committee are: (a) to oversee Commonwealth grant administration, including: (i) scrutinising grant program guidelines made under subsection 44L(1), and regularly reporting to Parliament; about those guidelines; and (ii) scrutinising reports from Ministers under sections 44H and 44J regarding grant approvals, and regularly reporting to Parliament about those reports; and (iii) any other matter relating to Commonwealth grants administration that the Committee resolves is of public importance; and (iv) referrals from any House; and (v) referrals from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; and (b) to consider, and report quarterly to each House of the Parliament, each report given to the Committee under section 44N during the quarter. 45C Powers and proceedings of the Committee Meetings (1) The Committee may meet at such times and at such places within Australia: (a) as the Committee, by resolution, determines; or (b) subject to any resolution of the Committee, as the Chair determines. Quorum and voting (2) At a meeting of the Committee, 6 members constitute a quorum. (3) All questions to be decided by the Committee are to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present. (4) The Chair or other member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (5) If the members present do not vote unanimously, the manner in which each member votes must, if a member so requires, be recorded in the minutes and in the Committee's report. Other matters (6) All other matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Committee are to be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. 45D Annual report (1) The Committee must, in relation to each financial year, prepare a report on the performance of its functions during the year. (2) The Committee must table the report in each House of the Parliament. Public Service Act 1999 3 After subsection 41B(2) Insert: (2A) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply for an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct relating to the resource management framework (within the meaning of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997). 4 After subsection 41B(9) Insert: (9A) Paragraph (9)(b) does not apply for a breach of the Code of Conduct relating to the resource management framework (within the meaning of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997). My amendment goes to robust reporting to parliament. Again, I would say it is absolutely fundamental that parliament is dealt into decisions when it comes to how taxpayers' monies are spent. We need to know, as a nation and as a parliament, not only that grants have fair, transparent and publicly available guidelines and selection criteria, as I mentioned in my first amendment, but also that, when a minister decides to make a decision that is not in line with the recommendations from the department, they come to the parliament and report those in a timely manner. This is really best practice about who is best placed to receive a grant. There may indeed be legitimate reasons why a minister decides to go against departmental advice, and they should have no problem in coming to the parliament to do that. In responding to this amendment, the government may well say that there's already a Senate order requiring the finance minister to report on which ministers have awarded grants against official advice. But, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I put it to you and to the government that this happens once a year. It hardly achieves the transparency and accountability we should all expect. And, in the meantime, while we're waiting for that once-a-year special revelation, we shouldn't have to wait for a media investigation or indeed an audit report to uncover pork-barrelling. This is an important amendment. It's not a difficult amendment. It's one that could easily be accepted by the government. To be frank, I'm at a loss to understand why the government would wish to oppose such a sensible amendment. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T 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. 11:30 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi by leave—I move amendments (2) and (4), standing in my name, together: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (4) Page 12 (after line 34), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Improved grants reporting Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 1 Before Part 3 Insert: Part 2B — Reportable grants approved under instruments 46 Simplified outline of this Part This Part provides for some reporting requirements for certain grants. 46A Definitions In this Part: corporate Commonwealth entity has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. grant has the meaning given by section 46B. reportable grant means a grant which is approved: (a) based on an application which: (i) an official has recommended should be rejected; or (ii) does not meet any of the relevant selection criteria; or (b) by a Minister, who is a member of the House of Representatives, for a grantee in their electorate. 46B Meaning of grant (1) A grant is an arrangement for the provision of financial assistance by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, or by or on behalf of a corporate Commonwealth entity: (a) under which relevant money or other CRF money is to be paid to a grantee other than the Commonwealth; and (b) which is intended to help address one or more of the Australian Government's policy outcomes while assisting the grantee achieve its objectives. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a grant may take a variety of forms including payments made: (a) as a result of competitive or non-competitive selection processes; or (b) where particular criteria are satisfied; or (c) on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Note: Types of grants include, for example, research grants, grants providing for the delivery of services, grants that help fund infrastructure, and grants that help build capacity. (3) Despite subsection (1), none of the following arrangements are grants: (a) the acquisition of goods and services by a Commonwealth entity for its own use, or on behalf of another entity; (b) an act of grace payment approved under section 65 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; (c) a payment of compensation made under: (i) an arrangement relating to defective administration; or (ii) an arrangement relating to employment conditions; or (iii) an arrangement established by a law; (d) a payment to a person of a benefit or an entitlement established by a law; (e) a tax concession or offset; (f) an investment or loan; (g) a payment: (i) to a State under section 96 of the Constitution; or (ii) to a State or Territory for the purposes of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009; unless the Commonwealth has a determinative input into the final recipients of the payments; (h) a payment made for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995; (i) a payment made for the purposes of the Australian Education Act 2013; (j) a payment made for the purposes of the Higher Education Support Act 2003; (k) a payment of assistance for the purposes of Australia's international development assistance programme, which is treated by the Commonwealth as official development assistance; (l) a payment of a charitable donation by a non-corporate entity from monies received from individuals for that purpose; (m) a membership payment for the purposes of complying with Australia's obligations under international treaties; (n) a payment, or notional payment, from one Commonwealth entity to another; (o) a notional payment by a Commonwealth entity to itself. Note: Additional guidance on the range of arrangements referred to in this subsection is available on the Department's website (http:///www.finance.gov.au). 46C Reportable grants approved under instruments (1) This section applies if a Minister: (a) approves a grant in accordance with an instrument made under section 105C of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and (b) the grant is a reportable grant. (2) If the Minister approves a reportable grant, the Minister must provide a written report to the Finance Minister within 30 days of approving the reportable grant. (3) The report must include a statement of reasons that explains the basis on which the Minister approved the reportable grant. (4) If the Minister is a member of the House of Representatives and the Minister approves a reportable grantfor a grantee in their electorate, the Minister must include this information in the statement of reasons in subsection (3). (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the reportable grant is awarded Australia-wide, state-wide or across a region on the basis of a formula, and the reportable grant falls in the relevant Minister's electorate. (6) The Finance Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after receiving the report. My remaining amendments would create a joint parliamentary committee on grants administration and investment mandates. This committee will oversee grants administration, including compliance with guidelines. Grants over $100 million would be referred to the committee for additional oversight. These are sensible amendments, and I thank the Centre for Public Integrity for working with me on them. They're gold standard amendments. They have support from some of the most experienced and respected legal minds in this country—indeed, the same legal minds that the now government called upon frequently when in opposition, when they were railing in this place against the alleged pork-barrelling of the former government. I think it's an extraordinary situation, to be truthful, that anyone in this place would have a problem with any of these amendments, which, quite frankly, irrespective of whether you're in government or opposition—or, indeed, whether you sit in the golden spot on the crossbench—only seek to make us all do better. I call on all members of this place from all political parties to back me in these reforms and not turn a blind eye to my efforts to end pork-barrelling just because it's something that everyone does. That's something our teenagers say to us: 'Everyone else is doing it; let's do it too.' We should be so much better than that. I say: back my amendments, end pork-barrelling and go with me on this. My next amendments, amendments (2) and (4), replicate the current Minister for Finance's own private member's bill introduced in the Senate in 2021. For those members sitting here right now listening to this, I implore you to go and have a look at that bill. This is your own finance minister's bill. It was called the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021. Those amendments put by Senator Gallagher at the time would force ministers who award grants in their own electorate or against departmental recommendations to report the decision to the finance minister within just 30 days of the approval, and then the finance minister has to table that report in the parliament within five sitting days. That was in the finance minister's very own bill. As I said before, the government might say that ministers currently do this once a year. But it really isn't good enough, and I would argue that the Minister for Finance thinks it isn't good enough either. It really stifles transparency in government grant-making. I'm saying to the government: if you can't accept my 'end pork-barrelling' amendments as they stand, then support your own finance minister in what she was seeking to do. When the senator introduced her 'improved grants reporting' bill, she said that her bill: … will dramatically reduce the time ministers are able to hide their dodgy decisions from the Australian community, and there is no reasonable argument for any senator in this place— and, I would say, any member in this House— particularly those on the government benches, to oppose this bill. We know all too well about dodgy decisions. The member for Curtin just mentioned a particularly egregious and well-publicised one. I have spoken about them at length, the Australian National Audit Office has reported on them at length and, indeed, members of the current government have been very noisy in the past about these things. I know that Senator Gallagher, like me, supports integrity in public expenditure. I thank her and other members of the government for meeting with me to discuss these amendments. I think that if the government fails to support amendments that simply replicate a bill previously introduced by their own finance minister then, really, I don't know what to say! So I call on them to dial up on their own integrity and to support these amendments. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T 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—the Minister on indulgence? 11:35 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Thank you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, for your indulgence. I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate, including the member for Indi and the member for Curtin for their contributions. I will make a few remarks in relation to those in a moment. This bill has a long history. Members in this place who have been here for a while will understand the long history to this bill arising out of a series of High Court decisions in the Williams matter. The objective of this bill is to put beyond doubt spending decisions—in particular, grant decisions by the Commonwealth. The purpose and effect of the bill will be to put beyond doubt the consistent operation of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act with how it has been understood to operate. This includes in circumstances where other general legislative authority may be available. The amendments will confirm the validity of government spending programs that rely on section 32B of that act, as well as any other government involvement in companies in reliance on section 39B of the FF(SP) Act in circumstances where other general powers could be relied on. The changes in the bill simply clarify the position to what has always been the common understanding. In view of other things that are going on in the House, I'll keep my comments in relation to the amendments moved by the member for Indi very, very brief. I have no doubt about the genuineness of the position from which the member for Indi is coming on her amendments. I'll just simply note that the government is committed to increasing transparency and accountability for government decision-making. This follows other steps that we've taken, which you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and the member for Indi feel very passionately about, including the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. As the member is aware, and as other members are aware, the Prime Minister has indicated that there is work underway to strengthen the Commonwealth grants framework, including possible enhancements to rules and guidelines which will do everything that goes to the issues motivating the member for Indi's amendments. That includes integrity, accountability, probity and transparency. We're considering these matters in detail and announcements will be made once they're finalised—I can inform the House of those. And, given that we have all this work underway, we believe that it would be pre-emptory to consider and agree to the amendments that have been moved in good faith by the member for Indi and which have been supported by others at this stage. With those brief comments, I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. As it is necessary to resolve certain questions to enable further questions to be considered in relation to the bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 2995

