2024-05-28 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 28 May 2024

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 1

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

Assent 1 Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024, National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024, Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024, New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024, New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 1

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

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024

National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023

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

Returned from Senate 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Committee 1 Report 1 12:02 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, I present the committee's report entitled Drowning in waste: plastic pollution in Australia's oceans and waterways, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HWB by leave—Plastic pollution poses a significant threat to Australia's oceans and waterways due to the harm that it causes to marine and freshwater life and ecosystems. Without urgent action, the presence of plastic waste will continue to escalate and negatively impact the natural environment. Many of our daily activities and routines involve plastic. Everything from our morning coffees to our fresh fruit shopping produces as significant level of plastic waste that is almost impossible for consumers to avoid. Different types and labelling of plastics mean that managing plastic waste present a real challenge for consumers, industry and governments. Importantly, for many uses, there are no real substitutes for plastics. More than 20 million Australians have participated in clean-up activities and events over the past three decades. Community campaigns are valuable ways to raise awareness and promote behavioural change to reduce plastic pollution. Unfortunately, this isn't enough without addressing plastic pollution at its source. The committee examined Australia's current approach to managing and preventing plastic pollution, with a focus on the policies under the National Plastics Plan, as well as state and territory approaches. The inquiry revealed areas where policies are inadequate to the scale of the problem and identified opportunities to drive meaningful progress. The committee made 22 recommendations that go to the heart of strengthening Australia's plastics management framework: to minimise plastic waste ending up in our oceans and waterways; incentivise the use of recycled materials in the production of new plastics; and strengthen management of the plastics that are already in the environment. One of the major findings of this inquiry was that Australia's current National Plastics Plan is a disjointed collection of goals. Some of these goals were already completed prior to the plan being developed and others were not completed by their expected deadline. Australia needs an updated National Plastics Plan. This should be developed in consultation with state and territory governments, industry, and the community, and coordinated nationally. It is currently cheaper and easier to use virgin polymers rather than recycled materials in plastic products. This is mainly due to the higher cost and lower quality of recycled materials, and the lack of incentives in place. As well as this, with the waste export ban in place and a limited end market for reclaimed plastic, the lower value of recycled plastics means that they are not being used. Responsibility for plastics must be shifted back onto the manufacturers of the plastics. The committee has recommended that plastic manufacturers should take responsibility for minimising their environmental footprint through extended producer responsibility schemes. An incentive or mandate should be in place for plastic manufacturers to incorporate a minimum of 30 per cent recycled content in new plastics. This should be increased progressively to 50 per cent recycled content by 2030. In addition, the committee has recommended the development of a sustainable end market for recycled materials to stimulate demand for products with recycled plastic content. This is important to mitigating plastic pollution and fostering a sustainable plastics industry. Australians want to recycle correctly. However, inconsistencies amongst states and territories have caused confusion. This impedes the recycling process because contaminated materials are difficult to sort and recycle effectively. Non-recyclable items can damage equipment and reduce the efficiency of recycling facilities. The committee has recommended that the Australian government leads the national harmonisation of single-use plastic bans; waste collection standards; the container deposit scheme; and standardisation of packaging and recycling labelling. The committee has also recommended that changes to recyclability labelling should consider 'greenwashing' claims made on packaging and in advertising. This will reduce confusion and help consumers recycle the right containers and dispose of non-recyclable ones. REDcycle's collapse in 2022 highlighted the need for a sustainable approach for the collection of recycling soft plastics. While some local councils have launched soft plastic recycling trials, there is a clear need for an effective program that is harmonised across the country and led by the Australian government. Australia's regional and remote coastal locations, and the communities that live there, are some of the most disproportionately affected by plastic pollution. Ocean currents can move plastic waste across vast distances, leading to pollution far from its point of origin. Limited resources and insufficient infrastructure mean that these communities cannot manage such enormous quantities of plastic pollution, including ghost nets, on their own. Due to a lack of any other options, the plastic waste that is collected by volunteer organisations is either sent to landfill or burnt. This further impacts the environment and public health. The committee has recommended more support for these communities through additional funding, recycling infrastructure and a preprocessing hub for ghost nets. Microplastics have the potential to harm humans. Microplastics and microfibres can already be found in our water and food and may carry harmful chemicals and toxins. Ingestion of these particles raises concern about the potential health risks such as inflammation and toxicity. However, knowledge in this space is currently limited and requires further investigation. The government should invest in research into the potential risks and effects of microplastic pollution, and any absorbed toxins on human health. The initial research should be made publicly available by July 2026. The committee has also recommended that a national plastics reduction strategy is developed to investigate and implement policies to stop microplastics from entering the marine environment through stormwater systems, particularly those located in busy suburban areas. Plastic pollution is a global issue. Global cooperation is needed to implement strategies to reduce plastic production and use; promote plastic reuse; and improve international recycling efforts. The committee welcomes the development of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. The committee has recommended that First Nations are supported to participate in these discussions. In closing, I thank those who contributed their time and their expertise to this valuable inquiry. I also acknowledge the dedication of the members of the committee and the secretariat in the conduct of this inquiry. I commend the report to the House, and I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 53517 The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 3 12:09 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Public Works Joint Committee 3 Report 3 12:10 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present committee report No. 4 of 2024, Department of Defence—facilities to support Advanced Growler Phase 6. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—This report considers a proposal referred in February 2024 from the Department of Defence for the facilities to support the Advanced Growler Phase 6 project. The total cost of the proposed project is $228.2 million. The project will provide new and upgraded facilities and infrastructure at RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland and Delamere Air Weapons Range in the Northern Territory. The facilities will support the capability of the electronic attack aircraft EA-18G Advanced Growler. The Advanced Growler is an electronic attack aircraft capable of disrupting, deceiving or denying a broad range of military electronic systems, including radars and communications. The aircraft supports a range of defence tasks such as helping reduce risk and improved situational awareness. It also provides complementary capability to the Super Hornet and the 35A Joint Strike Fighter. There are 12 Advanced Growler planes based at RAAF Base Amberley. Upgrades to the aircraft are required throughout their operational life to ensure ongoing capability and that the aircraft remain interoperable with those owned by the United States Navy. The proposed works will provide maintenance, logistics and storage upgrades at both RAAF Base Amberley and Delamere Air Weapons Range to support these aircraft, to enable joint training exercises and integrated training within the scope of the works. They'll provide a number of benefits to the public such as supporting the Australian economy through project expenditure in the construction and professional services sector in South-East Queensland and the Northern Territory, as well as the creation of employment and upskilling opportunities for local industry and Indigenous businesses. One of the construction materials used in the project, steel, is expected to be sourced from Australia as long as this provides value for money to the public. The committee notes that this proposal is consistent with the 2024 structure plan and, moreover, the 2023 Defence Strategic Review. The committee notes Defence will attempt to source Australian steel for use in the works where this represents value for money, and recommends that Defence report back to the community with the source of the supply location of the steel once identified. The committee extends its thanks to all those who provided written and oral evidence in support of this inquiry. We also thank personnel from Defence for the tour provided to the committee at RAAF Base Amberley. The committee appreciated the enthusiasm of staff at the base as well as their level of expert knowledge. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed work be carried out. This report also contains a short update about a project previously approved by the 46th Parliament—the Reserve Bank of Australia's head office workplace project at Martin Place, Sydney. Since the committee approved this project back in March 2020 there has been a significant increase in cost, mostly due to unexpectedly large amounts of asbestos in the building; it is everywhere. In light of this increase the committee recently inspected the Martin Place site and received a detailed briefing from the Reserve Bank governor and their staff about the project and on whether the bank had considered an alternative to the refurbishment. We went through those options, but, based on the information provided, the Public Works Committee has chosen to report it is satisfied with the reasons for the increase in cost. It sets us up for the future while preserving the past. I commend the report to the House. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 4 Report 4 12:14 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report, together with a dissenting report, entitled Australia's illicit drug problem: challenges and opportunities for law enforcement. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). BUSINESS 4 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4 12:14 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 4