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

Second Reading 2995 11:39 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Organised crime, civil wars, slave labour, corruption, the extinction of species and environmental destruction have all been linked to the global practice of illegal logging. This pernicious practice not only damages forest ecosystems and local communities but also costs the global community up to $240 billion each year, according to the United Nations. This makes illegal logging the world's most expensive environmental crime and, in an economic sense, significantly distorts the free and fair operation of timber markets the world over. While most of this illegal activity occurs overseas, this is not to say the impacts of below-market-price and illegally sourced timber aren't felt here in Australia, nor does it suggest that there is not a role for Australia to play. As a general principle, the coalition gladly supports further practical actions to tighten and strengthen Australia's laws against the importation, sale and use of illegal timber. As such, I second the sentiments of the shadow minister for the environment, fisheries and forestry, Senator Jonathon Duniam, and express my pleasure in seeing Labor continue the work of the former coalition government in this policy area, specifically in regard to reviewing and monitoring the content, operation and effectiveness of relevant laws and regulations in this policy area on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, it is also good that, at the 2022 federal election, the Labor Party basically carbon copied the coalition's forestry policies. Whilst we wouldn't normally condone plagiarism, one of the outcomes of that course of action from Labor was that they promised to match our policy to assign $4.4 million to strengthen Australia's fight against illegal logging and stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers. Specifically in relation to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, we are also pleased that Labor has continued the considerable work that we had started when we were in government in respect of reviewing the sunsetting of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation 2012. That review began in 2021. It was aimed squarely at assessing whether the act and the regulation were allowing Australia to best play our part in effectively reducing the many harmful impacts of illegal logging. So it's a welcome development to see some movement now from the Labor Party. During the years of the coalition government we, likewise, oversaw the advent of two other major review processes. The first of these was conducted by KPMG in 2015 to examine the impact of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation specifically on small businesses. The second was a statutory review of the act, which was undertaken in 2018 by the then Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Each of those exercises shed valuable and important light on how Australia could potentially strengthen and improve our approach to countering illegal logging. As has been acknowledged by Minister Watt, this particular bill gives expression to important improvements identified as part of those previous reviews. We're glad that the Labor Party has adopted that approach and has continued with the direction that had been established for them by the coalition. All of that said, there are a few things associated with Labor's execution of this approach that we think need further scrutiny. The first is that we would obviously like some more information from the government, and in a reasonable time frame, about how the content of each of the proposed new regulations and rules might look. We won't be in a position to understand all of the detail and the likely impacts that flow from this bill until we can see those changes more specifically. Of course, when it's the Labor Party and forestry involved, our nervousness about this kind of situation necessarily grows exponentially. That's because Labor has historically made so many bad decisions and so many false promises to Australian forestry workers and their families. Foremost among these have been the disastrous decisions—involving many broken promises, I might add—by the state Labor governments of Victoria and Western Australia to end native forest harvesting from the beginning of this year. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:44 to 11:56 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 That not only has decimated jobs but also is a disaster for the environment. At a time when demand for timber in Australia is continuing to accelerate, we do not support the policy position of those two state Labor governments or, might I add, of the Greens and the teals in this regard. Their approach of trying to eliminate even the small amount of native timber harvesting activity that remains here will not only continue to harm Australia socially and economically by triggering mass job losses but it will also substantially increase our importation and use of timber from countries with weaker environmental regulations, including those where tropical rainforests are logged unsustainably and illegally—not to mention the further devastating impact this will have on timber towns and communities. During this parliamentary term, Labor has made some other really bad decisions in forestry, and the federal forestry minister has also completely caved in to the federal environment minister time and time again. Alarmingly, he has even stood idly by as the environment minister has instructed her department to rewrite the relevant laws in the EPBC Act, to rip up the regional forestry agreement system that has operated successfully and provided certainty in Australia—for both industry and environmental advocates alike—for around 25 years. In regard to native forestry, that system has imposed very significant prohibitions on the level of native forestry harvesting that occurs across Australia. More specifically, there are around 132 million hectares of native forest area in Australia, and only 0.06 per cent of this area is harvested annually. That's the equivalent of six trees out of every 10,000. This comparatively very low level of harvesting means that Australia now already imports more than $5½ billion of wood products annually, and that figure is continuing to soar. A 2022 Forest & Wood Products Australia study even found that, without significant changes to the status quo, Australia's reliance on imported timber will likely further surge and potentially even double by 2050. This is made worse by the fact that this study was also written before the Victorian government decided, in May of 2023, to bring forward its native forestry ban by six years, from 2030 to 2024. During this term of parliament, the environment minister has also noticeably failed to back in the Prime Minister's explicit pre-election promise to Tasmanians to not end native forestry. In fact, she even appeared as the keynote speaker at an event at last year's ALP National Conference that was called 'ending native forest logging'. The government is also shamefully hiding the details of exactly how far the minister intends to go in rewriting the relevant laws, even after two years in office. We assume that the Labor Environment Action Network and the far left of the Labor Party have been told what will be done and what the environment minister's secret plan is. But every other Australian will be left on tenterhooks until the next time the Labor Party is elected to government—whenever that might be. In relation to this bill more specifically, we have heard from stakeholders that not all parts of the forestry sector are fully in agreement with it. That includes feedback that they have not been properly consulted and that, in some cases, their representations have actually been ignored. There are also some arguments being mounted by them about a likely substantial increase in red tape and the potential practical unworkability of at least some of the new arrangements. Indeed, there are a range of points of contention that we think warrant at least some further examination. It is on that basis that we will allow this bill to pass the House of Representatives, but we also suggest that it should be referred to a short Senate committee inquiry. This is not to thwart nor to block the passage of this legislation. Indeed, we strongly suspect that anyone who is prepared to voice public criticism of this new legislation and/or the process that has led to it in such a Senate inquiry may also choose to criticise the coalition, not just the Labor Party. Our intent in calling for a short Senate inquiry is so that we can genuinely understand, right across the parliament, whether there might still be further amendments to the bill worth making. The bill does deliver some important changes, and the philosophy behind it, if you like, is right. The coalition hopes that, if there is further work that can be done to improve the bill's practical operation and it's workability, the government will be open to it. 12:03 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise in support of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, which was brought to the parliament by the fabulous Minister Murray Watt. This bill is an election commitment and an important update to existing legislation. It will ensure that Australia is both well positioned and well armed for success in our fight against illegally logged timber and timber products entering our country. The term 'illegal logging' refers to a range of illegal activities: the harvesting of protected species, logging in protected areas, logging with fake permits and using illegal harvesting methods. Sadly, illegal logging occurs all over the globe, including in Australia, but the particular hotspots include the Amazon basin, Central Africa, South-East Asia and in the Russian Federation. I put on the record my particular concern about something that is actually, I guess, legal logging, or non-illegal land clearing. For example, in Queensland, bulldozers clear vegetation and that doesn't require the consent of the environment minister either at the state level or the Commonwealth level. But I digress. That's another issue that we need to deal with. It is currently estimated that up to 10 per cent of the timber imports to Australia may have been illegally logged. This has an adverse effect on our sustainable timber industry and its linked supply chains, investment and jobs. The Australian forestry industry is crucial. It has an annual economic contribution of around $25 billion and supports about 80,000 jobs, particularly in the bush. Fighting illegal logging is not just a local matter. Illegal logging needs to be addressed on a global scale as well. This is necessary for economic, societal and environmental reasons. We can be proud that Australia has been at the forefront of this fight since 2012. That's when we introduced world-leading logging prohibition laws in the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act. This act was amongst the first of its kind internationally. It focused on restricting the import and sale of illegally logged timber and timber products. Isn't it a proud record that Labor has of being a middle country going to the rest of the world and saying, 'We need to address this harm'? Whether it be tobacco or the internet, Australia does have a proud record, particularly under Labor governments. The legislation also restricted the processing of domestic timber that had been illegally cut down. The act included a requirement for timber importers and processors to conduct due diligence on the source of their timber. I have been contacted by one of my constituents about timber coming from Myanmar. Just tracking down the provenance of the timber, particularly that used in the marine industry, was an interesting process. Nevertheless, in the years since this act was introduced there has been growing awareness of the detrimental effects of illegal logging, both at the individual consumer level and at the broader societal and government levels. Australian consumers are increasingly demanding sustainability in the timber product industry. We want to be sure that our wooden floors, furniture, takeaway containers and even the paper that this speech is printed on have been both legally and sustainably sourced. Alongside this, there is also increasingly widespread awareness of the devastating environmental and societal impacts of deforestation. Governments around the world have responded with tightened regulatory approaches, as well as with new technology, to combat illegal practices. As a result, we now have the opportunity to harness a more global approach and to work with the international community to fight illegal logging and the resulting trade. To make progress in stopping illegal logging, there needs to be an interconnected approach of enforced legislation, international frameworks and cooperation amongst governments and organisations. A global approach is required because, if consumer countries continue to allow the import of illegally logged timber or timber products, then they are basically complicit in the illegal trade. We need to shut down the market for illegal timber. With these amendments, Labor will also implement the recommendations from the statutory and sunsetting reviews of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, which indicated that there were challenges with enforcement. These recommendations include identifying contraventions and taking appropriate and timely compliance action. This bill will strengthen and modernise the act both to protect the Australian market from illegally logged timber imports and to bolster the sustainable and legal international timber trade. It will push one down and lift the other one up. The detrimental effects of illegal logging and the resulting illegal timber trade are wide ranging. In the places where illegal logging occurs, there are destructive effects on indigenous peoples and local communities. The effects it was having on indigenous people was a particular concern raised with a parliamentary delegation by representatives from Myanmar. Our forests are central to the livelihood and cultural heritage in many of these indigenous communities. It is, sadly, not unusual for conflict and human rights abuses to occur as a result of confrontations over land rights and logging rights. As the most profitable environmental crime, illegal logging is linked to a range of shady dealings such as corruption, organised crime and exploitation—and other crimes, I would suggest, including murder. The United Nations estimates that the global illegal timber trade is worth between $30 billion and $100 billion annually. In many cases, this unregulated market directly affects developing countries with tax revenue that they cannot collect, and it lowers the price of the product from producers who are actually following the law. The good producers are being punished by the bad. The World Bank estimates that timber-producing countries lose up to $15 billion per year in lost revenue because of this. There is no denying that illegal logging is an environmental disaster. We have all seen the terrible pictures of vast swathes of cleared rainforest, sad scars on the landscape. At the local level there is a staggering loss of biodiversity and destruction of the habitat of endangered species. Other impacts include soil erosion, the potential for dangerous landslides and run-off of sediment, and often pollutants into rivers and coastal waters that damage fragile ecosystems. I'm sure that members of the coalition would be up in arms at this clearing, particularly if there were a hint that it was being used for renewable energy, putting up solar panels—then they'd be animated. But we should all be concerned about all illegal logging, because all sensible people know that illegal logging has also contributed to climate change. We all know the science by now that forests are carbon sinks. When large sections of forest are decimated, there are vastly fewer trees to perform the critical act of soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It's a natural process. And when the felled trees are then burned, their stored carbon is still released into the atmosphere as dangerous CO2. Not that CO2 in the atmosphere is dangerous, but that these are dangerous levels of CO2. This wide range of negative impacts shows the complexity of this global problem. Thankfully, there are new weapons in our arsenal, both practical and regulatory, which can assist in combating this pernicious trade. On the practical side, research is progressing into new and emerging timber identification technologies. These technologies employ genomics to determine the identity of the tree species and the geographic origin of logged trees. The Australian government has invested $4.4 million in a timber identification trial. Some would say this provides fingerprints for trees—I wouldn't—but the aim is to ensure that reference databases, systems and procedures are fit for identification purposes under the amendment to the act. Timber testing will be deployed alongside best practice regulatory approaches to support compliance personnel in verifying the origin and species of imported timber. It will enable them to assess the accuracy and strength of the due diligence procedures of the provenance of the timber. The bill also introduces necessary regulatory enhancements. These include the requirement for importers and processors to give prior notice before importing timber—knowing what is coming into the country in advance enables targeted testing of the origin of the timber. The amendments also include further regulatory strengthening, with more flexible enforcement options and expanded monitoring and investigation powers regarding testing and analysis of samples. The bill also provides for strict liability offences, injunctions and enforceable undertakings—a sliding scale of changing behaviour. We are bolstering due diligence measures by enabling audits to determine compliance with regulations. There is also an extension to the time frame for issuing infringement notices to 24 months. This allows a thorough completion of the audit and associated compliance activities. The bill also enables naming and shaming, with details of contraventions to be published on the department's website. This will act as a deterrent for others seeking to profit from the illegal-logging trade—a business that is doing the wrong thing and turning a blind eye could be called out for so doing. This bill is an important part of ensuring that our illegal-logging legislation remains in step with international efforts to stamp out the practice and the trade. Strengthening traceability processes and regulatory systems will make Australia an unattractive destination for those seeking to profit from illegal logging and all the harm that goes with it. It will also enhance our reputation for and commitment to sustainable timber production. These measures will minimise the negative effect of the trade on our local industries and supply chains. The bill also enjoys broad support from the forestry industry and environmental stakeholders, as the CEO of the Australian Forest Products Association pointed out: Illegal timber not only undermines the environmental sustainability of the forest products industry, it also undermines our domestic biosecurity protections creating a heightened risk of potentially devastating pests and diseases that can devastate local industry. I note that the opposition have indicated their support for this legislation as well. I'd like to end by taking a moment to look at the broader picture. The amendments in this bill are in line with the Albanese Labor government's commitment to supporting global action on climate change, to protecting biodiversity and to stopping species extinction. In just two years in government, Labor has developed a nature repair market and expanded the water trigger so that oil, gas and fracking projects need to be assessed for their impact on our precious water resources. We'll be establishing an independent environment protection agency, a tough green cop on the beat, and the new Environment Information Australia body, which is basically the ABS for the bush. We've made a $100 million investment in faster environmental approvals. The Minister for the Environment and Water is also pressing ahead with consultations for further updates to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The amendments in this bill also support other key government priorities, such as taking on organised crime and corruption that disadvantage developing countries, particularly indigenous communities. Such matters are everyone's concern, as global citizens, especially for the globe's 13th biggest economy, a country that can have a great role on the stage in terms of leading the middle powers to do the right thing. I commend the bill to the House. 12:16 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon As a general principle, the coalition is happy to support further actions to tighten and strengthen Australia's laws against the importation, sale and use of illegal timber. We're actually pleased that the government has continued the process that we put in place and started, to review and monitor the content, operation and effectiveness of the relevant laws and regulations in this policy area on a number of occasions. More broadly, we're also very pleased that, when it came to the last election, the current government basically took a carbon copy of our policy and decided to implement it. They haven't implemented it in a way that we think, in the end, is proving all that effective. But, in this area, they did decide to match our $4.4 million commitment to strengthen Australia's fight against illegal logging and stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers. In relation to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill specifically, we're also pleased that Labor has continued the considerable work that we started when we were in government in respect of reviewing the sunsetting of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation 2012. We all need to make sure that we get the balance right, in this area. We have to make sure that we understand we place regulatory burdens upon our industry, upon the people who import timber. Sadly, we've seen the need to import more and more timber, given that state governments are shutting down native forest logging, versus the need and desire to make sure we are not seeing the exploitation by illegal loggers of forests overseas. This is where in Australia, sadly, we aren't getting the balance right. By shutting down more and more of our native timber industries, what we are doing is putting more and more pressure on us as a nation to have to import timber, and that brings with it real consequences, including supply constraints. What we're seeing now is housing builds at their lowest level in well over a decade, and that's what happens when you do not manage things properly. An honourable member interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 There's laughter on the other side, but, seriously, there are people at the moment who are sleeping rough because they can't get access to houses, because they can't afford to rent. We're seeing this problem exacerbated and exacerbated. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Order! The member will be heard in silence. Mr TEHAN 210911 Those opposite might laugh at that, but this is what is happening under their watch. We all know the impacts of illegal logging are widespread: deforestation, damage to forest ecosystems, the facilitation of organised crime, the use of slave labour and, in an economic sense, a significant distortion of the free and fair operation of timber markets. As I've said, we welcome this movement by the government, following all the work that we have done. There were two major reviews under us when we were in government. The first was the KPMG review in 2015 examining the impact of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation, specifically on small business. The second was a statutory review of the act that was undertaken in 2018 by the then Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Each of those reviews shed important light on how we could potentially strengthen our approach to countering illegal logging. As Minister Watt has acknowledged, this particular bill gives expression to two important improvements identified as part of those previous reviews. Once again, continuity between good policy development and implementation in this specific area when we were in government and action by the current government shows that, when the government follows the approach of the coalition and follows it strictly, you do get good outcomes. But if it doesn't then you don't get those good outcomes. Sadly, we're seeing that in a lot of areas. What is this bill seeking to do? First, we would like more information around time frames and about how the content of each new regulation and rule might look, because we want to make sure that, when it comes to this bill, the good ideas and good policy turn into good implementation as well. More generally—and I touched on this previously—one of the concerns we have with the approach being taken by the government is that it is potentially going to lead to us needing more and more timber imported into this nation. One of the things I would say to the environment minister is, 'What you should be doing is making sure, especially when it comes to Tasmania, but in other states as well, that you're honouring the commitment made by the Prime Minister that native forest harvesting would occur in Tasmania.' That was an ironclad commitment that was given and that we would like to see the environment minister come out and back 100 per cent. We would also like to see the federal Labor government start calling out more and more state governments that are putting an end to native forestry. We're seeing this in Victoria, and we're starting to see the cost and detriment of this approach. In western Victoria we're seeing areas which are being harmed, in particular in and around Raglan in my electorate of Wannon, where the community is absolutely shocked and has been devastated by the Victorian state government's approach to native forestry. We're also seeing it in Gippsland, and it's having flow-on consequences. What it means is that, in order to get timber, we're seeing a move away from native forestry and, once again, an increase in the use of plantations to make up for the fact that we don't have access to that native forest. Plantation timber, planted in the right areas, done in conjunction with farmers and well planned with our agriculture sector, obviously has a place. But what we're seeing now—and this is deeply, deeply concerning—is our prime agricultural land being used, once again, for plantation timber, without any planning and without any proper consultation with local communities. We've seen overseas investment—for instance, a $200 million fund just buying into high-value, high-rainfall agricultural land—without the community being reassured about the impact that this might have. This can be devastating. Once again, when it comes to the government, there doesn't seem to be any planning and there doesn't seem to be any proper consultation or any understanding about how we need to manage our land. If we all end up just subsidising one means of production over another, through one form or another, then that can have a huge detrimental effect on our nation, especially when a lot of the value-adding that goes on in our agriculture sector is dependent on, for instance, dairy or beef being produced on that land. So getting this balanced approach right is absolutely crucial. What my communities have seen and are saying to me is that this is not the current approach that we're seeing from the federal government. We wouldn't be seeing these pressures if there weren't these ideological decisions being taken to stop native forest harvesting. Native forest harvesting has been done properly and correctly in this nation for decades. It has provided jobs in this nation for many, many years— An opposition member interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 Those opposite can laugh, but I can tell them that there are timber communities in Victoria absolutely devastated by the decisions that are being taken. It's not a laughing matter when your job has been lost, and I think that to laugh in such a cynical way is absolutely insulting those timber communities. We have to make sure in everything that we do that we get the balance right. I want to see some proper planning and understanding that if we don't then what we are going to see is our prime food-producing agricultural land competing with other forms and means of production. Ultimately, this will mean that we're going to feed fewer people and that is not good for our nation. The opposition supports this bill because, sadly, it's becoming more and more important that we import more timber. This is because of what's being done to our native forests and our ability to harvest those native forests in a sustainable way. We do need to get this right; we have to make sure that we get the regulatory environment right. It does seem in this one instance that the government is following the very good policies and procedures which were put in place by the previous coalition government. But I take this opportunity to say to the government: getting your planning right as to how we balance plantation timber versus our rural land—our high-producing agricultural land—is incredibly important, and is getting more and more important. 