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

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

Second Reading 4 12:15 Mr 231027 Hume TAYLOR () (): I rise to speak on the appropriation bills of 2024-25. These bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-25, provide for the funds from consolidated revenue for the 2024-25 financial year. Collectively, these bills provide for expenditure worth $187.5 billion to support the operation of government for that year. We, of course, will be supporting these bills; however, the budget handed down with these appropriation bills has failed Australians. Australia needed a budget that took a back-to-basics approach to getting the country back on track. That means, firstly, that what we needed in the budget was a restoration of our standard of living that finally addressed the inflation and interest rate pressures being felt by families right across Australia: at the check-out, when they pay their energy bills, when they pay their mortgages, when they pay their rent—when they pay for anything. We're seeing enormous pressures on Australians, and the restoration of that standard of living had to be the first priority of this government. Secondly, we needed a government that restored prosperity and created opportunity for all Australians, particularly younger Australians, by helping them into homes and by supporting small businesses to invest in the future to create a pathway for low-inflation, competitive, high-productivity growth that would be good for all Australians. Thirdly, we needed a government that restored the budget disciplines that had been dropped by this government from the moment they handed down their very first budget. They dropped those budget disciplines that had been in place since the Charter of Budget Honesty, fiscal guardrails that ensure we have a low-inflation, high-growth economy that we all want to see, was put in place by Peter Costello. Sadly, the budget has failed all of these tests. It has simply delivered more spending and more taxation and has not delivered the restoration of the Australian standard of living that we all want to see. Labor's third budget, like its past budgets, tries to put bandaids on bullet wounds rather than deliver those underlying solutions that deal with the sources of the problem and not the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing under this government. The fact is that Australians still won't see the $275 reduction in their energy bills that this Prime Minister promised so many times before the last election. It wasn't just him; it was also the rest of the ministers, including, of course, the hapless energy minister. They all claimed that this reduction was coming through, and there has been no sign of it. There has been no sign of it, and not once has any government minister been able to stand up at the dispatch box and say that they're still committed to the $275 reduction, because they've failed to deliver it. In fact, many Australians will now need to see a $1,000 cut in their bills just to get the promised $275. Similarly, this Prime Minister promised cheaper mortgages to the Australian people, but after two years and three budgets the average Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off. Cheaper mortgages? They're $35,000 worse off. This just tells you how out of touch this government is. According to the experts, the budget is likely to simply keep those rates higher for longer because it is doing nothing to take pressure off inflation. Michael Blythe, Chief Economist of PinPoint Macro, said the budget 'adds to the higher for longer to the interest rate thesis'. Cherelle Murphy, Chief Economist from EY, has said: … the Budget has thwarted the task of tightening the structural deficit. It also undermines the Government's inflation forecast—which was lowered below the Reserve Bank's forecast and assumed to drop into the 2-3 per cent target band by the end of this year. It has undermined that inflation forecast. In other words, inflation is expected to be worse than they had said. The government's energy bill relief is simply a political trick, according to former Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin, and 'smoke and mirrors' according to Brendan Rynne, KPMG's Chief Economist. This budget has been panned by economists across the board. The fact is that after two years and three Labor budgets, Australians have become poorer under Labor. Australians have become poorer under Labor. Despite being promised, before the election, cheaper mortgages, cheaper power bills and a lower cost of living, time and time again Australians have seen nothing of the sort. Alongside raging inflation, Australia is in an entrenched GDP-per-person recession. Our standard of living has fallen by more than seven per cent since the last election—two years—a collapse that is unprecedented in comparison to other advanced economies. Real wages for working households have collapsed by almost nine per cent. Our consumer confidence remains entrenched at recessionary lows. McKinsey has labelled Australia as being in a productivity recession. The number of unemployed people and the number of people on JobSeeker's caseload are increasing. Most alarmingly, youth unemployment has increased, and we've seen more than 16,000 businesses enter insolvency since June 2022. The Economist has declared that Australia has the most entrenched inflation in the advanced world, and inflation remains stubborn—The Economist says—because our policy settings are not right. Domestic inflation is running at more than five times imported inflation. This Treasurer likes to say it's all someone else's fault, but the truth is that the RBA Governor has said that Australia's inflation is homegrown. We've now seen three Labor budgets. They've had three chances to make the right decisions and focus on the right priorities, but Labor's only answer on each occasion has been for a big-spending, big-taxing, big-government, big-Australia approach. Australia has committed to an extra $315 billion of spending since the last election. That's more than $30,000 for every Australian household, and there are not many Australian households who will say they're feeling the benefit of that kind of extraordinary government spending. On policy decisions in this budget, Labor is spending $4 for every dollar raised. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is forecast to be at its highest level since the mid-eighties—outside of the pandemic—and nominal spending is growing at 16 per cent over the next two financial years. There's double the rate of economic growth—we see the same when you look at real growth as well as nominal. Labor says this is unavoidable, but included in this spending is unnecessary waste. We saw $450 million spent on a failed referendum, billions in corporate welfare, millions in grants to the union movement, funding of anti-resource-project activists, and more than $85 million for spin units in the Treasurer's department. When he can't deal with a substantive issue, he just spends money on spin. That's what he does. There are 36,000 additional public servants in this budget, and there's $45 billion in off-budget spending that we've opposed. This so-called unavoidable spending is unavoidable only to Labor. We need a better way. In order to get Australia back on track, we need a back-to-basics economic agenda that gets the country back on track. We've announced policies that will make it easier to get a job or run a business supporting pensioners, veterans and jobseekers to work more without losing their payments. We have policies that will restore the dream of homeownership by letting first home buyers and older women access super to help with a deposit and by aligning migration and housing. We will make our communities safe and secure with practical policies like banning sports betting advertisements during live sport, doubling the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and making it illegal to glorify criminal activity online. We will ensure our lights stay on, our manufacturers stay open and we bring down power bills by investing in the gas we need now and in the future. We will make it easier to see a doctor and access mental health and women's health treatments by supporting the training of the next generation of GPs and by committing funding for endometriosis and ovarian cancer. All of these are crucial priorities, with the last one, I would say as a regional MP, hugely important to health in our regions. A coalition government will put productivity and per-person GDP growth at the centre of its economic strategy because that's what's required to support higher real wages without higher inflation. This allows both workers and businesses to flourish. We've already gone far further than typical oppositions, opposing more than $58.7 billion of Labor's new spending, and that's because Labor has no fiscal guardrails. It's abandoned the rules that have supported every good budget since Peter Costello established the Charter of Budget Honesty, including putting a speed limit on taxing and spending through a tax-to-GDP cap, constraining spending growth to less than GDP growth and committing to reducing debt and delivering structural surpluses over the medium term. We will re-establish those rules. Getting productivity back on track is essential because the first step of tax reform is to restrain the growth in spending. The gap between receipts and payments, at $43 billion in just over a year's time, is absolutely not sustainable. Of course, Labor wants to support future spending growth with never-ending bracket creep. Australia has high rates of income tax and one of the highest company tax rates in the world. Indeed, we've seen Australian households paying more than 23 per cent additional personal income tax since this Labor government came to power. Our guiding principle is that taxes should be, lower, simpler and fairer, and our commitment in this budget reply to make the instant asset write-off permanent is a down payment on this priority. It'll simplify depreciation for 2.5 million small businesses. The Treasurer should have a listen to this. These are policies that would actually deliver low inflation and high growth. This will give small businesses the certainty that they can plan investments on a longer-term basis rather than year to year. This is a major commitment boosting cash flow in millions of small businesses, rewarding them for having the investment they need to grow their businesses and the economy, and it sits alongside our focus on making sure that housing and immigration come into line in this country, because this government has absolutely lost control of its immigration policy. The result of that is that young Australians are struggling to buy a home or even rent a home as we've seen immigration grow at over 530,000 in a year— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr TAYLOR 231027 under this government. Now, we have seen three Labor budgets that have tried to have it both ways: increasing spending while claiming to bring down inflation, increasing taxes while claiming that families are better off and increasing red and green tape while claiming that businesses will invest more. Even today we see more examples of this confused government's economic priorities. The Treasurer is increasing company taxes, clamping down on franking credits, winding back investment incentives and refusing to extend the instant asset write-off. Meanwhile, the industry minister, the minister for business, is calling for company tax to be lower! He's calling for it to be lower. To paraphrase Ross Gittens, not someone who I'm accustomed to quoting, 'This is a government that is so confused, it doesn't know what its own priorities are.' Our economy is lacking from this lack of clarity: Australian businesses are suffering from this lack of clarity and Australian families are suffering from this lack of clarity. From now until the next election you will see our relentless focus on getting Australia back on track—back to basics. That means a back-to-basics economic plan: fighting high prices and high interest rates; winding back regulatory roadblocks; delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes; and restoring the dream of homeownership in this country. 12:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm very proud to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 and the associated bills—our bills to deliver on our absolute commitment that was through this budget. The two barriers that we had were, firstly, to deliver cost-of-living relief in the short term and to assist people who are under pressure. Secondly, as well, it was to deliver on a Future Made in Australia. How does future economic growth come about? The shadow Treasurer has just left, just in case there were some questions—like happened at the National Press Club, where he had a shocker last week. We saw there that you'd think they hadn't been in government for a decade, and again through listening to that last contribution. Of course, the budget reply was two days after the Treasurer handed down a budget that delivered a surplus—the second one in a row. It delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; it delivered energy price relief for every single household, not just some; it delivered the largest investment in housing Australians that we have seen from a government for many decades—$32 billion; and it delivered by strengthening Medicare in every single community by adding 29 urgent care clinics to the 58 that we have already delivered. But what we had during that budget sitting week was something that I don't think has ever happened before. We had the Treasurer sitting right where he is now today and he didn't get a single question on the economy or on the budget. Not one! This showed just how pathetic the modern Liberal Party has become. There was one contribution, which we had from a backbencher—the member for Moore—and they've knocked him off! And the shadow Treasurer spent the weekend knocking off one of his senators. The fact is that if he concentrated on his job then maybe he could actually assist with debate in this country. But as it is we have an opposition that simply opposes everything, has nothing constructive to offer and has no positive policies. In under five weeks, 13.6 million Australians will be paying less tax because of our Labor government. For a worker on the average wage of $73,000, that's a tax cut of $1,500. For a family on the average household income of $130,000, it's a tax cut of $2,600. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers and 90 per cent of women will get a bigger tax cut because of the changes that are in the legislation in this budget, including of course 2.9 million Australians who earn less than $45,000, who would not have got a single cent under the Liberals. Just crickets! Not a single dollar. These tax cuts are better for young people, better for women, better for part-time workers, and better for business and workforce participation too. Of course, when we announced these changes, those opposite said immediately, before they'd even seen them, that they'd oppose them. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party said they would roll them back, and then the Leader of the Opposition called for an election to be held, so strong was he on this issue—so strong. But then, of course, they voted for them. Having been so principled and so strong, they voted for them because it's the right policy, taken for the right reason, and it will make a positive difference. Together with a tax cut for every taxpayer comes energy price relief for every household—$300 off the power bill of every home in Australia—and money for small business as well, to reduce their power bills, cutting inflation while we assist people. And we're forecasting, of course, back-to-back budget surpluses for the first time in two decades. Of course, how much tax comes out of people's wages matters, but what also matters is what's happening with wages. We promised to get wages moving again. Those opposite were horrified by the concept of people on the minimum wage getting $1 an hour more. Well, we're getting real wages moving right across our economy. We've legislated to expand government paid parental leave to a full six months, and in this budget we've added superannuation to it for every working parent. Recently, I was with the member for Richmond in Ballina, and one of the mums there put it like this: 'Just having that super there shows that we value the role of mothers in society and acknowledge that what they do is worth paying for.' Indeed it is. Part of what characterises this government, now and into the future, is that we support gender equity. We regard equality for women as being good for our national economy as well as being good for families. On election night I spoke about the historic mission of Labor governments: opening the doors of opportunity and widening them. Nothing does that like education. That's why we're wiping $3 billion off student debt and making the system fairer and simpler into the future for everyone. We're building new university hubs in the regions and in the suburbs, and we're investing in new fee-free, university-enabling degrees, giving more Australians a foot in the door at university—something that the University of Newcastle has done for more than 50 years. We're expanding access to university and TAFE for everyone in the suburbs and in the regions. Within a hundred days of coming to government we brought together the states and territories to agree on a plan for 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in priority areas last year. We didn't just deliver those; we delivered 350,000, providing learning for new skills and training for good jobs and boosting productivity in our workforce. We're rolling out another 300,000 places from this year plus an additional 20,000 fee-free places for more tradies to build more homes. When it comes to homes, there's the $32 billion that we're investing in more social housing, more public housing, more affordable housing for every Australian. But we also have the incentive in the system for build to rent. We have a billion dollars for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing family violence. There's new funding for urgent works required for new residential construction, because we know it's often the services that need to be put in for the construction to go ahead. We know from experience that that has been a handbrake. We're working with states, territories and local councils, as well as industry, to achieve it. In addition to that, we're building new infrastructure right around the country. We've doubled the Roads to Recovery Program in every single local council. We have the North East Link in Victoria, the Sunshine Coast rail link and Warrego Highway in Queensland, new investments in METRONET in Perth, and critical new road and rail infrastructure across Western Sydney. We're upgrading the Lyell Highway in Tassie and the Princes Highway in South Australia. All of our action on the cost of living builds on the work we've done over the past two years—making child care cheaper for over one million families, helping with the family budget, investing in early education and economic reform, and boosting productivity and participation. In this year's budget, we've made provision for an overdue pay rise for early educators. In all three of our budgets, we've made Medicare stronger and medicine cheaper for everyone. We are the first government to deliver a reduction in the price of medicines on the PBS since the Chifley government created it way back in 1948. This year and next year, we're freezing the cost of PBS scripts for every Australian, meaning no-one will pay more than $31.60. For pensioners and concession card holders, we're freezing the cost of their medicines for five years, so no pensioner or concession card holder will pay more than $7.70. Our urgent care clinics have seen more than 400,000 patients. The further 29 urgent care clinics will not only make a difference to the people who see them but make a difference in emergency departments as well by taking the pressure off. Compare that with what the Leader of the Opposition did as Australia's worst-ever health minister. He tried to introduce a GP tax on every visit to the doctor, a tax any time people would turn up to a hospital, and an increase to the cost of medicines as well. He wanted to make bulk-billing history. Our government is making the biggest investment in bulk-billing in history, and we'll continue to strengthen Medicare for everyone. The other thing that we are doing as a major initiative in this budget—and there will be separate legislation coming through as well—is a future made in Australia. We know that we need to learn the lessons of the pandemic. We need to learn the lessons of making sure that our economy is more resilient, that we're able to stand on our own two feet and that we're not vulnerable to a future pandemic or trade shock. Nations representing 92 per cent of the global economy and 97 per cent of Australia's trading partners are all signed up to net zero. I'm not sure about those opposite. But, to get there, every one of these countries will need much more clean energy, and much more of all the resources and technology that go into it—the metals, minerals, rare earths and resources our nation has in abundance. There's nowhere you'd rather be positioned than Australia. We have all of the resources—cobalt, nickel, vanadium, copper and lithium—that will drive the economy as we go forward. We have all of that. We also have a skilled workforce. We're also located in the fastest growing region of the world in human history. And we have space in which we can have large-scale solar and wind in order to produce green hydrogen in order to then use that green hydrogen, that clean energy, to produce advanced manufacturing—green metals and other manufacturing opportunities—because hydrogen in particular has an advantage and a need to be used much more efficiently closer to where it's produced. So we find ourselves in a position of comparative advantage with the rest of the world. What we need to do, though, is have a government that's prepared to seize that advantage and prepared to back Australia. That's what we've done with production tax credits and with the range of measures that we have for making sure that we can make more things here in Australia. That is how we will drive future economic growth. This budget delivers help here and now for every Australian under pressure. With our plan for a Future Made in Australia, we're investing in new jobs and opportunities for every part of our nation. Those opposite have spent two years saying no to helping with the cost of living. They voted against cheaper medicines, they said that fee-free TAFE was a waste of money and they voted against helping families and small business with their power bills. They're saying no to helping people make ends meet, and now they're saying no to making things here in Australia. That is the dead-end road of their negativity—angry at the present and terrified of the future. The Liberals and Nationals want to drag our nation back to the failures of their wasted decade. The challenges we face are too important for that, the opportunities are too big for that and Australians have worked too hard and come too far to go back. This is a budget of which every member of the government is proud. It's a budget that deals with the challenges of the present but sets us up for a positive future. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 8 MOTIONS Domestic and Family Violence 8 12:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Unless otherwise ordered, I declare the following matter stands referred to the Federation Chamber: resumption of debate on the motion, moved by Mr Burke, to take note of a document relating to a motion moved by Ms Steggall on gendered violence. BILLS 8 BILLS Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024 8

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024

Reference to Federation Chamber 8 12:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Unless otherwise ordered, I declare the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: the Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill; and the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024. BUSINESS 9 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 9 12:47 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 3, government business, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024, is returned to the House for further consideration. BILLS 9 BILLS Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 9