12:28 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to speak on the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. Let's make sure we draw the distinction here: illegal logging is a major global problem. The theft, laundering and trade of illegal timber happens across the world in all types of forests. Driven mostly by profit, illegal logging negatively impacts forest ecosystems, communities and economies. It is the world's most profitable environmental crime and it is linked to corruption, organised crime, civil war, exploitation and violations of human rights. In 2020, the tropics lost more than 12 million hectares of canopy—that's nearly 30 soccer fields going under the bulldozer every single minute—and none of it is replaced. The United Nations and Interpol estimate that illegal logging costs the global community up to $240 billion every year. That makes it the largest environmental crime, by value, in the world. Australia is not immune to illegally logged products. Trade in low priced, illegally sourced timber undermines the prices that can be obtained for local, sustainably produced timber products. If you import wood, pulp or paper products into Australia or you process Australian-grown raw logs, the legislation now before the House affects you. You have legal responsibilities and you need to know your obligations. Under Australian law, illegal logging means the harvesting of timber in contravention of the laws of the country where the timber is harvested. This includes a wide range of illegal activities, such as logging of protected species, logging in protected areas, logging with fake or illegal permits and using illegal harvest methods. These have negative effects on supply chains, business decisions, industry profitability, investment and jobs in the Australian economy. Timber harvesting in Australia is sustainably managed and regulated to the highest environmental standards in the world. Regional forest agreements are required to conform with the objectives of the act. I know there is a lot of disagreement across the House and even within political parties about the role of timber harvesting, particularly native timber harvesting, but the fact is that as a sector it is remarkably well managed and, overall, sustainable. It's not perfect; no agriculture sector is. There are pollution aspects of dairy farming and there are land-clearing aspects of beef farming and, I'm sure, other subsectors of agriculture. Timber harvesting has its issues as well, but, by and large, it is highly regulated and it creates a lot of jobs and is very important for regional communities. It is vital that we draw a distinction. Native forestry practice in Australia is nothing like the illegal operations that exist overseas, particularly across the tropics, and any attempt to draw parallels between illegal logging overseas and native forestry in Australia must be condemned. The Australian government is committed to working with the international community to address illegal logging. In 2012 Australia introduced world-leading illegal logging prohibition legislation that was amongst the first of its kind internationally. That legislation seeks to reduce the harmful impact of illegal logging by restricting the importation and sale of illegally logged timber products in Australia and the processing of domestically grown raw logs that have been illegally logged. However, recent reviews of that legislation have identified challenges associated with its enforcement, including in identifying contraventions and taking appropriate and timely compliance action. Further, international approaches to regulating the illegal timber trade have evolved since 2012, especially with the successful use of cutting-edge timber identification technologies in some countries. This bill seeks to address the challenges with the current legislation and modernise it to ensure that it is fit for purpose now and into the future. This bill aims to amend the act to consolidate offences in the act with civil penalty provisions currently in the regulation for clarity and consistency in accordance with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers; to provide for audits to be undertaken in relation to whether importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs have complied with their due diligence requirements, to better identify patterns of compliance or noncompliance with the legislation; and to enable the making of decisions on further enforcement or educational activities in relation to regulated entities. It will also provide for alternative and more flexible enforcement options, including through the addition of strict liability offences and civil penalty provisions. The bill will extend the monitoring and investigation powers under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 in relation to taking, testing and analysing samples of regulated timber products and trigger the provisions in the act relating to injunctions and enforceable undertakings. It will enable inspectors under the act to exercise regulatory power in relation to regulated timber products that are subject to biosecurity and customs control, including taking, testing and analysing samples of the regulated timber products in order to determine their species and harvest origin. Timber testing can confirm if timber products are illegally sourced through closely pinpointing the species and harvest origin, and facilitates assessment of the adequacy of an importer's or processor's due diligence. It will provide for the time period within which an infringement notice may be given under the Regulatory Powers Act in respect of a strict liability offence or a civil penalty provision of the act to be 24 months to allow sufficient time for compliance action. It will require notice to be given of regulated timber products brought into Australia and unloaded at a landing place or port in Australia and of the processing of raw logs within Australia to allow for more efficient compliance action. It authorises the use and disclosure of relevant information under the act in certain circumstances and the publication of details of contraventions of the act on the department's website to provide a further deterrent for noncompliance. It provides protection from civil proceedings in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of functions under the act to align with similar protections in other portfolio legislation. It ensures provisions apply to importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs that are partnerships, trusts or unincorporated bodies and associations. It also enables disallowable rules to be made by the minister under the act to provide for matters that require more frequent adjustment to ensure regulatory settings are appropriate and effective. Overall, this makes the act better and stronger and more suited for the decade ahead. I am absolutely proud—very proud—to represent the forestry communities and forestry workers of my electorate of Lyons and of my home state of Tasmania. They do fantastic work. Around 70,000 Australians are directly employed in the growing and processing of forest products and tens of thousands more are indirectly supported along supply chains. In Tasmania, the sector supports around 5,000 jobs. Annually, the sector generates $23 billion of economic activity. I had the pleasure of welcoming the Prime Minister to Tasmania over the weekend to announce the phenomenal $11.3 billion of investment into housing. We want quality and homegrown Tasmanian timber to build our new Tasmanian homes. At the moment, most of the construction timber in Tassie comes from the mainland. Of course it is all plantation timber—that's just the nature of the construction industry. I know I stand at perhaps some differential with members of my own party on this, but I believe there is absolutely a place to continue native forest logging. I've been very happy with the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister. They've been quite clear that there is a place for native forest harvesting, particularly in Tasmania, but, as we know, it generally comes under state jurisdiction. The fact is there is a place for it and it has a role. It is absolutely highly regulated. I recently met with Marcus Courtney from McKay Timber in Prospect Vale in my electorate, who is working wonders making affordable homes from Tasmanian timber. The majority of the Tasmania timber struts are built in the warehouse rather than on-site, meaning they can be built up to three times faster with the same quality workmanship. He puts these struts on this platform and he knocks it together. I asked him, 'How long would it take to construct a home using this sort of mechanism, rather than getting out on site?' He said, 'You know, it would take days rather than weeks.' Of course, the industry is slow to adapt and that's the reality that we have. It's no secret that there is a shortage of timber worldwide. I'm not sure if many members of the House appreciate the insatiable demand there is worldwide for timber right now. It's very hard to come by and this is why this bill, this amendment to the act, is so important today, because too much of that timber is being illegally sourced. There's big money for illegal loggers to illegally log the rainforests of South-East Asia, across the tropics, Brazil, the Amazon, Laos, Vietnam and other areas. They're there, and they're illegally logging. They're not doing what we do in Tasmania—that is, harvest the tree and replant and manage it for the future; they are cutting down trees, they're deforesting, they're maybe putting in some palm oil plantations and they're absolutely wiping out ecosystems. The best way to stop the pressure on that increasing is to support sustainable harvesting in Tasmania. When you support a sustainable and well-managed industry, and you give it the support it needs, you take the pressure off people who seek timber in going to the illegal suppliers. Good forestry is absolutely good for the environment. I've got a book here; I'll briefly hold it up, but I know props are not welcomed. It is Heartwood: The Art and Science of Growing Trees for Conservation and Profit, by Rowan Reid. It's a good read. He's a forest scientist, and he makes the point I've made in previous speeches: good forestry is not conservation or industry; it's conservation and industry. Harvesting trees is a renewable industry. We've got timber all around us here—the tables, everything. The carbon is locked up. Having timber in our lives adds to our lives. I can't imagine a world where, if certain segments of the Greens party got their way, we would have none of this; it would all be plastic, cement and concrete, and no timber—terrible! I love having timber in our lives, but it's got to be well managed, well resourced and well regulated—and that's exactly what the Australian industry is. There is always room for improvement, absolutely, but the last thing we want to do is shut it down. The amendments in this bill will help make Australia an even less attractive destination for illegally sourced timber and further protect Australia's reputation in international markets as a supplier of sustainable and legally sourced timber products now and into the future. By reducing the volume of low-priced, illegally harvested timber, by making sure they're not supplanting the legal marketers, by reducing the volume of low-priced timber and timber products in the Australian market, the bill helps minimise the negative economic impacts that trade in such products has on local, sustainably produced products, supply chains and industry profitability. We reward those who do the right thing. The reforms in this bill will benefit the businesses and organisations that grow and sustainably harvest, process, manufacture, distribute and sell legally sourced timber and timber products. I thank every single member of my timber communities and timber associations for the hard work they do in making sure we have a sustainable, well-managed timber harvesting industry going forward. 12:42 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It was with great pleasure that I had the opportunity to listen to my friend the member for Lyons make his contribution, because he is somewhat of a lonely voice of sanity in his own party room when it comes to the sustainable native hardwood timber industry in this nation. There were days in the past when the views of the member for Lyons were consistently held across the entire Labor Party room, but, sadly, those days have long since passed. Unfortunately for him, he is surrounded by colleagues who have actively campaigned for and supported the closure of hardwood timber industries in states like Western Australia and Victoria. I commend the member for Lyons for his contribution and, like him, extend my personal gratitude to the men and women in the Australian hardwood native timber industry who have worked so hard over generations to help create some of the wealth we've enjoyed in our country towns and in our cities. I despair for the way they have been treated by members of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria and Western Australia. I acknowledge that this legislation before us today, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, takes some practical steps to protect foreign countries from illegal logging and protect the Australian market—which is something I'm very interested in. But, at the same time, it is impossible to make a speech here today in relation to this bill and not reflect on the abject failure in our own country of the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals to even try to understand the native hardwood timber industry. I also need to demonstrate how their constant undermining of hardworking Australians is having devastating social, economic, environmental and cultural impacts right across our nation, particularly in my electorate of Gippsland. People actually die as a result of poorly managed public forests. Wildlife dies in extreme fire events when we don't manage our forests well. Today in Victoria, lives are at greater risk now because of poor forest-management decisions, and livelihoods have already been destroyed because of poor public policy and zealots within the government department that were meant to administer a sustainable, world-class timber industry in my state. We have thrown away, in Victoria, a world-class sustainable industry which was 100 per cent renewable. By law in the Victorian forest sector, you had to replant or reseed timber after it had been harvested. Yet, now we have left ourselves exposed to more illegal timber in this country as a direct result of the state Labor government's decision and the federal Labor Party's failure to stand up for one blue-collar worker in my state. Country communities have been decimated. They are being torn apart because of decisions made by people who don't live in those towns and, in fact, have no interest in living in those towns, but feel they have the right to tell people in those towns what jobs they can and can't have. I've seen some stupid decisions in my political life, but the Victorian government's decision to ban the harvesting of all native hardwood timber was both illogical and bloody-minded. It wins the prize for extreme incompetence. This world-class sector has been under constant attack from activists in the judicial system, from the environmental extremists and from the cowards in elected office who are meant to protect the blue-collar workers in the Labor Party and the Greens and the Teals, who don't want to understand the facts about this industry. Deputy Speaker Chesters, I know you are a practical, reasonable person and you would instinctively understand this: when it comes to hardwood timber, there are two choices when it comes to timber—you use your own wood or you use someone else's. The demand for hardwood timber isn't going away. The previous speaker made that very clear—demand for hardwood timber isn't going away. Sure, pine plantations can do some of the work, and structural work, with housing, but hardwood timber is still going to be an essential part of our economy going forward. You either use your own wood, your own timber and your own forests in a sustainable way or you use someone else's. In Australia today we already import $5½ billion worth of wood products. We already have a trade deficit in timber products. As this legislation reflects, and as the agencies would fully acknowledge, it is incredibly difficult to impose Australia's environmental standards on other countries, to detect illegal activity and to investigate, and we are taking timber from countries which have poor environmental standards in the first place. Again, you can either use your own wood in an environmentally sustainable way, or you can rely on imported wood, over which you have almost no control. Just look around this building—the member for Lyons reflected on this as well. Just look around this building or any public building or our own homes. Here in Parliament House the timber walls that surround the two levels of the entry hall are made from a variety of timbers—limed white birch, brush box and jarrah. The Speaker's chair in the House of Representatives was made by craftsman David Upfill-Brown from solid and veneer grey box. We could have gone down to Bunnings and got an imported Chinese camping chair, but we decided to use sustainable hardwood timber instead. Thank God the people who designed this building supported the native hardwood timber industry in this country! The Speaker's chair is made from Australian hardwood. The industry in my community, despite the cuts to using their own native timber in our own region, still provide structural timber, which is used for homes, high-grade wood for furniture, and wood for musical instruments. Surely, our friends in the Greens and the Teals can at least agree that hardwood timber used for musical instruments is a worthwhile cause. That was timber that used to be harvested in my electorate, as well as a range of other everyday and essential products. You take your kids to basketball or gymnastics on a hardwood floor. That hasn't come from a pine plantation; that has come from sustainably harvested Australian hardwood timber. Going forward, I'm not sure where we're going to get that timber from, because right now in Victoria we're already raiding other states. Timber is coming from Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania and being processed in Victoria. Timber's even coming from foreign countries to be processed in Victoria, value-added in my electorate and sold in the Melbourne market. The most ridiculous aspect of this whole debate is that we already had an established system of reserves in place to ensure that our biodiversity, our long-term environmental needs and our obligations to future generations were being met. Just six per cent of the total area of native forest in Victoria was available for possible harvest. That left 94 per cent of Victoria's natural forest preserved in national parks and in high-conservation-value areas. That was a world-class conservation approach and a balanced approach to the hardwood timber industry in our state. I just want to correct some of the rhetoric that you hear in this place—and it stems from ignorance, but I just want to correct it. People like to equate the hardwood timber industry in Victoria and across Australia with terms like 'deforestation' or 'land clearing'. Deputy Speaker Chesters, you and I both know that is simply not true. The sustainably managed native hardwood timber industry involves regeneration and replanting for future generations to sustainably yield that timber in decades to come. This is not land clearing or deforestation. It is sustainably managing a public reserve to ensure that future generations will also have access to incredible Australian hardwood timber. Victoria was leading the way in making sure that the timber it was harvesting was being used for more high-value purposes than it had ever been in the past. The modern timber mill—and I'd invite anyone listening who hasn't had the opportunity to visit a modern timber mill to take the opportunity when they get the chance—is not an old sawbench with blokes in blue singlets who are missing a couple of fingers doing a very dangerous task, trying to get every last little stick out of the bush. The modern timber mill is highly technical—computerised to a large extent—turning very small bits of hardwood timber into highly valuable structural-grade products, which are in massive demand across the nation. Future generations would benefit from a change of policy in Victoria and Western Australia to allow a sustainable hardwood timber industry to continue, and I call on everyone in this place to be vigilant to the extremists on the crossbench and to some of the Labor Party, who want to shut down the entire Australian hardwood timber industry, rely entirely on imported products and leave us exposed to being part of the illegal trade in timber, which is at the very core of the bill before the House today. 'Lock it up and leave it' is not a forestry policy; it's a recipe for disaster. We have seen this in Victoria so many times. In the Black Summer bushfires, which roared through my electorate, every one of those fires started on public land. There were lightning strikes in dry conditions in poorly maintained public forests. These were not arsonists. These were not accidents with angle grinders or someone making a mistake on a farm somewhere. These were fires that were initiated on public land. They roared across the interface of public land and private land and caused massive damage, including the loss of lives. We need active forest management in our regional communities. Active forest management allows for a range of uses, including sustainable native hardwood timber, ecotourism, four-wheel driving, prospecting and camping. The skills of the people involved in the timber industry are incredibly important for keeping my community safe not only in times of disaster—when the fire's actually burning—but also in maintaining the logging tracks and access for everyone else to get out there and enjoy the bush. We want people in the bush. People who go out in the forests actually appreciate the biodiversity and the conservation values of those areas, and they respect the fact that you can sustainably harvest some timber and also leave large areas of conservation for the wildlife and their habitat and improve the biodiversity of that region. Just on that biodiversity point, I have to make this point: does anyone seriously believe that a monoculture pine plantation or a monoculture blue gum plantation of hardwood achieve a better biodiversity outcome than a sustainably managed, mixed species forest on public land, harvested on a 50-, 60- or 70-year rotational basis? It is madness to think that plantations are the sole answer to our future timber industry needs, and it's madness to then try to claim that there are biodiversity benefits from that model in comparison with mixed-species forests on public land. What concerns me the most is that there are members opposite who used to stand up for blue-collar workers. They used to say that they supported the timber industry. But they've abandoned them in their time of need. Even this Prime Minister, who before the election said he supported the hardwood timber industry, has specifically excluded native timber hardwood businesses from accessing the National Reconstruction Fund—specifically excluded the native hardwood timber industry from that fund in a dirty deal done with the Australian Greens. Again, I stress that in the middle of a housing affordability and timber-supply-chain crisis, there are two choices with timber products: use your own, grown here in a sustainably managed way, or buy it from somewhere else. The Teals led pledge to end native hardwood timber harvesting across Australia is an incredibly foolhardy commitment, but it's coming from a place of ignorance and also a place of extreme privilege. The Teals and the Greens, in total area of electoral representation in this parliament, actually represent 1,100 square kilometres in total. The Liberals and Nationals represent 5½ million square kilometres. We've had a gutful in country Victoria and regional Australia more broadly of being told which jobs we can and can't have by people who have no intention of living alongside us—who lived in their privileged suburbs. For example: in the leafy suburb of Glen Iris, the average household income is $2,409 a week. And the member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan, is spearheading the charge to destroy the timber industry across the nation. The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, has Docklands in his seat. It has an average weekly income of $957, and in Caulfield, held by Labor's Josh Burns, the average is $2,143. All three of those members actively campaigned to end the hardwood timber industry in my community. In Orbost, the town most impacted by the timber industry closure, the average household income is $785. The most privileged people in this country and the most privileged people in this building are telling some of the poorest Australians what jobs they can and can't have. So in making my comments here today I want to highlight that Australia has a highly developed system of reserves and national parks already in place which can never be harvested. The plantation sector, while part of the solution, is not capable of meeting the demand in the foreseeable future. We need to stand up and fight to make sure we can secure the future of a sustainable native hardwood timber industry in this country and protect the jobs of the people who have worked so hard to care for their families in those communities. Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 16:00 16:00 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong Forests provide a range of vital environmental services, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation, temperature regulation, soil conservation and water regulation and conservation. Illegal logging destroys homes, endangers our water supply, endangers species and affects culture. Despite its active plantation timber industry, Australia has in recent years imported increasing amounts of timber, to the value of approximately $6.9 billion in 2022-23. We import timber from 135 countries, the top five being China, New Zealand, Indonesia, Germany and Malaysia. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry recently noted that as much as 10 per cent of our annual timber and wood based imports could be illegally logged timber. That trade in illegal imports globally reduces the price of legal timber, such as in our own plantation stock, by as much as seven to 16 per cent. We already have a regulatory framework aimed at reducing the harmful environmental, social and economic impacts of illegal logging. The Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 and its regulations apply to both the import into this country of raw and processed timber products and the processing of domestically grown raw logs. They require importers and processors to conduct a structured risk assessment process before importing a regulated timber product or processing domestically grown raw logs. Several reviews of Australia's Timber Legality Framework have been conducted over the last decade, and the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 will implement improvements identified as needed in two of those: the Statutory review of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 and the Sunsetting review of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation 2012. I note that the statutory review conducted by the then Department of Agriculture and Water Resources found that 'determining the extent to which the act has achieved the government's policy objectives remains challenging'. This was because 'there was limited concrete data available to measure the impact of the act'. In fact, that review relied largely on internal departmental data—including the compliance assessments—on trade data, on information obtained in previous reviews and even on anecdotal evidence. The subsequent sunsetting review of the regulation found that as much as 40 per cent of imported timber is misrepresented in terms of both its species and its origin and that the department's reliance on desktop audits for compliance action is both inefficient and ineffective. It found that the legislative framework does not allow for emerging technical solutions and that our Timber Legality Framework lags behind best practice developments in other jurisdictions. The sunsetting of those regulations has now been deferred until 1 April 2025, and we don't as yet have a draft of the proposed replacement regulations. Those matters are of concern, but my interest in this bill relates primarily to section 15, which relates to the processing of domestically grown but illegally logged raw logs. The sad fact is that while there are clearly significant issues with illegal logging internationally this issue is a big problem domestically too, and there is a reason that there are fewer swift parrots in this world than orangutans. In my home state of Victoria, logging is theoretically regulated by the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014. However, between 2009 and 2017 more than 300 breaches of this code were submitted to the forest regulator within the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and not a single breach was prosecuted. In 2019 an independent report into DELWP's failure to monitor or regulate logging found that it had neither the capacity nor the capability to achieve its objectives. Those violations of the law led to numerous court cases in which local community groups have prosecuted the Victorian government's logging agency, VicForests, for illegal logging. The Victorian government's shameful and quixotic response has been to repeatedly change the timber production code to make it harder for communities to take legal action against VicForests. Further, in response to local communities surveying for threatened species and for illegal logging within native forests and to their protests within logging coupes, the Victorian government has enacted laws that threaten community members with a $21,000 fine or 12 months in jail. Communities keep fighting back. In October 2022, Warburton Environment Inc. won a landmark Supreme Court Case against VicForests over the agency's failure to protect tree geebungs from logging. Also in 2022, the Victorian Supreme Court found that VicForests broke the law in failing to protect endangered gliders when logging in Gippsland and in central Victoria. In late 2023 the Victorian Supreme Court ordered VicForests to halt salvage logging in the Wombat State Forest after a community group alleged that VicForests had failed to survey appropriately for threatened species. VicForests had used a computer program with habitat distribution models. It had used a computer program to survey for threatened species. It argued in court that a desktop analysis should suffice in determining the presence or absence of endangered species in forests. In this, as in other matters, VicForests has misled the public. Just yesterday, the Age reported on the death of an endangered greater glider on a Victorian Department of Environment tree-felling site in the Yarra Ranges National Park. Forest Fire Management Victoria has been removing what it claims are hazardous trees in that national park to maintain a strategic fuel break. On 6 May Matt Ruchel, the Executive Director of the Victorian National Parks Association, warned the fire management agency. He warned the department's secretary as well as the federal and state ministers' offices about sightings of greater gliders and Leadbeater's possums in trees identified for removal. The Victorian state government, through its agent, VicForests, is acting in active contravention of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That act requires the referral, assessment and approval of all operations likely to have significant impacts on listed threatened species. Yesterday in that coupe an endangered greater glider was found dead as a direct result of the neglect of VicForests. I call today on the federal Minister for the Environment and Water to act immediately to halt the illegal actions of VicForests and to hold the Victorian Minister for Environment to account for these activities. The Victorian government officially ended harvesting of our state forests on 1 January 2024. This announcement was welcome, but it was quite misleading. While logging operations which were part of the state's timber release plan have come to an end, this did not apply to logging operations under the timber utilisation plan. That plan relates to logging coupes in the western defined forest area, most of which expire in June 2024, but there is as yet no clarity for what happens to those areas after June. Despite the fact that native forest logging officially ceased during the first half of this year, VicForests has continued to remove large logs from the Wombat State Forest under the guise of debris cleanup or salvage logging, and it has allegedly continued to sell those logs via its vehicle, Forest