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 12:48 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak in support of the Excise and Customs Legislation (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024. This bill represents a critical step in implementing the final elements of the former coalition government's deregulation agenda, as laid out in the March 2022 budget. Despite being delayed by the current Labor government, which postponed its implementation until 1 July 2024, this legislation is essential for reducing red tape and fostering economic growth. The Australian Law Reform Commission's report, Confronting complexity:reforming corporations and financial services legislation, underscores the need for urgent reform. The ALRC's findings make it clear that Australia's overly complex and lengthy corporate laws are harming our economy, leaving consumers uncertain of their rights, deterring investment and stifling competition for Australia's 2.5 million small and family businesses. With Australia lagging in productivity among the G20 nations—the worst of all of them—it is imperative that we address these issues to reduce costs, boost competition and enhance productivity, given that productivity has fallen so much under the Albanese Labor government. Key provisions and impacts include, first, licence streamlining. The bill eliminates the need for businesses dealing with dutiable alcohol or fuel to renew their excise or customs warehouse licences, thereby removing associated fees and charges. This results in immediate and ongoing cash savings for these businesses. Second is consolidation of licences. Businesses operating multiple manufacturing or warehousing sites can now consolidate their various excise and customs warehouse licences into a single entity-level licence, simplifying their operations. Third is the freer movement of goods. The bill allows for freer movement of dutiable goods between licensed sites without requiring repeated regulatory permissions, facilitating more efficient business operations and leading to lower costs for consumers. Fourth is a public register. Establishing a public register of entities holding such licences enhances transparency and ease of access to information for businesses, reducing the need to contact regulators for verification. Fifth is administrative relief. The bill removes unnecessary administrative burdens for onshore oil producers by exempting them from excise licences unless specific production thresholds are exceeded. These measures align with the coalition's commitment to reducing regulatory burdens, consistent with the recommendations of the Morrison government's deregulation taskforce. This priority on deregulation was reiterated in our recent policy proposals and budget responses, aiming to support the business sector and stimulate economic growth. There is no doubt that there are economic challenges under the Albanese Labor government, and the coalition recognises the broader economic challenges Australians are facing right now. With inflation rising and productivity falling, it is vital to implement measures that streamline operations and reduce costs for businesses. The coalition left the Labor government a comprehensive roadmap for productivity, including the Productivity Commission's Advancing prosperity review and the ALRC's Confronting complexity review. These reports contain critical insights and recommendations that must be acted upon to drive economic reform and enhance productivity. The Australian Law Reform Commission has underscored the damaging impact of regulatory complexity on the Australian economy. Yet, under the Albanese Labor government, we are seeing more laws, more regulations and more taxes at a time when our economy is slowing down and Australians are doing it tough. The Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 will benefit businesses across Australia by simplifying regulatory requirements and reducing costs. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only before this parliament because deregulation was a priority for the former coalition government. Labor wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't for us. But we need to see more economic reform, not less, to make sure that Australians are better off and that the economy improves. Only a Liberal government can deliver this. We need a back-to-basics economic plan that gets Australians back on track. A coalition government, under the Liberals and the Nationals, will deliver a stronger economy and alleviate pressure on the housing market, which has gone through the roof under the Albanese Labor government. It's seen rents and mortgages increase and more people homeless, which we'll no doubt see in the 2026 census if things don't improve. A coalition government will support small and family businesses to make sure that costs don't continue to go up and get passed on to consumers. A coalition government will deliver more affordable and reliable energy. Despite the government saying that bills would fall, we've seen energy costs go through the roof under the Albanese Labor government. And a coalition government will increase workforce participation. This will reduce the cost of doing business, and that will improve Australians' confidence and enhance economic growth. The coalition proudly supports this bill, which implements good coalition policy that will allow businesses to thrive and contribute to the economy's growth. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 10

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 10 12:55 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. While the coalition will not oppose the bill's second reading, it is essential to highlight several critical issues and propose necessary amendments to ensure that the bill achieves its intended purpose without unintended negative consequences. Firstly, we acknowledge the Quality of Advice Review. We must recognise that this bill represents the first legislative response to the Quality of Advice Review, delivered to the government in December 2022. This review was a significant initiative commissioned by the former coalition government, the Morrison government, aimed at improving the accessibility and affordability of financial advice for Australians that right now is very difficult to get when the cost of living under the Albanese Labor government has gone through the roof. It is critical to remember that this initiative was driven by the coalition's commitment to ensuring that Australians can access quality financial advice and secure their financial future. However, we have seen delays impact the financial advice sector. We cannot ignore the significant delay in the introduction of this bill. The Albanese government was elected over two years ago, and we're just seeing this now. This delay has caused deep uncertainty and concern within our struggling financial advice sector. I've been hearing this regularly as I've gone to different events and spoken to different financial advisors at the recent FAAA roadshows. They're all struggling, and they're concerned about how long the Albanese Labor government is taking on this—and there's a lot more that they need to do. The minister certainly needs to drive this. Under the current Labor government, this sector has been burdened with much higher fees, higher taxes and more red tape. How does that help Australians get the financial advice they need right now in May 2024, when many Australians are struggling with the cost of living under the Albanese government? These additional burdens are not just administrative; they have real impacts on the viability of businesses and the quality of service provided to consumers. The protracted delay in responding to the Quality of Advice Review has left the financial advice industry in a state of limbo, facing uncertainty and instability. I'd say to the minister: you need to listen to this sector, listen to what they're saying and help reduce the costs so that more Australians have access to financial advice. It's taken Labor a staggering 16 months to begin responding to the review with no clear timeline for a full legislative response. Instead of using that time to draft considered legislation, the government has failed to get the basics right and is creating more problems than solutions. This has resulted in higher compliance costs and operational difficulties for financial advisors and, ultimately, is making it more challenging for Australians to access the affordable financial advice they need. Our financial advisors deserve a lot better than what the Albanese government is giving them. They have been calling for reforms that reduce red tape and lower costs. Instead, they have been met with legislation that adds complexity and increases their regulatory burden. This is a consequence of a government that is asleep at the wheel. They're failing to support an industry that is crucial for the financial wellbeing of Australians. It's also an example once again of a government and a minister saying something prior to the election compared to what they're actually delivering today in May 2024. There have been drafting errors and industry impact as well. Despite this delay, it's alarming to note that the bill in its current form contains several widely publicised and spoken-about drafting errors. These errors could have severe implications, potentially gutting revenue streams within the financial advice industry and making it harder for Australians to pay for financial advice through their superannuation. That's a real concern. That is a real concern because we want to see Australians' superannuation go from strength to strength. We want to see their superannuation increase each year, not go backwards. Why would a government make financial advice harder to access through superannuation? Why is the minister not listening to the sector in relation it this? Financial advisers are warning me that this legislation will add red tape and drive up costs for customers because it will require the superannuation trustees to check every piece of advice given to members. Keep in mind the strict requirements that financial advisers currently have to meet, the university and tertiary studies that they have to do and the warnings that they have to give all their customers over and over again. Yet now the government wants superannuation trustees to double-check every piece of advice. That seems like additional red tape on superannuation, on advice that's already been given by qualified advisers. It just doesn't make sense. Why interfere? Why make that harder? This is a consequence of a government that has failed to progress meaningful reforms, creating an Australia that is underbanked, underinsured and underadvised, as the shadow Treasurer so often says. These errors not only threaten the viability of financial advisory businesses but also jeopardise the accessibility of financial advice for ordinary Australians. The government's bungling of this legislative process has created confusion and chaos within the industry, undermining the trust that consumers place in the reliability of financial advice. Once again, this is particularly concerning at a time when it has never been more important for Aussies, the people who we represent in this House and in the other place, to have access to quality financial advice to navigate the economic uncertainties that we've seen in the last two years and plan for their financial futures. We've seen in the last two years higher rents, higher mortgages, a higher cost of living, higher energy, higher grocery bills and higher gas prices. We have seen all of this. We need to make sure that their financial futures are secure and that they can get the advice that they so desperately need. It's often lost that the role of capital and financial services is as embedded in economics as butchers, brewers and bakers. The shadow Treasurer has spoken about this a lot. An innovative and well-regulated financial system is essential to Australia's prosperity and to solving our productivity challenge. When we reflect on the productivity boom of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, it's clear that reforms to financial markets played a crucial role in supporting that productivity cycle. From floating the dollar to harmonising corporate regulations, these reforms drove innovation, competition and consumer outcomes. In the context of today's productivity challenge, it is alarming to see the backward steps from the government, including changes to the super tax regime and the company tax regime. These changes create uncertainty and hinder investments for Australians. To drive national productivity and prosperity, we need to remove regulatory roadblocks to good advice, we need better products and we need innovation to support a competitive and dynamic financial services sector. The lesson from the royal commission is clear: the consumer must be at the heart of our financial services sector. They must be at the heart. We're not seeing that from the Albanese Labor government and this minister. Therefore, the coalition calls on the Albanese government to fix these drafting errors immediately. We must secure the future of our financial advice sector and prevent a scenario where Australians are underadvised, underinsured and underbanked, as the member for Hume has often said. It is essential the government fix the errors in this bill to ensure the bill fulfils its intended purpose of improving financial outcomes for all Australians. It is essential that the government steps up to address these issues without further delay. The financial advice sector plays a critical role in ensuring that Australians can make informed decisions about their finances, and any legislation affecting this sector must be carefully crafted and error-free. The Albanese Labor government must fix the mess now, as the current state of the bill does nothing but add confusion and burden to an already struggling industry. As highlighted by key industry groups, this bill, in its current form, is a hot mess that fails to deliver on its promises. The Assistant Treasurer has proven to be out of touch, out of depth and unable to deliver meaningful reforms that benefit the financial advice sector—and, by extension, all Australians. I would encourage him to listen to the sector and put the benefit of Australians first: to put the people first. In conclusion, whilst the coalition supports the intent behind this bill, and will not oppose its second reading, we emphasise the need for urgent amendments to address the current flaws. The government's delay and the resulting uncertainty have already caused enough damage. It's time to act decisively and responsibly to support our financial advice sector and, by extension, the millions of Australians who rely on its services. We stand ready as a coalition to work with the Albanese Labor government to fix these issues and deliver a bill that truly enhances the quality of advice and outcomes for all Australians. I commend this amendment to the House and urge the government to take swift action to address the issues highlighted. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes this bill is the first legislative response to the Quality of Advice review, which was delivered to the government in December 2022 and commissioned by the former Coalition Government; (2) notes the significant delay in this bill has caused deep uncertainty for our struggling financial advice sector, who have been slugged by higher fees, higher taxes, and more red tape under this Government; (3) notes that despite this significant delay, this bill has several widely publicised drafting errors that would gut the financial advice industries revenue streams and make it harder for Australians to pay for financial advice through their super; and (4) calls on the Government to fix these drafting errors without delay to secure the future of our financial advice and prevent a future where Australians are under-advised, under-insured, and under-banked". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Taylor 231027 The amendment is seconded. 13:07 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That the debate be adjourned to a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024 12