Fire Management Victoria. How the Victorian state government plans to manage forests after VicForests ceases to exist on 1 June is unclear. The plan for the employees of VicForests is unknown. It is utterly unclear how we are going to continue to monitor for illegal monitoring in our native forests after that date. What we could do, what we should do, is clear: ban the sale of all timber cut as part of salvaged logging or debris cleanup in native forests. There should be no market for wood obtained in the process of logging for fire breaks and other so-called fire protection measures. Only by abolishing those markets altogether can we stop the exploitation and abuse of the existing rules around timber. In 2021 the Victorian state government pledged a commitment to establish three new national parks which would legally protect the central-west areas of Victoria from future natural resource exploitation. Those parks are not due to be legalised until 2030. They include the Wombat-Lerderderg National Park, the Pyrenees and the Mount Buangor National Park. Until those parks are legalised, logging of those state forests can continue. I call on the state government to immediately enact the Victorian forest plan for industry transition, which includes diverting a proportion of commercial timber plantations from export to support our local industry, thereby ensuring the sustainable local production of high-grade timber products. There will be many retraining and other work opportunities and replanting programs for logged areas. These should include programs to address soil erosion, protect our water catchments and monitor the health of our forests. We could improve our plantation wood production so that, instead of exporting 97 per cent of our plantation eucalypt pulp logs, we process them on country, creating Australian jobs. The Australian government also needs to work with the Victorian state government to establish the proposed Great Forest National Park, thereby protecting and expanding the habitat of many endangered species and linking isolated forest reserves. The governments should collectively bring forward and prioritise the formation of those three new national parks. At the same time, it makes sense to better fund and promote tourism, education, cultural awareness and management programs relating to Victoria's magnificent native forests, including funding for jobs in environmental protection and forest restoration in collaboration with First Nations people. Those programs could support positive alternatives, such a small-scale farm industry and sustainable social enterprises like the CERES Fair Wood scheme. This act previously required that a statutory review be undertaken after five years of the legislation. This was in a section that will be repealed by this bill but hasn't been replaced with any further requirements for regular statutory reviews of the act's operation and effectiveness. Rather, the bill suggests that the secretary could, at his or her discretion, publish reports about the operation of this act—or could not, as the case might be. This contrasts pretty starkly with the frameworks for the control of illegal logging in other jurisdictions. In the EU, timber regulation is subject to six-yearly reviews and requires the publication of a biannual report on the application of the regulation based on information provided by the member states. In Canada, an annual report on infrastructure administration of the relevant act and a yearly review of enforcement provisions have to be tabled in parliament. The EIA and CIEL have also recommended that the government publish an annual report of compliance activities, due diligence checks and any other relevant enforcement actions, including fines, court cases and audits, as well as the publication of substantiated third-party concerns. Given particularly that the statutory report we've already seen identified high levels of noncompliance with the previous iteration of this legislation, and given the notable, frequent and egregious violations of this legislation domestically, the legislation has to be accompanied by regular monitoring and by transparent reporting of its effectiveness. Victorians deserve clarity about the state and federal government's plans for the management of native forests in our state. We need to know and deserve to know that the regulatory framework around domestic timber is such that illegally logged timber will be identified and that persons removing timber illegally from protected areas will be dealt with appropriately. We need to know that this legislation will be subjected to appropriate statutory review sufficient to provide reassurance regarding compliance, due diligence and responses to concerns of interested third parties. I will be moving an amendment to this bill during its consideration in detail stage in order to push the government further on action in this area, with an aim of appropriate review of this legislation at reasonable periods. I signal to the government my commitment to further action in this area. 16:13 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This bill, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, is an important one, but I would like to highlight that this is a process that the former government started when we were in the government benches. At the last election, the Labor Party agreed to and carbon copied the coalition's forestry policies. We don't mind plagiarism, but we want that to be on the record. All the things that have been said and done since the election are what have me concerned about illegal logging. We all know about orangutans. We all know about palm oil plantations in tropical parts of the world with remnant tropical vegetation. We've all heard stories about Brazil and other countries in South America; about our near neighbours to the north of us, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia; and other places. There are international standards for sustainable timber, but unfortunately most of what I would class as illegal is, technically, not illegal. Currently in Queensland they're given a leave pass to destroy native remnant vegetation, all with the aim of trying to save the world by building 600,000 hectares of haulage roads and 110 renewable energy projects down the Great Dividing Range. This is adjacent to and disrupting what the last speaker mentioned: linking up national parks so there are continuous areas. Well, guess what? The wind industry and the solar farm industry have bought a lot of that. There is a regulation that says you can just go to the local council if it's a renewable energy project. You don't even have to put it before the council. Under that regulation, a project can get approved by the CEO of a council. There is no environmental impact study required. It's strange and outrageous. Yes, I can hear you all shouting. That's because it is outrageous. If you want to put new pasture in your paddocks to grow protein, crops or anything like that, you can be taken to court under the environmental laws in New South Wales and in many states. Yet there is a leave pass being given to the environmental vandals who are carpetbagging the country and who are getting paid huge, upfront, large generation certificates and renewable energy certificates. Then they get a leave pass to ignore the environmental guidelines that the whole country has to deal with. It's outrageous, and it's been happening for too long. What is happening in Queensland is outrageous. All 110 of these projects have been recorded visually and cartographically by a trained cartographer, Steven Nowakowski, who was a one-time Greens candidate and is an avid environmentalist. The environmental footprint of the renewable rollout is actually destroying way more than any illegal logging in Australia is. To put things in perspective: in native forestry in Australia there are around 132 million hectares of native forest area, and only 0.06 per cent of this area—the equivalent of six trees out of every 10,000 trees—is harvested annually from native forests. In my own state, New South Wales has 9.5 million hectares of native forest. Only 20,000 hectares of that 9.5 million hectares of native forest is harvested. That's 0.2 per cent. There are three hectares of national park for every one hectare of state forest. The tragedy is that we are importing timber from these tropical countries that don't have a regulated forestry industry that is sustainable. In forestry in Australia it isn't deforestation. Foresters plant trees. A lot of the native forest that is cleared has so much seed burden in the soil that, when they selectively harvest, the soil movement leads to spontaneous regeneration. I have lived amongst native forest. I have cycled through native forest in my own area. The first time I saw a coupe being cleared, about 1½ kilometres from my home, I was shocked because I hadn't been in a forestry area—I'm talking about 33 or more years ago. I was absolutely shocked. I thought: 'Oh, my God! Now I know what the Greens are going on about! I'm going to sign up.' But I went into the state forestry department and they sat me down and taught me all about— Honourable members interjecting— Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Obviously I didn't join the Greens. I came to my senses! It was a brief microsecond. I had a cup of tea, a Bex and good lie down and I got over it. But I also was informed about the facts. Historically, the deal with these trees was that one hectare in 50 was selectively harvested every year. The native seed burden in the soil led to regeneration. We have a series of regional forest agreements around the country so that there are areas set aside for forestry that are the best areas for forestry, not for houses and not for farming. The north-east of New South Wales has a $2 billion native forest industry that is entirely sustainable. It is $2 billion worth of economic activity. The trees that are harvested are replaced many times over by new trees that sprout. I have lived it. These are the same areas that I cycled through on my mountain bike when I first moved to Wauchope, known as timber town—back in the heyday, there were 22 timber mills in Hastings Valley. There are now a couple. It is sustainable now. About three years after the conversation with the Wauchope forestry office, it was exactly like they said: I was cycling through there and there were small trees; now there are large trees 25 years later. It all grows back. When these activists who have lived in concrete and tarmac cities and feel guilty see forestry, they see deforestation. In some countries there is deforestation in forestry, there are underhanded deals, they aren't sustainably managed and they don't get certification, but—hey, presto!—some of it is in our building products in Australia. We now have to import $5.5 billion worth of timber from overseas, yet we are shutting down our timber industry. Guess what? The paper my notes are printed on is probably a remnant from before Australia's last paper mill closed. We make cardboard in this country, but all of our paper is now imported—I kid you not. Dan Andrews closed the last paper mill in Victoria because they didn't have security of supply. The other thing is that everyone says there is a disaster looming: that koalas are going to go extinct. I don't know if I can table a document—this is something that everyone can look up—but on Monday Dr Brad Law published an article on the broadscale acoustic monitoring of koala populations. Dr Law is a principal research scientist at the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. He was supported by other scientists, Leroy Gonsalves, Traecey Brassil and Isobel Kerr; the Forestry Corporation; and the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital. They were all involved in this study going over seven or more years. They started in 2015, and it was just published. This monitoring indicates that there are no endangered koalas. The biggest threat to koala populations was not logging, because logging in Australia is harvesting, like corn. You harvest corn and you harvest wheat. Being harvested doesn't mean that corn and wheat go extinct. Another crop grows. It's just that, with forestry, the crops only get harvested between 30 and 50 years in a native forest. They all grow back. The areas that I've cycled through have been cleared at least five times. Some of my constituents are 95-year-old timber cutters who know the forests. They say there's no shortage of koalas and that the places the koalas go to most are areas that have been managed and partially cleared. That's because—hey presto!—koalas aren't like chimpanzees; they can't swing from tree to tree. They have to go down, across the forest floor and then climb up another tree. In a locked-up national park that hasn't had a fire through it—which is another natural process that we keep suppressing—there can be tonnes of debris on the forest floor and koalas can't get through it, so they go into lightly forested areas. This study has confirmed that. The people who have worked in the timber industry for years have always said that, as have my local Indigenous people. They believe in firestick farming and regular burning, which they did for 60,000 years—because they didn't have Toyota HiLuxes and LandCruisers to get out of the way of a fire. That was their habitat; that's where their food was. They managed the forests by regular burning, not by burning once in every 30 years so it turns into a megafire, like we let happen because we haven't done what the Indigenous people have done for generations. This study, which is totally scientific—GPS tracking and monitoring of numbers using acoustic techniques and visually, it appears—suggests the megafires that we had in our area in 2019 were a risk but, two years later, koalas are back in there and the forests are returning. People were in tears. People died in our fires. The member for Cowper had equally big fires in his area. It was months before the ones on the south coast, but we had more areas burnt. Fortunately, we had fewer deaths. That's because there was more support available, as it was the only area burning. When it really kicked off in Eden-Monaro it was everywhere all at the same time, and forces were stretched. But, hey presto, the koalas are back. In South Australia there's an island called Kangaroo Island, and everyone was really sad to see all those poor koalas burnt in the bushfires down there. But, hey presto, if you just google 'koala plague in Kangaroo Island' you'll find they were culling koalas, because their numbers were out of control, a year or 18 months before that. It's reassuring that we have well-managed forestry. Logging is not a risk. The greatest risk from this study is—wait for it—infrastructure, which means housing and roads. It's not forested areas that are managed well, like they are in New South Wales and used to be in Victoria. Locking up more and more native forests and not having anything done to them is a recipe for 'woodification' of the forests. You lose all the floral diversity. A lot of the small flora need a bushfire, a low-intensity burn, regularly so all the seeds get a chance and you get a much richer forest. That's how Australian forests have evolved. The only illegal logging I can see going on is the wanton destruction where people think they're going to save the world by building wind farms and solar farms. Solar farms work, on average, only 24 per cent of the time, and, depending on which wind area you're in, wind farms work none of the time or up to, at best, 45 per cent of the time. They give us unstable electricity grids, expensive electricity and environmental destruction on a scale not seen before— (Time expired) 16:29 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Illegal logging is an evil for many reasons. It occurs on a small scale within Australia and on a larger, organised scale in a number of other countries. Illegal logging occurs without the regulatory environment that guides logging in most cases. It leads to deforestation at a time when, more than ever, we need to value and preserve our forests. That habitat loss risks species loss, especially where there is a lack of regulation. Safety and other conditions of work will largely be absent in illegal operations which, unsurprisingly, are often conducted by entities involved in organised crime in other markets. The illegally sourced product, once in the market, will have the effect of reducing the price of comparable timber and timber products through market forces, putting pressure on our own domestic industries. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's website records that the United Nations and Interpol estimate that illegal logging costs the global community up to $240 billion a year, making it the largest environmental crime, by value, in the world. It is salient that when the 2012 legislation was put to the parliament 12 years ago Dr Mike Kelly, the then member for Eden-Monaro, upon introducing the bill, estimated the cost of illegal logging at $60 billion. That is four times less than the current estimate. In the Beelu forest where I live, in Mundaring, we are constantly vigilant for illegal activity. On a regular basis—every few weeks or so—we do see the signs of illegal harvesting of wood, and on a commercial scale. These criminals leave complete devastation in the forest area, because they don't choose trees selectively. This is not an operation that's done with science in mind; they just clear fell everything that's within easy reach, which means there aren't sufficient seeds from other trees to enable regeneration and growth in that forest area. We just end up with leaf litter loss, and it exposes the very hard, gravel soil in which it is hard for anything else to grow. We lose the moisture and we lose the habitat for our little tiny species and soil microbes, as well as, obviously, birdlife and other flora and fauna. Enforcement is primarily a matter for the state and local authorities, but the amendments in this bill, which direct a greater responsibility for traders and retailers, are also going to help. In some Australian states forestry practice has, from time to time, failed to comply strictly with its legislation, in a number of cases making it easily arguable that illegal logging has occurred. Those local issues, though, pale into insignificance when we consider the industrial scale of illegal operations in some countries. For example, a report in 2017 described illegal logging in national parks in Cambodia which saw logs transported to Vietnam before being processed there for sale and export. That was in a year when Australia imported $300 million worth of wood from Vietnam. It's important to realise the multinational nature of this problem. If wood is sourced illegally in one country then it may be sold to a third country for processing and even to a manufacturer of furniture and other end products before importation into Australia. We import over a billion dollars worth of wooden or partly wooden furniture from China each year—some of it, apparently, designed in Sweden. East Asia has some of the highest deforestation rates in the world, and a number of countries have been identified as being at particular risk for illegal logging. Members may be surprised to learn that New Guinea is the largest exporter of wood in the Pacific, with 3.3 million tonnes exported in 2019, and that New Guinea and the Solomons provide China with virtually all its tropical timber products. The report Calculated risk: Australia's exposure to illegal logging, by the Washington and Geneva based Environmental Investigation Agency, notes that Chinese produced plywood is inherently at risk of containing illegal timber and that such risks are greatly increased when plywood is produced from tropical timber. Deforestation has a significant impact on wildfire risk in tropical forests by increasing susceptibility of forests to fire by decreasing precipitation and causing fragmentation in forest coverage. This allows for increased ventilation, sunlight and drying. It also brings warmer temperatures and then the growth of vegetation susceptible to fire. Fire is often used as a deforestation tool, further creating risk, and tropical forests are not well adapted to fire. This can lead to significant biodiversity loss or, as we saw in Hawaii, devastation at a scale that I don't think we have seen for quite some time. There are also serious problems with illegal logging and deforestation in some countries in Africa and South America. So our laws need to be sufficiently robust to deal with the realities of this trade. In parallel, we need to ensure that regulations made under free trade agreements do not hamper our efforts, or the efforts of other countries, to stamp out the illegal trade. In Australia we have been active for over a decade in combating illegal logging and promoting sustainable forestry, both domestically and internationally. One of the key measures in this regard is the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012. This legislation aims to prevent illegally logged timber and timber products from being imported into Australia. It requires Australian importers of timber products to undertake due diligence to ensure that the timber that they are importing has in fact been legally harvested. This due diligence involves gathering information about the timber's origin, species and compliance with relevant laws and regulations, and, of course, importers must also keep records of their due diligence processes. The act applies to a wide range of timber products, including sawn timber, wood panels, pulp and paper. It covers both raw timber and processed products. Importers who fail to comply with the requirements of the act do face penalties. In addition to having the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, Australia is also involved in international efforts to combat illegal logging. For example, Australia is a member of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative, which aims to address illegal logging through measures such as improved forest governance and the implementation of timber legality assurance schemes. The prohibition act has had a positive effect on Australia's timber industry and its efforts to combat illegal logging. The act has also raised awareness among Australian importers and consumers about the issues of illegal logging and the importance of sourcing timber products from legal and sustainable sources. Importers are now more aware of their responsibilities to ensure that the timber they import complies with the law. This has led to improved due diligence practices within the timber industry, with importers implementing procedures to gather information about the origin and legality of the timber that they are importing. Some countries, too, have regulations in place that require importers to attest to the legality of the timber products from any country that does not have illegal logging laws in place. Australia avoids these extra processes and costs as a result of our legislative regime, and our products enjoy a strong, positive reputation worldwide. When the current act was brought into being in 2012, Australia was one of the few countries taking action in this field. The review of the act by the department in 2018 noted that the 2012 act had been used as a legislative model for other jurisdictions and that it contributed to the global effort to eradicate illegal logging. We have nevertheless since been overtaken in our legislation by the many countries that have followed suit. For example, in 2021 the UK government passed their environment act, which required businesses to demonstrate not merely that they have done due diligence but also that they have a due diligence system in place, which is what this bill does. The five-year statutory review of the act in 2018 identified opportunities to strengthen the act. These included providing clarity on the types of activities captured, increasing the reach of the laws by broadening the conduct and the products regulated under the act, providing the department with more tools and greater flexibility in undertaking compliance activities, and facilitating the department's efficient administration of the act. This bill covers those suggestions and brings our legislation more into line with international best practice. Importers are aware that they have responsibilities in this trade. Last year, in March, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry fined 14 furniture importers just over $13,000 each for failures to minimise the risk of importing illegally imported timber. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:38 to 17:02 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 As I was saying, I commend officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for their important and sometimes difficult work in enforcement action. The head of the Compliance and Enforcement Division, Peter Timson, is quoted as stating that still, in 2023, up to 10 per cent of timber products entering Australia could be illegally sourced. He emphasised that timber products coming from one country were sometimes manufactured with illegal timber sourced from a third country. In some cases where we're talking about a large company or turnover, I can imagine that a fine of that size would not be much of a disincentive. Two things that this bill does, though, are to increase the range of offences and that quantum of fines. It also allows the department to name and shame individuals or companies that fail to observe the law. The seriousness of the issue must be matched by the seriousness of our legislative response. Over time, this bill will see importers much less willing to run foul of the intent of the law. The review of the regulations in 2022 noted that a pilot testing program by the department in 2020 found that up to 40 per cent of products in Australia which were made from imported timber might be misrepresented as to species and origin. Science will be used increasingly to assist in determining whether wood or wood products have originated from illegal operations, and whether the due diligence systems of importers are sturdy and robust. Chloroplast DNA and simple sequence repeat databases are now starting to be used as tracking tools to determine the more exact origin of timber species. For example, the Forest Research Institute Malaysia has comprehensive DNA profile databases for at least five of their important timber species. In truth, we have enough of a threat to our forests with climate change, and we cannot allow further threats to continue when they can be quelled. The south-west of this country, where Hasluck lies, is experiencing decades of drying due to global warming. The effects of this on our forests near Perth and in the south-west corner are already evident. They're extremely evident on my own property, as even trees that are close to water bodies are simply struggling to survive. I live in the forest and I see these changes. I have beehives, so I can see the micro effects of what's happening among our forests. The impact of any further deforestation will be compelling. The Bureau of Meteorology statistics confirm the bad news. Our forests are one of the bulwarks we depend upon against even greater ravages of climate change than that which is already inevitable, and we cannot allow them to deteriorate or fail. This bill is a necessary step. Whether it will be sufficient will be a matter for further serious review, taken seriously, and I hope to be here to help undertake that on behalf of Hasluck. I hear sometimes a refrain that we should not unduly burden business. The department predicts savings in regulatory costs in these changes. In any event, here we face criminal activity and environmental degradation in a climate crisis. We cannot benefit from those activities and cannot look away as legislators. This bill updates the offence and penalty regime, creates additional compliance and enforcement mechanisms, requires a due-diligence system to be in place, and allows for injunctions and enforceable undertakings, and by so doing, implements recommendations of the statutory review from 2018 and the review of the regulations, completed in 2022. I know that some previous members on the other side of the House were somewhat lukewarm towards this legislation when it was first enacted in 2012. I hope to see more support for ending illegal logging and protecting our forests from those opposite after the passing of 12 further years. I commend the bill and congratulate the minister on his work. 17:06 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper It's nice to speak on a bill where I think every member in the House agrees with the intent to prevent detrimental illegal logging impacts, whether overseas or here. We've all seen those devastating photographs of the Amazon in places in Southeast Asia and Asia. This is not something that I think anyone in this House would condone or support in any way. I know that back in 2021 the coalition government commenced considerable work in review of the sunsetting of the illegal-logging regulations. We on this side of the floor were pleased to see many of the policies proposed by the coalition government continued in 2022, when Labor took the reins. To their credit, Labor pledged $4.4 million to strengthen Australia's fight against illegal logging and to stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers. Given the strength of the industry in my own electorate of Cowper in New South Wales, I'm particularly grateful for the acknowledgement of our local producers. In fact, the north-coast forestry industry employs an estimated 5,000 people and contributes $184 million to the local economy just in my electorate alone. Unlike those profiteering from illegal timber, our timber industry members pride themselves on the highest ethical and environmental practices. I've seen it firsthand. Matt and Kristy Parker in Dorrigo took me out for a day and showed me their sustainable, world-class logging practices on their property. We know that the New South Wales native hardwood forest industry is worth $1.8 billion to the economy and employs over 9,000 people—more than half of whom are in the north-east in communities just like mine. For generations, they provided a sustainable industry which selectively harvested forests for timber and fibre, and manufactured the resource into high-grade construction such as timber decking, furniture and other products. I also have to acknowledge Hayden Timbers in Rollands Plains, who at the moment employ, I think, more than 50 people at the yard. They are a generational business and have proved that the native hardwood industry is a sustainable one, using sustainable practices. Our timber providers are critical not just for my electorate of Cowper but also for Australia as a whole. It's no secret that building material costs have been on the rise for some time and there is a critical need to secure and grow our local timber stock now more than ever. We need to see our sovereignty protected, and to do this we need those jobs protected and to see our sustainable timber stock as well maintained and utilised as possible. We need to provide protection and support to an industry that literally keeps roofs over our heads. I acknowledge this bill goes some way to do that and I support the principles here to support and protect our industry. My passionate colleague the member for Gippsland, unfortunately, in his state of Victoria has seen the decimation— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:10 to 17:37 Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 3012 ADJOURNMENT Taiwan 3012 17:38 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the newly inaugurated President of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te, and the Vice President, Hsiao Bi-khim. This marks a significant milestone in the vibrant Taiwanese democracy, and we in Australia share the joy and anticipation of that momentous occasion. The relationship between Australia and Taiwan has long been marked by mutual respect, shared values and a commitment to democracy and human rights. Our nations have enjoyed a strong and enduring partnership, one that has flourished through our robust trade and investment links, cultural exchanges and mutual desire to promote peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Taiwan is a key trading partner for Australia, and the depth of our economic ties is a testament to the synergies between our two economies. I'd also like to acknowledge our other trading partners in the region who are also committed to long-term peace and stability within that region. We look forward to the future under the leadership of President Lai and the Vice President Hsiao, and I'm confident that our bilateral relationships will continue to grow stronger under President Lai. With his extensive experience and dedication to public service, he brings a wealth of knowledge and a clear vision for Taiwan's future. Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim, with her remarkable career as a diplomat and a legislator, is well positioned to support this vision and to further Taiwan's role on the global stage. In this spirit of celebration, it's also fitting to pay tribute to the outgoing president, Dr Tsai Ing-wen. Dr Tsai will step down next week after eight years in power, having completed the constitutionally determined two-term limit. Her tenure has been marked by extraordinary leadership and resilience. I had the great honour of meeting with Dr Tsai in 2022 when I visited Taiwan. Her courage and unwavering commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the region have been instrumental in solidifying Taiwan's position as a strong and robust democracy. Dr Tsai's presidency has been a beacon of hope and steadfastness. Her efforts to uphold democratic values, despite considerable challenges, have been nothing short of inspiring. Under her leadership, Taiwan has navigated complex geopolitical dynamics while fostering economic growth and innovation. Her legacy is one of strength, integrity and an underlying commitment to the people of Taiwan. I'm looking forward to travelling to Taiwan next week to attend the inauguration of the President Lai Ching-te and Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim. It will be an honour to personally convey the congratulations of the friends of Taiwan group in the Australian parliament and to witness the historic transition of leadership. As we bid farewell to President Tsai, we are embracing the opportunities that lie ahead with President Lai and his administration. I also look forward to progressing our relationship with Taiwan under this new regime. Together we can advance our trade and investment links, ensuring mutual prosperity for our nations. Moreover, in these times of global uncertainty, it's more important than ever that we work hand in hand to promote stability and peace in the region. As we move forward, let us reaffirm our commitment to those ideas and let us work together to build a future that is secure, prosperous and inclusive for all. In conclusion, I extend my warmest congratulations once again to President Lai Ching-te and Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim. May your tenure be marked by great success, and may the bonds between Australia and Taiwan grow ever stronger. I extend my sincerest gratitude to Dr Tsai Ing-wen for her outstanding service and for her admirable spirit which will continue to inspire all of us. I thank the House. Chinese Labour Corps and Chinese Anzacs 3012 17:43 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I rise today to advocate for a long overdue recognition of a significant, but often overlooked, group in our nation's history: the Chinese Anzacs. Not far from us, on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial, a list of 102,000 names commemorates the Australian men and women who have died in service to their country. Every year, millions of Australians commemorate the sacrifices made by these brave souls, who served for and died under the Anzac banner. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our servicemen and women during World War I were thousands of Chinese labourers. Up to 140,000 Chinese labourers were estimated to have worked alongside Australian, British, French and Russian troops. They dug the trenches, unloaded the ships and buried the dead. These forgotten Chinese Labour Corps personnel shared in our nation's founding story. In the most difficult of times they shared our courage, our mateship and our sacrifices. From the shores of Gallipoli to the battlefields of the Pacific, they showed unwavering bravery and they shared our Anzac spirit. It's therefore unfortunate that today the tales of heroism and valour of the Chinese Labour Corps and Chinese Anzacs have been relegated to the footnotes in our history books. I recently met Mr Albert Wong, who shared with me his passion for the Chinese Anzacs and the book that he caused to be written to tell the story of the Chinese Anzacs. He shared with me his idea to build a statue for these forgotten heroes. He shared with me a design showing a warm embrace between a Chinese Anzac soldier and one of the many Chinese soldiers who supported the war effort. From there, he shared with me his vision for a modern, multicultural Australia unified by the Anzac spirit. With a design by renowned sculptor Linda Klarfeld, this statue will be titled 'The Forgotten'. It will serve as a permanent reminder of the shared sacrifices made by Australians of all backgrounds in the defence of our freedoms. It will stand as a testament to the inclusive spirit of the Anzac tradition and remind future generations of the importance of unity and mateship in the face of adversity. In honouring the Chinese Anzacs, we reaffirm our commitment to a more inclusive and equitable society. Let us ensure that their legacy endures not just in the pages of history books but in the hearts and minds of Australians. Budget 3013 17:46 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Unfortunately, overall this latest budget get an F for fail. Unfortunately, it is very inflationary, with increasing budgets. Increasing deficits that go for the next four years, in ever increasing amounts, mean interest rates will stay higher for longer. This is homegrown inflation. We see the latest inflation figures in the US going down, but I fear that our next lot will go up. The Treasurer has tried to ameliorate it by subsidising wages in selected industries, subsidising electricity and subsidising pet development projects. As well, the Treasurer is using his own estimated figures for inflation and interest rates that are at odds with the Reserve Bank's. Projections show a one-off windfall surplus followed, as I said, by a run of deficits. Subsidising electricity bills as cost-of-living relief is a false concept. It's only adding to the cost embedded in our electricity system. It doesn't make the electricity cheap; it's just returning some of the taxpayer dollars that people have paid. It's money being taken from one pocket and turning up in the other. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bureau of Statistics will net the subsidy off the real charged cost of electricity. That is a dream. There's no reform of our energy policy. We're persisting in trying to build with renewable, variably generated energy that is direct current as opposed to the constant alternating current that has stability and very low grid costs. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, in particular, is unsustainable and, instead of addressing structural faults in the architecture of it, the government continues to pay up. The cost of it, in four years time, looks to be around $2 billion. It needs reform, and the government should start speaking to the states now because they have to agree to any changes. The governance was set up like that by Julia Gillard. The budget does nothing to deal with inflation that's being driven by a huge growth in what are mainly temporary migrants. The trouble is that they end up being long-term temporary migrants. We had 572,000 people turn up last year, and I caught on the radio as I was driving along—I'll have to double check this, Madam Deputy Speaker—that 100,000 people arrived in this country in a month. That is tourists, temporary migrants and planned migrants. If that's repeated month after month, that's going to be 1.2 million. No wonder there's housing pressure! Everywhere you turn, whether it's in the country or the city, occupancy rates are at virtually a hundred per cent. With all that pent-up demand and spending from all those extra people, no wonder we've got inflation. We have had 33 boat arrivals since this government took over responsibility, yet in the budget there are funding cuts of $436 million over the forward estimates. I think that's a very bad move. I'm disappointed there were no extra funds for regional communications. There was one bright spot—I'll give credit where credit's due—in the aged-care portfolio. There is $531 million for another 21,000 homecare spots, which are sorely needed everywhere, but we don't have the workforce to deliver those homecare packages. A lot of homecare and aged-care people are deserting aged-care and home care because they can get paid under legislated rates—12, 15 or even more—to go and work in the NDIS. And they wonder why it's going to be $62 billion! The payments for the services are out of control, and we want it to be sustainable for constituents that need disability help, but we don't want it to bankrupt the nation. There are many things in every budget. We want a budget that gives clarity about making all the aged-care providers financially viable. They are asking for the extra funds. The one other good thing for my pensioners is the deeming rates are remaining low— (Time expired) Indian Community 3014 17:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Today I rise to make comment on some of the ridiculous accusations levelled at the federal Labor government. The remarks have been coming from the former twice-failed leader of the Victorian Liberal Party. Before I outline not only why these are unfounded opinions from a man still fighting for relevance in his own party but also why it is utter hypocrisy, let's have a look at what he said. The former failed leader of the opposition, Matthew Guy, stood in the Victorian parliament to talk about discriminatory policy against Indians accessing visas managed by the federal government. He talked about several incidences of Indian healthcare workers living in the UK trying to visit family here—people who have good jobs and property and who have been able to travel to other countries. But what is the actual situation? It's important we have a look. There are genuinely people trying to visit their families in Australia, with many people still seeking opportunities to be reunited with loved ones in the post-COVID era. There are four states in India that have a higher-than-usual refusal rate. This is due to the associated risk ratings implemented by the Australian government. These risk ratings are determined through related overstays of visas, protection visa claims once in Australia, and the 26,000 degrees that have been voided, owing to their credibility, by the Indian government itself. These factors can negatively affect our immigration system or part of our security framework—a framework that has been implemented in a bipartisan manner, or so we would think, to ensure that the immigration and national security system remains strong. The Department of Home Affairs processes more than two million visitor visas a year. These risk ratings are a way to assist the decisions that need to be made. I want to highlight this so-called bipartisan approach, because it is key. Let's have a look at the coalition government's record regarding immigration and the Australian Indian diaspora. The former coalition government's record with migrant workers, overseas students and, by extension, the Indian diaspora was abysmal. Just look at the state of our migration system after nine years under the coalition: there were a million visa applications in backlog. They couldn't even hit 200,000 visas a year in their nine years of government. If you want to talk about visa application, where was this outrage, Matthew Guy, when you had your own incompetent party at the helm? Today we saw the member for Longman let the cat out of the bag in the parliament when he said that they don't want migrants to be able to buy houses, to purchase a home. In fact, they want to rehash their 2017 policy. And we've heard it again tonight, where they are blaming immigrants for the housing crisis. It is just factually wrong. If you want to have a look at where this is, it's aimed squarely at the Indian community. You couldn't believe that this is going on in modern Australia, but this is what we've got. This has left members of the Indian diaspora and student migration communities with levels of uncertainty, stress and financial hardship. Look at the fees it takes to gain visas, and the costs that international students take on to get their education. Where was the outrage then? Why wasn't he standing up for vulnerable Indian working visa holders who had jobs in Australia? These people had their own means of getting here and were willing to do 14 days of hotel quarantine, but we didn't hear a peep out of the little squeak then. He can make the claim that the government is being racist, but it's false. Let me tell you: you don't need to pander to the right wing of your party. If you want to have a look at what racism is, get a mirror. The former state leader of the opposition is using the immigration issue and not engaging with what the government is doing to help those currently affected. It's a ploy just to get cheap political points and to do his best to become relevant again. We've seen time and time again that the Indian community have just been used as a fundraising source for the Liberal Party. But don't worry; I'm sure the collection of dregs in the Victorian Liberal Party will be desperate to have him back at the helm again soon. If he had an ounce of sincerity he would be out there working with the community, not trying to make a cheap political point. But I guess that's what you get from a guy who has done dodgy deals on Phillip Island and would rather spend time eating lobsters with mobsters than getting in there and helping the community he's supposed to represent. We are working to get through this nine-year mess we were left with. We're approving around 300,000 visas a year. We're working with our Indian community, having forums about how we can reach out through temples and community leaders to get the current issues addressed and to resolve community concerns. We are working with the Department of Home Affairs and Minister Giles. This will help provide insights and dialogues with the community to get the best outcomes. We shouldn't be doing what those opposite did for nine years—that is, cut and shut out the Indian community. We should be welcoming them here. We know that when the Indian community get here they fight hard for a great future. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:56