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024

Second Reading 12 13:07 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024, which provide additional expenditure in 2023-24. These bills provide funding for the general purposes of government for the fiscal year 2023-24. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) provides a further $2.1 billion for the ordinary services of government, including $1.17 billion for the Social Services portfolio. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) provides just under half a billion dollars for certain expenditures relating to non-operating costs, including payments to the states and local government. The majority of this—$452 million—is for the Department of Defence. This expenditure allows for a reclassification from operating to capital. The opposition will support the passage of these bills, as we have the passage of the initial appropriation bill 2023-24 and the additional appropriation bill in 2024. The shadow Treasurer spoke previously on the appropriation bill as well, and said that Australians are poorer under the Albanese Labor government. Australians are paying the price for Labor's wrong priorities and bad decisions. He spoke about Labor's homegrown inflation, that the cost of living was up, that energy prices are up and that mortgages, rents and groceries are all up under the Albanese Labor government. This budget fails a key test: to tackle inflation at its source. Instead of addressing the cause of Labor's homegrown inflation, Labor's spending is up by some $315 billion, which the member for Hume has spoken about. He also said that the average Australian household has been left $35,000 worse off. I'm seeing that in my own electorate of Petrie, where people were promised at the Labor campaign speech in 2022 that mortgages would be cheaper under the Prime Minister. The front page of the Courier-Mail and other papers two years ago was, 'You will be better off under me,' with the Prime Minister on the front page. But what's happened since then? This is what people need to know. Their mortgages have gone through the roof. The average person in my electorate is up to $35,000 worse off. Some might be $25,000 worse off. Some might be more. You've got to ask yourself: under the Albanese Labor government with the support of the Greens party in the Senate, how is this working out for Australians and the people of Petrie? I would say that it's working out poorly, that Australians were much better off under the coalition government and that, at the next election next year, under the leadership of Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, we'll make sure that we have policies that make Australians better off, not worse off like we're seeing under this current Albanese Labor government. We are all poorer for the Albanese Labor government. It's just going from one thing to the next. The budget also fails the economic test the Shadow Treasurer set for the Treasurer. In these uncertain economic times, we needed a budget that got back to basics. That meant a budget that restored our standard of living. This doesn't do that. It doesn't matter your age. Whether you're retired or whether you're a young person just finishing uni, the standard of living has dropped under the Albanese Labor government with the support of the Greens party in the Senate. We needed a budget that restored prosperity and created opportunity for small businesses, for family businesses, to make sure that their costs weren't higher. That's passed on every day when people go and shop or buy the services that they need. We needed a budget that restored prosperity and created opportunity for young Australians and helped them into a home. We haven't seen that with this government, whereas the coalition has policies outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in the budget in reply that are aimed at young people, who would be able to use a percentage of their money in superannuation because we know that getting people into a house is the No. 1 thing that helps people. We know that because we've seen rents go through the roof as well. I did a poll in my own electorate of Petrie the other day, asking people if their rents have gone up. Yes, most people's rents have gone up by at least $100 in the last two years. Now, that's a lot of money if you're on the minimum wage, on government services or even if you're on a good wage raising a couple of kids. If you've got 100 bucks a week extra, that's another $5,200 out of your own pocket—not to mention increases around grocery, energy, gas and electricity prices, which they were promised would be lower under the Albanese Labor government. We know that's gone nowhere. The $300 announced by the Treasurer in the budget doesn't even touch the surface. That won't even cover the increases that the people of Petrie have seen in the last two years since they were elected. They were outdone by the Miles Labor government, by the way. The Miles Labor government offered all Queenslanders a thousand bucks, so, when everyone tuned into the Treasurer's budget a week or so later and saw a measly $300, they thought, 'What's that going to do?' So Queenslanders will get $1,300 due to the Miles Labor government and the Albanese Labor government, but guess what. It's still for 12 months. After that, you're all still paying higher again. The Miles Labor government want to get re-elected for a fourth or fifth term—whatever it is—in October this year, so they give you a little sweetener for 12 months, and then what happens in years 2, 3 and 4? Nothing! Everyone will be paying higher energy costs again. It's the same with the Albanese government and their lousy $300. They'll give $325 to small businesses in Petrie. We heard in question time the week before last that a gym in Western Sydney had its energy bill go from $12,000 to $27,000. But don't worry; they're getting 325 bucks from this PM! Your bill's gone up 15 grand but, hey, we'll give you $325! Thanks very much! What's that going to do to gym membership? To everyone who wants to join the gym in the member for Lindsay's seat in Western Sydney or in my seat of Petrie: if the gym's energy bill has gone up by $15,000 under the Labor government in two years, what will that do to your gym membership? I can tell you what it's going to do. Your gym membership is going to go up. That's what's going to happen. Then you're going to have fewer people going to the gym and you're going to have higher numbers of health issues as a result of people not exercising. Mr Taylor 231027 Get rid of Jim! He's the problem! Mr HOWARTH 247742 Get rid of Jim! Get rid of the Treasurer! Thanks to the member for Hume. We will continue to put Australians first. That's what we'll do, because right now, under this budget, we're not seeing that. Labor's third budget has failed all three tests that the shadow Treasurer outlined for it. It has failed all three tests. But don't worry; since coming to government, they've delivered another 36,000 bureaucrats in Canberra. To put that into perspective, our entire Australian Defence Force, full time, under this government, has fallen below 60,000. We've got some 58½ thousand full-time Army, Air Force and Navy personnel, but in two years this government has added another 36,000 public servants in Canberra. What are they going to do? They're not going to join the ADF. They've allowed for an additional 36,000 full-time public servants in Canberra in two years but, to put that into perspective, they have allowed the ADF to fall below 60,000. Once again, people in my electorate look at the Queensland public servants. In the last 10 years that Labor have been in up there, they've grown the Public Service by 60,000. That's just in Queensland. They've grown the Public Service by more than the entire ADF, which is here to defend our freedom and to make sure that there's a deterrent here in Australia. The government has absolutely failed on defence in this budget as well. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about all this extra expenditure, but it's all in years seven, eight, nine and 10—in some third term, if they get that. What about right now, today, in the first term? What are they doing there now? We're not seeing the expenditure. As well, we're actually seeing numbers of defence personnel fall. Labor's decisions are also making inflation worse. For people listening and for people in Petrie, under Labor, as the shadow Treasurer has been drumming up, there will be another $315 billion of spending over the forward estimates. Think of the last coalition budget and the figure there. They've added $315 billion. But the Treasurer says, 'This isn't adding to inflation. Don't worry. Your mortgages have gone up, your rents have gone up and your cost of living has gone up because our inflation is higher than that of most of the rest of the world, including all the European Union, but we're adding another $315 billion in spending.' How can that not add to inflation? How can that not add to rents and mortgages being higher for longer? When people have a shower and cook their food at night with gas, they're paying more for that in the middle of winter. That has all gone up under the Albanese government. When people go to the check-out down at Aldi, the IGA, the Superbarn, Woolworths or Coles, the cost of their groceries has gone up. These Labor governments try to shift that all onto local businesses. Meanwhile they're increasing regulation, industrial relations and energy costs, and they wonder why people are paying more. It is because this government, the Albanese government, keeps putting more and more costs and more and more red tape onto businesses, and people in my electorate, people in the electorates of the member for Hume and the member for Perth, and people right around Australia are all paying more. That's the reality. Extra spending doesn't take pressure off inflation; in fact, it makes it worse. The RBA governor has said that inflation is now homegrown, and independent economists, as the shadow Treasurer has outlined in a number of speeches, have all said that this budget, the Treasurer's budget, is a flop and adds to inflation. Labor have trashed the standard of living in this country. They promised a lot two years ago and they'll promise you a lot in May next year, but you cannot believe a word of what they say, because this Prime Minister has been proven to break election promises. He did on the stage 3 tax cuts. He came in here today to talk on the appropriation bills, Deputy Speaker, and he said, 'Everyone's getting more under our tax cuts.' He promised he wouldn't change tax cuts at all. 'My word is my bond,' he said. Mr Taylor 231027 That's what he said. Mr HOWARTH 247742 That's what he said. He promised everyone: 'You can vote for me. I'm not changing them.' Guess what? He has completely changed them, and he's reintroduced bracket creep. A whole new tax rate, 37 per cent, has been put back into what was legislated under the coalition. I think that in my own electorate there are about 10,000 people who will be impacted by that, who are going to be hit with an additional seven per cent as well as all the costs of living. The government goes on about wages going up. That's great. They've gone up a little bit—that's good. The problem is that inflation and the cost of living are way outstripping the amount by which wages have gone up. It means that families are 7½ per cent worse off than when Labor came to office. Over the last two years of the Albanese Labor government, family budgets have been absolutely smashed. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, is aware of that and the shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, is aware of that. Higher mortgage repayments and higher taxes under this government are bad for Australians. That's why the Liberals and Nationals will take to the election next year policies that will help Australians. The Prime Minister, once again, promised not to change taxes on unrealised capital gains in superannuation and on franking credits. He's also broken his word on that. After three Labor budgets, the average person in the electorate of Petrie is worse off. There is nothing in this budget that restores what has been lost. Families are doing it tough. Small businesses are doing it tough. The latest inflation data shows that under the Albanese Labor government prices across the board have risen by close to 10 per cent. Food is up 10 per cent. Housing is up 12 per cent. Gas is up 25 per cent. Electricity is up 18 per cent. 'Remember this in May 2025'—that's what I'd say to the people of Petrie and people right around the country. Deputy Speaker, those opposite have also funded in this budget some 'future made in Australia', but there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered about this by the minister opposite. Where are the 100,000 jobs in manufacturing that have been lost since he came to office? Under the coalition government, under the shadow Treasurer, there were a million jobs in manufacturing during COVID. Now this guy gets up and says, 'Oh, there's 900,000 jobs in Australia.' In the last two years, 100,000 jobs in manufacturing have vanished, yet now the propaganda of those opposite is 'a future made in Australia'. We know that in this budget there's money for unions and money for a Treasurer's spin unit. And there's money for some sort of future made in Australia, when they've already lost 10 per cent of manufacturing jobs. With insolvencies at levels not seen in a decade, under the Albanese government people are doing it tough. What we can agree on, of course, as the shadow Treasurer has outlined, is the $3.4 billion in life-saving medicines added to the PBS; a billion dollars towards accommodation for women and children fleeing DV—don't forget that the Morrison government delivered a lot in that space, 6,000 places; and $20,000 for the instant asset write-off, which should be extended to $30,000 and made permanent. Let's just have a quick look in Petrie. There's nothing for Petrie—nothing, right? First of all, they got rid of the Stronger Communities grants, which were really important for all the local not-for-profit organisations in our electorates around Australia. The Albanese Labor government axed the lot—all gone for Stronger Communities. So $2,500 to $20,000 for local people—it might be for local sporting equipment or for solar, to help reduce their energy bills, on their roof. This program ran for years under the coalition government. If you want that back, the only way you're going to get that back is to vote Liberal and National in 2025. Under the leadership of Peter Dutton, that's what we need. There's nothing from this government for Stronger Communities. This provided some $150,000 for groups in Petrie every year—and it's been axed, I'm sad to say. I've spoken with the Prime Minister, on last year's budget as well, about other funding required in Petrie, and, once again, it hasn't been given. The NRL Dolphins need a high-performance centre that will also benefit grassroots sporting organisations in Petrie, including Redcliffe High students. We wanted $15 million for a high-performance centre. That has not been funded—left out again. What will that cost to build later on, with inflation? It's going to go up even further. For the Tigers AFC, the Aussie Rules club, there was a fifty-fifty agreement with the Moreton Bay Council to fund female change rooms. The Prime Minister has not funded that for the people of Petrie either. The Aspley Memorial Bowls Club needed a cover over their second green in Aspley. At the time, two years ago, it was $600,000. To build that now is going to cost $1.3 million. There's no money for that from the Albanese Labor government. The Redcliffe Leagues Softball Association needed $500,000 to upgrade a new clubhouse, which would have been done to help with regional competitions, with the Brisbane Olympics coming in 2032. To build that will now cost $1.3 million, and the Albanese Labor government has also left that out. Peninsula Power Football Club, one of the best little football clubs in Australia, right in my electorate—they're not in the A-League but they're right behind it; in fact, they're probably the 17th best football club in Australia. There is nothing there for LED lighting. Once again, the Albanese Labor government has been found wanting when it comes to these clubs in Petrie. To the Aspley Hornets: I was out there on the weekend watching their football club play well, and they absolutely smashed the competition. We wanted new female change rooms there. This weekend the Aspley Hornets women's team is playing, and I encourage you to get down there and watch them this weekend. The coalition, the Liberal National Party, committed at the last election $780,000 to help build new female sports clubs, and there's nothing in this budget from the Albanese Labor government, nothing from the Prime Minister—or his sports minister, by the way, who's in the neighbouring seat, the member for Lilley. What's she's doing to advocate for the local area? Absolutely diddly squat—that's what she's doing. The Aspley Hornets are missing out because the Albanese Labor government is not focusing on Queensland. Mr HOWARTH 247742 I don't know what the member for Moreton is getting over there, but Petrie did very well under the coalition government and under the Albanese Labor government—absolutely nothing. Mr Perrett HVP Release the colour codes! Mr HOWARTH 247742 I bet you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, that the member for Moreton did alright under the coalition too! I don't know how he's going, but Queensland is missing out under the Albanese Labor government. Let me talk about Linkfield Road. Six years ago, when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister, we funded 80 per cent of that, to get that built. We've got a local member up there who's now been made the transport minister—a bloke called Bart Mellish, the member for Aspley. The bloke's done nothing in six years. Linkfield Road has been hit over and over again by trucks that are heading along Gympie Road to get to the Bruce Highway. This should have been built, and the Palaszczuk-Miles government have just not done it. There's a whole lot of other infrastructure programs as well—not just Linkfield Road but other bridges like the Gateway Motorway upgrade between Bracken Ridge and Pine River; that hasn't been done. The Beams Road overpass also hasn't been done. There's no new money for that. The Miles Labor government were supposed to start that in 2021, when Annastacia Palaszczuk was still the Premier, and there's been nothing under the Miles government. It still hasn't started three years later, after they stuck it up on a billboard saying that it would start in 2021. In 2024, it still hasn't been done. This is an absolute debacle from Labor governments in Queensland and all around the country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, he'll be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Discrimination 15 13:30 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I remind Australians of what is at stake in our democracy when we hear our most respected leaders saying, 'Hitler would be proud.' I say: never again. We must remember that during the Second World War, between 1938 and 1945, six million Jews were exterminated—not just Jews but Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, people of colour, gypsies, gays and those with disabilities. I've seen the Holocaust memorials firsthand during a visit to the Dachau concentration camp in Bavaria. And I say to those children in the gallery: it's heartbreaking. It's dangerous and evil. On 7 October last year, on Israeli soil, 1,200 Jews were massacred once again, this time by Hamas—a terrorist organisation. It was the largest number since the Shoah. A hundred and thirty hostages continue to be held, and women are being brutally tortured and sexually abused. Our nation needs leadership that stands against discrimination, against rising antisemitism, against fear and against violence against women and children, not a government that has failed to strongly denounce antisemitism and failed to set the right tone for our nation. We need a prime minister with a backbone who will vehemently reject this rising sentiment in our democracy with zero tolerance of antisemitism. We need the strength and determination that we see in our opposition leader. Fear, intimidation, discrimination—never again— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Werriwa has the call. Werriwa Electorate: Local Government, Discrimination 16 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Liverpool City Council is in turmoil yet again. Last month, police were called to the council meeting, and yet again the mayor, along with some councillors, tried to remove the current CEO. It's a familiar story for those of us who live in the LGA. The names may change, but the end result is always the same—turmoil, embarrassment and the ratepayers footing the bill. Liverpool City Council is rightly the subject of an investigation by the Office of Local Government, but I am more concerned about the behaviour of some present at this council meeting. Comments that were directed to the mayor and councillors because of their faith were appalling and completely unacceptable. Let me be clear: there is no space whatsoever for disrespect based on ethnicity or religion—not ever. Our community draws its strength from its diversity, particularly in south-west Sydney. The past weeks and months have shown us the importance of actively fostering solidarity within our community. I am committed to this goal, and so is the Albanese government. We show this commitment every day in practical ways through lots of different grants and other support. I will never waver in my commitment to people's right to worship and practice one's faith free from vilification and discrimination. I note that it is not only antisemitism that is on the rise but Islamophobia as well, and nobody should be subject to that in our country. Edwards, Mr Dylan 16 13:33 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper A bit of positivity for the day: as a proud New South Welshman, there's one sporting event that I especially look forward to, and of course that's the State of Origin. This year, there will be one more reason for the people of Cowper to be glued to the screen, and that is that our own boy from Dorrigo, Dylan Edwards, has been selected as fullback for the NSW Blues. For those of you that don't know Dorrigo, it's a small but mighty township on the beautiful plateau just west of Coffs Harbour with a current population of just over 1,200. Dorrigo has a rich history of hard work, sacrifice and mateship from the early timber days, through both world wars and recently over the pandemic. From his early days in the Bellingen-Dorrigo Magpies, Dylan displayed these exact qualities, so it was no surprise at the age of 17 when he was selected by the Panthers Juniors and rose through the ranks to the winning premiership side. News of his selection as fullback in the NSW Blues State of Origin squad dominated the headlines last night. It lit up my social media accounts, as well as the local pride. Congratulations to you, Dylan. You've already had a hand in three premiership trophies for the Panthers, and it's time to add an Origin one. I look forward to the 3-0 whitewash of Queensland. Go the Blues! Moreton Electorate: Moreton Youth Advisory Council 16 13:34 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton When our government was elected, we promised to govern for all Australians, including young people. But, while young people may be our nation's future, the issues of today affect them now, too. That's why our budget is deliberately designed to help people under pressure and set them up for a better future. We're providing a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer and $300 off energy bills for every household, providing much-needed relief for Australians, especially young Australians. The best way governments can help young people is by listening and actually hearing their voices, and that's what the Albanese Labor government is doing. Young people are at the centre of this budget. We're wiping $3 billion in HECS-HELP debts and, for the first time in our nation, we are introducing a Commonwealth prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students. Last week, I launched the new Moreton Youth Advisory Council. I was joined by young people from right across my electorate from different cultures and different backgrounds. From housing to health care, climate change and First Nations justice, it was great to hear directly from them about the issues that are most important to them. We explored practical and constructive ways to achieve better outcomes for young people together. There were some items in the budget that the group appreciated, but we know that there's more to be done. We'll keep working every day to deliver for all of Australians, especially young people. While this was our first meeting of the Moreton Youth Advisory Council, I can already see how deeply engaged, proactive and committed these enthusiastic young people are. I'll finish with some of their words: 'The opportunity to be surrounded by a group so motivated to use this opportunity to speak up for those without a voice is empowering.' Middle East 17 13:36 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan How many children need to be killed in Gaza before this government withdraws its support for Israel's invasion? What is the number? Over 10,000 children killed is not enough for them to stop exporting weapons? There has been $1.5 million in just February this year in arms and ammunition to Israeli, according to the government's own data. What will it take for Australia to cancel its contract with Elbit Systems, whose drone killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and who brag about testing their weapons on Palestinians? Yesterday morning, we woke to the news that Israel had targeted a displacement camp and killed at least 45 people. This area was designated as a safe zone. There were images circulating on social media that no-one should ever have to see, with bodies of children being mourned by their grieving parents. The area was so crowded with tents that fire ripped through the encampment. People were burned alive. All of this was just days after the ICJ ordered a halt to the Rafah offensive. What will it that take for this government to act to stop the genocide? Asking Israel nicely is meaningless while Australia is still exporting weapons to Israel, refuses to sanction Netanyahu and his war cabinet and signs deals with companies who profit immensely from the murder they cause in Gaza. Heard, Mr Colin 17 13:38 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to pay tribute to one of my distinguished constituents, Mr Colin Heard, and congratulate him on his 100th birthday. Originally from the south, Colin was selected by the Air Force to fly P-40 Kittyhawks at age 19 in World War II. He flew with the 78 Squadron in 1943 and 1944 during its operations in New Guinea and the Dutch East Indies. Their fighters were transported by sea, were then made operational and then attacked Japanese ships and assisted American forces in the capture of Japanese bases on the island of New Britain. Colin survived the loss of his aircraft when his aircraft engine caught fire after a strafing run. It took only 10 seconds to sink. Fortunately, he got off and jumped into the ocean and was picked up by a US patrol boat. Colin has a magnificent war service record. It shows that he was involved in 23 daytime operational sorties involving strikes and attacks and 61 other operations which were mostly fighter-escort operations. Colin's postwar life was very successful as well in terms of both his family and his businesses. Colin, you are a remarkable Territorian. This whole parliament is incredibly proud of your service. I hope you have a wonderful birthday. ReLove 17 13:39 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth We need to take stronger action to address domestic violence, and that includes more support for frontline services. I want to pay tribute to one such service in Wentworth, called ReLove. Established by Renuka Fernando and Ben Stammer in 2019, ReLove supports women and children impacted by domestic violence by providing them with good quality rescued furniture and household items free of charge. It's been my pleasure to meet Ren and Ben on many occasions, as well as some of the women they work with. Through partnerships with organisations such as Wayside Chapel, the B Miles Women's Foundation and Jewish House, ReLove supports 15 women and their children every week. ReLove rescues furniture from suppliers with surplus or returned stock as well as from hotels, removalists and community donations. Clients can choose the items they need, which are assembled and delivered to them. On average, each client receives between $10,000 and $15,000 worth of furniture to help them restart their lives. The dignity of that choice is so critical. When women's lives are falling apart, they can go somewhere and start to create the home that they want to take their families into. ReLove has also saved an amazing 1,800 tonnes of furniture from landfill. I would like to pay tribute to the clubs and companies that support ReLove—Easts Rugby Foundation, Wilson Asset Management and Atlassian—and say congratulations for the amazing work they do to support those who need it. Gosford Hospital, Budget 17 13:41 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Recently we had the Prime Minister visit the beautiful Central Coast to meet with staff and students at Gosford Hospital. We had the privilege of meeting nurses, doctors and support staff on J8, the cardiology and coronary care unit. It was an opportunity to observe these hardworking Central Coast healthcare professionals at work. A big thankyou to Meg Pendrick and Kelly Falconer, two amazing nurses on the on the Central Coast; Scott McLachlan, the CEO of Central Coast Local Health District; and Dr Maged William, the head of cardiology. Thank you for your hospitality. The staff and students, while we were there, were quite interested in the changes that we are going to be making in the higher education space, including paid placement, and cheaper medicines. With our HECS-HELP relief for students, the government is going to cut $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. The Albanese Labor government is capping the HELP indexation rate to be lower than either the consumer price index or the wage price index. This will be backdated to 1 June 2023, meaning those with a HELP debt will receive a credit. It means that HELP debts will never grow faster than wages. This is going to support over 15,000 people in the electorate of Robertson. With our cheaper medicines policy, we've already saved a lot on the Central Coast—over $2 million. Now, with further freezes to the co-payment, the people of Robertson will save even more. Flynn Electorate: Agricultural Shows 18 13:42 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn It is well and truly show season across the Flynn electorate. The tradition of agricultural shows is still going strong, with 128 shows across rural Queensland. The dedication of volunteers every year and the enthusiastic support from the communities mean our children and grandchildren get to share some of these traditions and have some good old-fashioned fun. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the show societies across the electorate, which continue to outdo themselves every year. Ag shows generate a huge $1 billion annually in economic benefits, promoting new technology and high-quality produce. For some communities and charities, agricultural shows are the financial boost they need to get them through the year. They are also the driver of innovation and education, showcasing Australia's food and fibre and supporting tourism. So far this year, my team and I have attended the Proston, Gayndah, Baralaba, Mount Perry, Monto, Taroom, Mundubbera, Theodore, Callide Valley, Biggenden, Comet and Capella shows. Here we are able to have meaningful conversations about what local issues are for each community and how our office can assist them with any federal government issues. My team and I will continue to be out and about this show season, right across the Flynn electorate, and we look forward to engaging with and seeing the locals there. Budget 18 13:44 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My Friday afternoon doorknocks over the past fortnight have been very positive, with people in my community expressing their appreciation for the government's budget measures to address the cost-of-living crisis. They are pleased that, in addition to giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut, we are helping each household save $300 off their power bills. This will not only help households save $300 over the coming year but will provide support without adding to inflation. Besides direct cost-of-living relief, this budget will mean a single mum in Hampton Park will see the first back-to-back increase to the Commonwealth rent assistance allowance in 30 years. We are investing in Australia, Australian goods and Australian jobs, and the uni students in my community will not be subject to steep HECS indexation. This is a Labor budget. It is a budget for every Australian. It makes sure that no-one is held back or left behind. It is designed to help people who are under pressure right now while setting Australia up to seize the challenges of the future. COVID-19 18 13:45 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash A Nobel Prize winning drug was discovered in Japan in the 1970s. The drug has been safely used in over 3.7 billion doses since 1987 and has been added to the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines. This drug was used successfully by a number of countries around the world in the treatment of COVID. In fact, there are 250 studies which show that this drug significantly lowers the risk of mortality from COVID. Yes, I'm talking about the drug ivermectin. You would think that, with such a safe and effective drug at our disposal in the midst of a pandemic, we'd look at whether we could use this drug to protect our population. But, no, what did Australia do? On 10 September 2021, on the eve of the many vaccine mandates, we banned it. Why? According to the TGA: … people who have been prescribed the substance— Ivermectin— for this purpose may believe themselves to be protected from the disease and not get vaccinated … This safe and effective drug stayed off our shelves until 3 May 2023, when, all of a sudden, it reappeared. Who or what caused this reversal? I'm aware that some doctors are even prescribing ivermectin to people suffering from vaccine injury and long COVID. I'll finish by quoting one health expert, who said: 'If the TGA cannot tell the difference between toxic horse deworming medicine and a potentially life-saving, safe and effective medicine, they should not exist. Who was it should take responsibility for taking the life-saving drug off the market?' Budget 19 13:46 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Two weeks ago the Treasurer stood in this place to deliver a budget that delivers for every Australian, every part of our economy and every corner of our country, and in Bennelong it was no different. This third Labor budget is one for every Australian, but it's also a big budget for everyone in Bennelong. Firstly, every taxpayer in Bennelong will get a tax cut. That's all 92,000 taxpayers. A part-time worker on $45,000 will get a tax cut, and a full-time software engineer on $140,000 will get a tax cut too. Everyone will get a tax cut, not just some. Then, every household and every small business will get energy relief. That's $300 per household and $325 for small businesses. Importantly, this year the energy rebate will be applied automatically. Everyone will get a rebate, not just some. So that's universal tax cuts and universal energy relief. The budget also delivers further support to strengthen our universal healthcare system. This budget delivered Bennelong's first federally funded Medicare urgent care clinic. From 1 July, everyone in Bennelong will have access to bulk-billed urgent care. Myhealth Top Ryde will be upgraded to a federally funded Medicare urgent care clinic, so locals will get a facility that will be open for longer hours and will allow walk-in presentations. Locals won't need a credit card; all they'll need is their Medicare card. This is a budget for everyone. Labor Government 19 13:48 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright You just can't trust Labor in this country anymore. Most people today are actually worse off as a result of Labor's budget. The low and middle income tax offset is gone, so, if you were relying on that as a tax refund this year, kiss it goodbye. Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you that on 200 occasions before coming to government there was a promise by Labor of a $275 tax credit to your electricity bill. No-one in my electorate of Wright has seen that $275. In fact, energy prices have gone through the roof. They've gone up so much that those on the government side have offered a $300 tax incentive for electricity payments. But, really, with the cost of electricity going up the way that it is, it needs to be more like $1,000 to stay on track. Labor said that we'd be better off under a Labor government. If you're a mortgage holder, your mortgages have gone up on no less than 12 occasions. If your mortgage is tied and you've got renters, that then ties to an increase in rent. The Reserve Bank, through its monetary policy, has had two feet on the brakes trying to slow the economy down, while this government has slammed over $300 billion worth of stimulus payments into the economy, which most economic commentators around the country have alluded to as a bad idea. You cannot trust this government. Budget, Hasluck Electorate: Volunteering 19 13:50 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck The Albanese Labor government understands that it's not just industry, business or major projects that need financial backing to have a sound economic foundation. Volunteers, who are the social glue that binds our communities together, need our financial backing, too. That's why our budget provides dedicated funding to volunteering, including the Volunteer Management Activity program, and volunteer grants. The budget allocates over $77 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year, and a further $65 million in each of the three subsequent years of the forward estimates. Delivering certainty for our much-needed volunteer organisations helps them to plan their valued activities. During Volunteer Week, I attended the Al-Noor Community Language School volunteer celebration in Ellenbrook. Al-Noor recently received a volunteer grant, I'm happy to say, which provides them with the school equipment necessary to support their organisation and to grow. The director, Aliaa Zayadi, also celebrated her volunteers, speaking about each of them in turn and highlighting how they have contributed so significantly to the community. The event was topped off with the most amazing and delicious shared meal. We need to celebrate success. To this end, I've launched the inaugural Hasluck Volunteer Awards and I'm seeking nominations from Midland to Ellenbrook, to Guildford, to the foothills and beyond. I encourage everyone connected to volunteering—including online community groups, because we know how much effort goes into supporting them—to nominate for and contribute to the volunteer awards for Hasluck. Fadden Electorate: Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show 19 13:51 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden Last week, I had the pleasure of opening the 35th Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show. Credit goes to Mulpha Australia, who were supported by the Gold Coast city council and Tourism and Events Queensland, for delivering another iconic event. In Fadden, we love our waterways and we love boating. It doesn't matter whether you get around on a Nautique ski boat, perhaps a See-Doo jetski or a humble Quintrex tinnie, which, of course, is manufactured in the electorate. Over the four days, nearly 50,000 people turned up to have a look at the show. But it's more than just an event. This is showcasing the marine industry that is so valuable to the Gold Coast economy, and the economy in the northern end of the Gold Coast in particular. The marine precinct at Coomera, in the electorate of Fadden, is home to Riviera—the famous Boat Works—and Gold Coast city marina, both of which host many small businesses. During the show on the weekend, there were charities involved like Hope Island Rotary, selling some sausages to raise money, and the variety club, selling some $5 sharks, which was good to see. All of this is with an effort to showcase and highlight the importance of the marine economy to the Gold Coast. It's worth nearly $1.2 billion and provides nearly 5,000 jobs. So I'm very proud to have been along to the show to support the marine industry, which is an important pillar of the Gold Coast economy. Budget 20 13:53 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Our budget has kept the focus on more housing for Australians. We're starting to see the benefits of the Albanese Labor government's $32 billion investment to build new homes, with extra help in the budget for people to build, rent or buy. Already, we've delivered the first $610 million to New South Wales through one program, the Social Housing Accelerator, with construction on some of the targeted 1,500 new social homes in our state underway. Applications recently closed for the first round of funding for social and affordable housing under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, plus our extra budget commitments will boost the construction workforce and cut red tape. They show that we're serious about ensuring every Australian has a safe and affordable place to call home. While we make up for the housing supply failures of the previous government, I want to congratulate the Older Women's Network Blue Mountains on their Homes for Older Women initiative, which matches available townhouses, units, granny flats, studios or rooms to older women who desperately need a stable and affordable home. I was privileged to join them to launch the pilot, which is supported by many local groups. The first residents are moving into two brand-new one- and two-bedroom townhouses built by a local developer. We'll keep incentivising local developers and I welcome these local creative solutions. Child Care 20 13:54 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland Today the Parenthood released a report titled Choiceless, which focuses on the plight of parents in accessing regional, rural and remote learning and care. I urge all members opposite to find 20 minutes in their day to look at the report, understand the findings and commit to addressing, in a bipartisan way, the issues and inequities that exist. Simply pumping up the childcare subsidy does nothing for regional communities in places like Gippsland, where many families actually have no access to a childcare centre. I've had dozens of Gippsland families raise their concerns with me in relation to this issue. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, more families are dependent on their two incomes, but there are up to nine million children across Australia who are currently living in what we call childcare deserts. We need to do more in this place. We need to do more to provide parental choice, flexibility and accessibility for Australian families, and this report is a very welcome addition to the public debate that we need to have as a nation. Where we do find market failure, the government needs to back local solutions and help us, as local communities, to attract and retain the workforce we need for regional areas to continue to prosper. It is time to trust our local communities more. It is time to trust our local communities to come up with solutions which actually work in each region and help fund this essential service right around the nation. Nuclear Energy 20 13:56 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Is it just me, or is the Leader of the Opposition becoming more and more like Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons every single day? Think about it: they both hate workers, neither of them smiles very much and they both love nuclear power. In fact, their comments on nuclear power are now so similar, it's sometimes pretty hard to tell them apart. I'll show you what I mean. I'll read you a quote, and you tell me whether it's Montgomery Burns or the Leader of the Opposition. Here's the first one: 'Nuclear electricity illuminates not just our homes but our souls as well.' Is that Mr Burns or the Leader of the Opposition? Government members: The Leader of the Opposition! Dr CHARLTON I8M That was the Leader of the Opposition. Good start! Here's the second one. Who said this: 'Oh, nuclear meltdown—that's just a buzzword. We prefer to call it an "unrequested fission surplus"'? Is that Mr Burns, or is that the Leader of the Opposition? That's the Leader of the Opposition as well. This is the last one. Who said this: 'Nuclear waste is a misleading term. A more accurate description is "used fuel"'? Who doesn't like the term nuclear waste? Is that Mr Burns, or is that the Leader of the Opposition? That's the Leader of the Opposition. It could have been Mr Burns, though, couldn't it? They're very similar! Sometimes you can hardly tell them apart. I guess the only difference is that Mr Burns can tell us where his reactors will be. Mobile Black Spot Program 21 13:57 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks In December 2021, when the now Prime Minister was not the Prime Minister, he said: 'Taxpayers deserve better than to have their funds, their taxpayer funds from their hard work, funnelled into marginal electorates on the basis of a political whim.' That's what he said in 2021 when he wasn't the Prime Minister. But the Auditor-General's report into round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program released last week reveals some very different things. On page 66, it shows that 81 per cent of the sites personally chosen for funding by Minister Rowland are in marginal electorates—81 per cent! But the PM had previously said that it shouldn't be a consideration. It's very confusing. Then, on page 65, the Auditor-General shows that 74 per cent of all the electorates chosen are Labor electorates. It just doesn't square with what the Prime Minister so earnestly said in 2021. On page 74, the Auditor-General shows—this is a good one—that, in Victoria, 100 per cent of the funds went to marginal seats and 100 per cent of them are in Labor electorates. On page 73, the Auditor-General shows that, in New South Wales, 100 per cent of the funds allocated went to marginal seats and 100 per cent of those seats are in Labor electorates. It is a shameful program, and the government must apologise. Australian Greens 21 13:59 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser Today I raise accountability. The Greens aren't a party of government, but they could plausibly hold the balance of power. As a fringe party, the Greens are too often given a free pass, and that needs to change. Firstly, on economics, the Greens are laughable. Some say they're undergraduate, but policies like rent control and resource-free growth give the undergraduates a bad name. Second, on foreign policy and defence, they're dangerous. Sensible MPs across this chamber need to coalesce around policies that protect the national interest. Third, and of most concern, are the Greens' dangerous and divisive political tactics. The Greens saunter in here with an air of sanctimonious moral superiority. Their grubby political tactics on sensitive issues such as Gaza is shameful. In recent months, Greens MPs have used words like 'tentacles' and 'river to the sea', and a Greens MP has posted a video of me being jostled entering ALP State Conference. There is a pattern to this. On this issue, leaders should be seeking consensus, but the Greens seek political advantage and division. On the weekend, the leader of the Greens couldn't even bring himself to state that Israel has a right to exist. With their mailing lists, information-harvesting petitions and sloganeering, the Greens have become the cynical Cambridge Analytica of the Left. We rightly criticise those on the Right who are extreme; the same should occur on the Left. The Greens aren't the only party to play politics, but they're the only ones to claim not to. It's time to call it out. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 21 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Papua New Guinea: Landslide 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Earlier today and over the weekend I have had contact with Prime Minister James Marape, who addressed this parliament just a short time ago. I informed him that all Australians were grieving for those killed in the landslide in Papua New Guinea's Enga province. We hold out hope for the missing and wish strength to those who are now so desperately searching in what is an unimaginable tragedy. We can't envisage what it was like for those in its path—the suddenness of it, the scale of it, the terror of it. Locals have described it as 'like an exploding bomb', rushing towards homes 'like a sea wave'. We do not yet know the full extent of it. Tragically, there are reports that there could be up to 2,000 people buried beneath the mud and the rubble. All Papua New Guineans are suffering in the wake of this terrible disaster, and we hold them in our hearts. James Marape is a good friend of Australia's, and he wanted to convey—symptomatic of the humbleness of the character of our PNG friends—his thanks and gratitude for our friendship and solidarity at this time. I had a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition about this earlier today, and will provide a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition when more details become apparent. Tragically, at this time, with the nature of where this disaster has happened, information is quite short. The government is providing humanitarian assistance to support PNG's response, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for indicating that that will be bipartisan. This afternoon, we're sending technical experts to provide incident management assistance to support geohazard assessments and to help guide recovery efforts. Tragically, we in Australia know about emergencies and disasters, and we do have expertise in these areas. We're providing emergency relief supplies, including shelter, hygiene kits and specific support for women and children. The Australian Defence Force have been working alongside their colleagues in the PNG Defence Force to support government and relief workers, and we stand ready to do more. Papua New Guinea is our nearest of neighbours and our closest of friends. We stand with each other through the good times and the bad. Recently, I was with Prime Minister Marape, reflecting on that closeness that saw us through those dark days of World War II on the Kokoda Track. At this most tragic of times, I want the people of PNG to know that Australia is there for them and always will be. 14:04 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his fine and heartfelt words, and on behalf of the coalition I extend our thoughts and prayers to all of those affected in Papua New Guinea. As the Prime Minister pointed out, Prime Minister Marape was in this parliament only a short time ago, and in his speech he spoke about the rugged nature of the part of PNG that we now make reference to—Enga province, up in the north-west. It is a rugged country and it is very difficult to access. The scenes of people trying to dig for loved ones who are buried by hand, trying to move rocks, and some reports of people being under 10 metres of landfill are unimaginable. As the Prime Minister acknowledged, I wrote to him earlier this morning to offer the coalition's support on any decision the government would make to provide additional effort to PNG. The airlifting of heavier equipment, if that's possible, by the Australian Defence Force or civil contractors here in Australia—we would very much encourage consideration of that effort and any ways in which we can help in the humanitarian response, in helping people to try and recover those whose lives have been lost and those who may still be trapped. I thank the Prime Minister for the courtesy of our earlier discussion today. I want Prime Minister Marape, a dear friend to many of us, and all Papua New Guineans to hear the very clear message that Australia will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Papua New Guinea. They are family. In these tragic events, Australia will always come to the fore and provide support to the people of PNG. CONDOLENCES 22 CONDOLENCES Lieberman, Mr Louis Stuart (Lou), AM 22 14:06 The SPEAKER 53517 I inform the House of the death, on 17 May 2024, of the Hon. Lou Stuart Lieberman AM, a member of the House for the division of Indi from 1993 to 2001. As a mark of respect to the memory of Lou Lieberman, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. MINISTRY 22 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 22 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time this week, and the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 22 14:07 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the minister for immigration. An immigration detainee referred to as CHCY had his visa cancelled after he was convicted of raping his 14-year-old stepdaughter whilst his wife was in hospital giving birth. The Albanese Labor government's watering-down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and reverse direction 99? 14:07 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Our thoughts are, of course, with the victims in this case. In saying that, of course community safety remains our highest priority as a government. I remind the Leader of the Opposition and all members that this was a visa that was cancelled and remained cancelled by my department in line with ministerial direction 99. I believe that it's a decision that should still be cancelled, and I also advise the House that I have prioritised a number of cases for urgent cancellation consideration. Budget 22 14:08 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the budget helping to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians and building a better future? What is standing in the way of making our future here? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for McEwen for his question. It was good to be in the member for McEwen's electorate, looking at infrastructure related to the very significant intermodal that will be built in his region, which will create many thousands of jobs, boost productivity and make an enormous difference to the region and, indeed, to the nation. We delivered a budget focused on the things that have driven us over the last two years—firstly, helping with the rising cost-of-living pressures that people are feeling. We did that by producing a tax cut for all 13.6 million taxpayers—not just some of them, which is what those opposite wanted. We did that as well by having energy price relief of $300 for every household, not just some, and by providing support for every small business as well. We did it by providing stronger Medicare for every part of the community, adding a further 29 urgent care clinics to the 58 that have been up and running. We did it by ensuring more homes can be built in every part of the country, with our $32 billion plan for homes in Australia. We also had— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer and the member for Deakin will cease interjecting for the remainder of the Prime Minister's answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 We also had a plan for a future made in Australia. That's where future economic growth will come from. How do we seize the opportunities from the shifts that are happening in the global economy? With the shift to clean energy, there is no country you would rather be in than Australia, with the resources that we have under the ground that will power global economies in this century but also the resources we have in the sky, the best solar resources in the world, as well as the opportunity that we have for green hydrogen, to be producing green metals and to be producing advanced manufacturing jobs. For some time those opposite have said no to cost-of-living relief, but now they're also saying no to a future made in Australia, to making more things here, including extraordinarily saying no to production tax credits, something that will reward the success of companies that invest in the industries of the future. Those opposite have nothing to offer, have nothing positive, are helping no-one and are taking our country nowhere. You can't build a better future out of saying no. We're getting on with building that better future. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 23 14:11 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The visa of a Sudanese national, Emmanuel Saki, was cancelled after he was convicted of serious domestic violence offences and threats to kill with a knife. He's now been charged with the stabbing murder of 22-year-old Bosco Minyurano in Brisbane. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and reverse direction 99? 14:12 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I say again that, of course, my thoughts and, I'm sure, all our thoughts are with the victim's family. I'll also say that the person in question is now in custody, with a police investigation underway. Again, this was a visa that was cancelled and remained cancelled under ministerial direction 99. It was a decision of the AAT, an independent tribunal, to overturn the cancellation of the visa. I remind the House that the direction places a significant emphasis on serious offending and family violence. These need to be considered in all matters by the tribunal. I also want to inform the House that I have cancelled the individual's visa. As this matter is before the courts, I'll say nothing further about this matter. Cost of Living 23 14:13 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government easing cost-of-living pressures for all Australians and helping to fight inflation? What approaches were rejected? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hinkler is warned. To interject before a minister has even begun is highly disorderly. 14:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Dunkley. Because of her efforts, every one of the 73,000 taxpayers in Dunkley will be getting a tax cut and every single one of the 65,000 households will get energy bill relief. Since parliament rose at the end of budget week, we have been visiting communities and talking to people about the budget and what it means for them and why it matters for them as well—from Western Sydney to Western Australia, from Logan to Launceston, from the Gold Coast to Gladstone and in Melbourne, Ipswich, regional South Australia and Brisbane. We know that inflation has moderated a lot since we came to office, but we know that people are still under the pump. This is why the primary purpose of the budget two weeks ago was to ease cost-of-living pressures. Most of that cost-of-living relief is for everyone. Some of it is targeted, but all of it will help to take some of the edge off these inflationary pressures that people are feeling. In the first instance, there is a tax cut for every taxpayer, all 13.6 million of them. As the Prime Minister said, those tax cuts are now less than five weeks away. There is energy bill relief for every household and for small business, and there's the first back-to-back increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. We're freezing the cost of prescriptions; we're wiping $3 billion in student debt; we're helping students on prac and we're creating more fee-free TAFE places; and we're paying the super guarantee on paid parental leave for the very first time. By helping with bills, we'll put downward pressure on inflation at the same time. We know this works because when we did it in the last budget, we were able to take some of the edge off the inflationary pressures in the economy. A combination of our cost-of-living help and our responsible economic management is a key reason why inflation is almost half what we inherited from those opposite two years ago. A key reason why Treasury is now forecasting an earlier return to inflation in the target band is because of our cost-of-living help. So we have made welcome and encouraging progress when it comes to the fight against inflation, but it doesn't moderate in a straight line; we've seen it zig and zag in other countries already. We'll get some new monthly figures tomorrow and, as I've said a number of times from this dispatch box, these monthly figures bounce around a bit. They don't compare the same items month to month and they're less reliable than the quarterly figures, but the overall direction of travel when it comes to inflation is clear: when we came to office, the monthly and quarterly measures of annual inflation were both 6.1 per cent and they're now substantially lower. But they're still too high and that's why our inflation-fighting budget provides cost-of-living relief in the most responsible way, at the same time as we invest in Medicare, housing, skills and the industries which will power our future. Western Sydney: Manufacturing 24 14:17 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Prime Minister, in 2022 you announced $15 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund, supposedly to support manufacturing. In this budget, you announced $22.7 billion for your Future Made in Australia. Manufacturing is the largest employer in Fowler—40 per cent—and is the engine room powering Western Sydney. How much of the $15 billion announced in 2022 has been allocated to support small and medium-sized manufacturing companies in Western Sydney? 14:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Fowler for her question. I'd hope she's an enthusiastic supporter of our plan for manufacturing, because it compares with those opposite, who of course voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They voted against it and stopped it going through this parliament for a period of time—they delayed it. But we're getting on with the National Reconstruction Fund now—have its structures set up. It isn't something that has a colour-coded spreadsheet; it's something that will get proper economic analysis for projects. But I hope, as well, that the member for Fowler was pleased to see the new projects in the budget benefitting Fowler: $5 million for the Hume Highway corridor assessment; $47½ million for Western Sydney roads; $100 million for Western Sydney rapid bus infrastructure upgrades; and $22.5 million for Roads to Recovery funding for councils in Fowler over five years, following our increases. Ms Bell 282981 She asked about manufacturing! Mr Littleproud 265585 You've got nothing to say at all! Mr ALBANESE R36 Those opposite show their objection to manufacturing! It is an independent— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals is pretty agitated today. We're just going to dial that down for the remainder of question time. I'd like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Ms Ley 00AMN My point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question did not go to infrastructure, it went to manufacturing. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was about how much money was announced for small and medium businesses in Fowler. The Prime Minister is allowed to talk about the electorate—he may give context, but I'm just going to ask him to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 Exactly right; it was about Fowler, and I'm talking about things that will create jobs in Fowler. In addition to that, the National Reconstruction Fund— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made her point of order. We've moved on from there. I'm just going to ask her to cease interjecting. The Prime Minister is being in order, and he's going to be heard in silence, just as the member for Fowler was heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 In addition to that, the National Reconstruction Fund—something very foreign to those opposite—will make objective decisions, at arms-length from government, about support for manufacturing industry. That's as it should be. International Humanitarian Assistance 25 14:20 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government assisting our neighbours and friends in the Pacific with humanitarian assistance and Australian defence support in their time of need, particularly recently in New Caledonia and Papua New Guinea? 14:20 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio On Friday morning in Yambali village, west of Mount Hagen in the PNG Highlands, a tragedy of enormous proportions struck Papua New Guinea. I know that I speak on behalf of every member of this House when I say that we stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Papua New Guinea, remembering that it was PNG who came to our aid in our hour of need 4½ years ago, during the Black Summer bushfires. That is what family do. That is what friends do. It is hard to describe the Highlands of PNG for those who have not seen it. It is a place which is very remote, but it's not isolated. It's not isolated because it is in fact heavily populated, but it is remote because, through large swathes of the Highlands, the principal form of transport infrastructure is walking trails, and the main mode of transport is by foot. It's in this context that this tragedy struck, and so it's very difficult to know exactly what the death toll has been. The International Organization for Migration, having spoken with nearby villagers, estimates the death toll at about 670, but there are other estimates which put that number in the thousands. The truth is we may never know, but what we do know is that, right now, there are thousands of displaced people, and they need our help. From the moment this news broke, our high commission was working with authorities in Port Moresby. We flew the first representatives of PNG's national disaster committee to the site on a RAAF Spartan and helicopter. The Spartan which is in PNG has been joined by a Hercules. We have a C-17 which is now ferrying supplies between Australia and PNG. In addition to the disaster response experts who are on their way to PNG now, the emphasis is on helping those who are displaced, and so we are working on transporting 750 family-sized shelters to the site. There is more that we are seeking to do, but, to be frank, part of the issue here is about not overwhelming a system which is currently under a lot of stress. But what every Australian should know and, more importantly, every Papua New Guinean should know is that we will do everything within our power in this moment to help Papua New Guinea through this most difficult time. I will just briefly mention New Caledonia. Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen unrest. The origins of this obviously go back decades. The answer to this has been and continues to be ongoing dialogue. We very much welcome the visit of President Macron to Noumea, and we're working with our French neighbours about how we can provide assistance in this context as well. What we have done is provide eight flights over the course of last week or so, on which we've transported about 500 people to Australia, most of whom are Australian citizens. These two very different incidents remind us of one central fact: we are members of the Pacific family, and every person in the Pacific should know that, in the darkest hour, Australia will be there. 14:24 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning on indulgence—I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his update on Papua New Guinea and New Caledonia. Our ADF men and women are both our first responders and our ambassadors in moments of crisis, and so they go to Papua New Guinea and, potentially, New Caledonia with our goodwill and support as always. Immigration Detention 25 14:24 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the minister's previous answer about Emmanuel Saki, a noncitizen convicted of serious domestic violence offences and unprovoked threats to kill with a knife. Saki's visa was reinstated by the AAT as a direct result of the watering down of the law by the Albanese government and the issuance of direction 99. Why did the minister not step in, intervene and cancel the visa before this man went on to allegedly murder a 22-year-old? 14:25 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Direction 99 did not decrease the importance placed on considerations such as the expectations of the Australian community and the protection of the community from crime. That is a very important point here, as well as the fact that the visa in question was cancelled and remained cancelled by my department in accordance with ministerial direction 99. Now, a number of cases were not raised with me by my department, and I've asked my department for an explanation why. My department is now looking at all these cases as a priority, and they are all under cancellation consideration. Domestic and Family Violence 26 14:26 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government continuing to invest in women's safety initiatives that support the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children? How is this making a practical difference now? 14:26 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question, because promoting the safety of women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence is a key priority of our government, and it has been since we've been elected. That's why we have made it a priority to work with states and territories along with and victims-survivors to deliver the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, and we've backed that up with a $3.4 billion investment. This investment is supporting women and children who are experiencing violence now and is also focused on preventing violence, intervening before it escalates and helping the recovery of victims-survivors. One of our key investments in this month's budget creates the permanent Leaving Violence Program. Victims-survivors now have the certainty of knowing that the safety net will be there should they need it, where they can access $5,000 of support and also important safety planning, risk assessment and referrals to support pathways. The Leaving Violence Program builds on improvements we've made to the previous escaping violence trial. Early evidence showed that victims-survivors needed more than just a payment, and that's why we have invested and continue to invest in additional resourcing to provide individualised support. Just last week I heard about the vital impact this was having when I spoke to frontline workers who said that the individualised supports and, importantly, the risk assessment is actually keeping women safe. A key principle of the national plan is preventing violence, and just this weekend we launched our national consent campaign designed to encourage parents, caregivers and other adults to understand, learn and talk about consent so that our young people can too. We've appointed an expert panel to conduct a rapid review into best practice prevention approaches. The expert panel will deliver advice to government on how we can strengthen prevention efforts under the national plan with a focus on greater consequences and accountability for perpetrators. This will complement a lot of the work under way under our national plan to strengthen our existing targeted approaches to preventing violence, including our early intervention adolescence program, which supports at-risk young people—particularly at-risk boys—who have experienced family and domestic violence, breaking the cycle of it occurring generation after generation. We all need to work together, because ending violence against women and children will take all of us working today in a concerted way, and I commend this work to the House. Immigration Detention 26 14:29 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. A Kenyan national known as XLFM had his visa cancelled after he was convicted of raping the 17-year-old sister of the mother of his infant child and then robbing a petrol station with a meat cleaver. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and reverse direction 99? 14:30 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. As I've already said, my thoughts, and the thought of all members, I'm sure, are with the family of the victim here. This was a visa that was cancelled and remained cancelled by my department under direction 99. Direction 99 did not, and does not, decrease the importance placed on considerations such as the expectations of the Australian community and the protection of the community from crime. This remains unchanged under this government. Community safety remains the highest priority of this government, and I say again these were decisions made by an independent tribunal. First Nations Australians 26 14:31 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. How are Australians marking Reconciliation Week in 2024, and how is the Albanese Labor government supporting survivors of the stolen generations and advancing reconciliation? 14:31 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I thank the member for her question and her enduring interest in this issue. Across the country, Australians are marking Reconciliation Week, a time for us to come together to learn and celebrate shared histories, cultures and achievements, a time when the fight for justice and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continues. On Sunday I attended the Coota Girls Sorry Day event in Sydney. The Cootamundra Domestic Training Home for Aboriginal Girls was a notorious place, run by the Aborigines Welfare Board, to provide so-called training to girls forcibly taken from their families, except the only training provided to the girls was to be domestic servants. The girls were banned from ever seeing their families and robbed of their connection to culture and country. Many were abused. The resilience, grace and generosity of these women in the face of such pain and dispossession is simply astounding. We are investing a further $3.5 million to support stolen generations survivors and their families. I also attended Michael Long's Long Walk before Dreamtime at the G, along with the member for Solomon. Thousands of footy fans gathered to walk together for reconciliation. It's 20 years since Michael set out on his long walk from Melbourne to Canberra to put Aboriginal rights on the national agenda and to advocate for closing the gap. Twenty years on, the struggle to close the gap endures. The Albanese government is investing in closing the gap by investing in housing, jobs, health, education and justice. Central to this is establishing a new system of remote jobs and economic development to replace CDP. I remain hopeful that we can close the gap. The story of the Aboriginal justice and rights movement is one of both progress and setbacks. Reconciliation is a long, winding journey, not a straight line, but with each step on the journey we get closer—closer to a better future, closer to justice for First Nations people. I want to thank Karen Mundine and Reconciliation Australia for their work. Now more than ever we need to walk together in unity. Immigration Detention 27 14:34 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Congolese national known as HWGF had his visa cancelled after being jailed for aggravated assault and repeated breaches of domestic violence orders. HWGF has been convicted of a total of 27 separate offences, including multiple counts of violent assault against two former partners, their extended families and police. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will they apologise for this catastrophic— Honourable members: Time! Ms BELL 282981 mistake and reverse direction 99? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I remind all members of the time limits, but it works both ways. Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 Order! I don't need to be reminded; I can look at the clock like everyone else can. The Opposition are entitled to ask their questions. The chamber will remain silent so I can hear from the minister. 14:35 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for her question. This visa, like the other ones we've been asked about, were cancelled and remain cancelled by my department in line with ministerial direction 99. Mr HX4 Point of order, Mr Speaker: I can't hear the speaker. It's probably a good thing but! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Kennedy is trying to assist the House in his way! I'm going to ask the minister to continue and perhaps speak a little louder so the member for Kennedy can hear him. Mr GILES 243609 Thank you, Speaker. I say again that the department cancelled the visas of all these people. I say also that there are five primary considerations, all of which are given equal weighting in ministerial direction 99, that need to be taken into consideration. These are protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct; family violence; strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; best interests of minor children; and expectations of the Australian community. Direction 99 did not decrease the importance placed on considerations such as the expectations of the Australian community or community safety. That remains unchanged under this government. Education 27 14:37 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government building the workforce for a future made in Australia and opening the doors of opportunity wider for all Australians? 14:37 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the sensational member for Hawke for his question. Two weeks ago I told the House the story of Jennifer Baker. Jennifer was a single mum at the age of 19. She worked in hospitality for 10 years till she saw an ad in the local paper for a University of Newcastle FEE-FREE university ready course. She did that course. Now she's got a science degree, an honours degree and PhD. These are free courses are effectively a bridge between school and university to give you the foundational skills that you need to succeed when you're at uni. She's one of 70,000 people who've done one of these courses at Newcastle university over the last 50 years. I was there last week with the member for Newcastle and got to meet more people like Jennifer who have done these courses. One of them is Liam Gleeson. In his early 20s, Liam struggled with drug addiction and tried to take his own life. He was saved by paramedics and nurses at John Hunter Hospital. It was in that hospital that he decided not only that he wanted to live but what he wanted to do with his life. He wanted to repay that debt and become a paramedic. Now he's doing one of those free courses and using it as a springboard to a nursing degree and paramedicine degree. I also met Roy Turner. Roy dropped out of school in year 10 He became a fitter and machinist and worked in the oil and gas industry. When COVID hit, he lost his job and that's when his fiancee said to him, 'Why don't you do one of these free university ready courses?' He did that and now he's doing a degree in medical engineering—from making valves for the oil and gas industry to making valves for hearts. I also met Zee Johnson. She did one of these free courses at the age of 48 when she was on a carer's pension, looking after her husband, who'd had a stroke. In the next few months, she'll complete her honours degree in ovarian cancer research. Next year, she's going to start a PhD. From pension to PhD—that's what these courses do. That's why we're backing them in the budget. That's why we're massively expanding funding for these courses to give more Australians the life-changing chance that Jennifer and Liam and Roy and Zee got. We expect it'll double the number of people doing these courses over the next 15 years, help more Australians to get a crack at going to university—and succeed when they get there—and help to build the skills that we need for a future made right here in Australia. International Criminal Court 28 14:40 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Will you condemn the calls from the Leader of the Opposition that Australia should consider cutting ties with the International Criminal Court if it issues warrants for the arrest of members of Israel's war cabinet? And will you reaffirm Australia's full commitment to the court, including that Australia will seek to arrest any person for whom the court issues a warrant, including the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu? 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. This government and, indeed, this parliament have been very clear from the beginning: we joined together—most of us—to condemn the terrorist attacks of 7 October; we regard Hamas as a terrorist group; we have called upon Hamas to immediately release all hostages; and there is no equivalence between Hamas and Israel. We said in the motion carried last October that we recognise Israel's right to defend itself, but we also reiterated this parliament's stance that Australia's consistent position in all contexts is to call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law. We have been consistent. I note as well the impact that has occurred recently in Rafah. We consistently have opposed the ground offensive in Rafah. We expressed our concern about the impact that that would have, given that more than half of Gaza 2.3 million people were sheltering in Rafah and were told to go to Rafah where they would be safe. We must have a humanitarian ceasefire so that civilian life can be protected. We must have increased humanitarian assistance delivered to Gaza. Every innocent life matters, whether it's Israeli or Palestinian, and my government will consistently support a two-state solution which recognises the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security with prosperity. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 28 14:43 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question as to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper-to-run, low-emissions cars for Australians, and what was standing in the way? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I haven't called the minister yet, so there will be no interjections. I give the call to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. 14:43 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for Bennelong for the question and for his advocacy for cleaner and cheaper-to-run cars, as well as for his significant advocacy for making sure we have electric charging infrastructure in his electorate for buses. On 16 May this parliament legislated a new vehicle efficiency standard for Australia. This is a reform that has been two decades in the making. The member the Bradfield, when he was last minister, tried but couldn't get that through his party room. He tried to put it through, but it has taken this government to actually deliver what has been on the books for two decades. The passage of this bill will mean that Australians can start to benefit from more efficient cars, whether they are petrol vehicles, hybrid vehicles, diesel vehicles or electric vehicles. With estimated fuel savings of $95 billion in 2050, this reform has caught us up with the rest of the world. The US has had a standard in place for over 50 years, and across the world 85 per cent of new cars are covered by a vehicle efficiency standard. Australians were not getting the choice of new vehicles they deserved, and—along with Russia—we stood as one of the only advanced economies without such a standard. I particularly want to acknowledge Toyota, Hyundai, Tesla, the Motor Trades Association of Australia, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association and the Electric Vehicle Council for their positive engagement and supportive comments. On the passage of the bill, the FCAI said that they welcomed our standard and that they have 'always recognised the importance of a government mandated CO2 standard for Australia'. The Motor Trades Association welcomed our 'workable compromise with industry through good faith negotiations', while the Automotive Dealers Association welcomed our ambitious standard which will 'significantly lower vehicle emissions'. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR What we know is that Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard is ambitious and achievable. It's the right standard for Australia that will deliver Australians more choice, save Australians thousands at the bowser—particularly regional Australians, reduce emissions and ensure Australians can continue to buy the utes and the SUVs that they love. I was asked in the question: what was standing in the way? I can tell you what was standing in the way. It was the relentless negativity of those opposite, who have no courage to actually do the reforms that are necessary to ensure this country has a future made in Australia, a future for regional Australians and that we can benefit from the significant transition that is occurring internationally. Those opposite never see a policy they can say yes to. Immigration Detention 29 14:46 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden My question is to the minister for immigration. An Afghan national referred to as ZJFQ had his visa cancelled after being convicted of both raping a 16-year-old girl and intercourse with a disabled 14-year-old child. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and reverse its direction 99? 14:47 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Fadden for his question. As I've said in answer to previous questions, these are visas which were cancelled—and remain cancelled—by my department in line with ministerial direction 99. What we have here are decisions of an independent tribunal to overturn the cancellation. I say again that direction 99 did not and does not decrease the importance placed on considerations such as the expectations of the Australian community and the protection of the community from crime. That remains unchanged under this government. Energy Prices 29 14:47 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government reducing the cost of energy for families and small businesses? What policies would lead to higher energy prices that the government has rejected? 14:48 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the terrific member for Reid for her question. It was great to visit her electorate last week to talk about energy bill relief. As the honourable member knows, last week we saw the final default market offer announced, and that showed Ausgrid customers—for the member for Reid—small business bills falling by eight per cent and residential bills falling by up to 2.6 per cent. There's a lot more to do, we recognise, but that was a good step forward. Of course, default market offers don't always go down; they sometimes got up, and the weekend was the second anniversary of the member for Hume hiding a 20 per cent increase in the default market offer. We are also delivering $300 in bill relief to every single Australian who gets an electricity bill—no forms to fill out, no application, delivered directly to Australian households—and working in concert with state schemes including those of Queensland and Western Australia. The honourable member also asked me: what policies would lead to higher electricity prices that the government has rejected? We also last week saw the release of a report which confirmed what policies would put energy prices up. That was a report by the CSIRO and AEMO called GenCost, which showed yet again that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, and nuclear is the most expensive form of energy. It's a controversial point—not everyone agrees. Those opposite were falling over themselves to discredit the CSIRO. I won't have time to run through all those members opposite, and I may or may not get other opportunities during the week but, to be fair, I'll start with the most eloquent member of the opposition, who really crystallised the opposition's concerns about the CSIRO. The House, obviously, will not be surprised to know it was the member for New England. And his criticism was that the CSIRO is Australian. He said: 'The CSIRO is, of course, an Australian organisation. It's like getting Mongolia to write a report on tropical rainforests. They don't have them. We don't have nuclear power in Australia—so we do have a nuclear reactor, in fact. We've got one smack, bang in the middle of Sydney. No-one in Sydney seems to worry about it much, but the CSIRO if it is.' So that clears that up! It's very good to know. The member for Fairfax, not to be outdone, said, 'No, GenCost is about the cost of building and not about the cost of energy.' Under 'Tedonomics', if it's expensive to build, it's okay—it's cheap to run. I'm glad he's not in charge of housing policy, because we'd be building multimillion-dollar mansions with cheap rent. That would be his policy! It doesn't matter how much it costs to build, they're just cheap to run! Then Senator Hume said, 'Well, I haven't seen GenCost, but I know it doesn't cost opposition policy.' I'll give her that, because we haven't seen opposition policy. The previous government was all announcement, no delivery. These guys can't even get to an announcement! The policy is dead before they even announce it. (Time expired) Budget 30 14:51 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. One in eight Australians are currently living in poverty with, according to the Grattan Institute, payments currently received by those under our JobSeeker programs being among the lowest in the OECD. In their advice to government ahead of the federal budget, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee recommended the government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of JobSeeker and related working-age payments. What analysis did the government undertake in consideration of this recommendation that led them to choose not to act on the recommendation in the most recent budget? 14:52 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the honourable member for North Sydney for her question. We, obviously, take very seriously the recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. I think, from memory—and the relevant minister will correct me if I'm wrong—that we're acting or progressing on about half the recommendations of that really important, well-regarded and well-respected committee. In the last budget, we increased in a permanent way the JobSeeker rate. In this budget, we went for another increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, which was recommended by the EIAC, and we made other changes as well, consistent with the recommendations of that body. What we have tried to do, Mr Speaker, and to the member for North Sydney, over the course of our three budgets is to provide cost-of-living help where we can, especially for the most vulnerable: two increases to Commonwealth rent assistance, an increase to JobSeeker and changing the parenting payment single—a whole range of changes that we have made. I acknowledge that there are people in the sector, important people who we respect and listen to very closely, who would like us to go further and faster—I do acknowledge that, and I acknowledged that at the ACOSS gathering on Friday as well. I have immense respect for the community groups and leaders who are calling for even bigger increases to social security. As a Labor government, we will always look to do what we can to help people who are doing it especially tough. From memory, the expansion of the safety net, depending on what payment you're on, is somewhere between $1,500 and $3,000 a year since we came to office. I acknowledge that when it comes to the working age payments, about a third of that is us and about two-thirds of it is indexation, but when it comes to rent assistance about two-thirds is us and one-third of that is indexation. That's a long way of saying to the honourable member that we will continue to do what we can to help people who are doing it tough. We have made some progress, but we acknowledge in the members' question and in all of the engagement that the minister and I do with the sector that there is an appetite to go further. What we have shown, I think, in the course of our three budgets is a willingness to do that where we can. Workplace Relations 30 14:54 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government's 'closing the labour loopholes' laws delivering a better deal for workers, including in the mining industry. Are there any threats to this progress? 14:54 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Paterson, who has had a very strong commitment to closing the labour-hire loophole. When she spoke last year in November on the 'closing loopholes' legislation, the member referred to workers in the mining industry trying to get a permanent shirt. Workers in the mining industry, working side-by-side with other workers, doing the same job and the same hours, but some are employed by a labour-hire company and some are employed directly. I'm pleased to report—and some of you may have already seen this in an article that Ewin Hannan published in The Australian—that the pay rises as a result of us having closed the labour-hire loophole have already commenced. What I think might have surprised some people was the extent of the underpayment that some of these workers were receiving. Remember, this is an underpayment that those opposite said no to closing the loophole on. They said we had to keep this underpayment. So, for workers doing the exact same work, going to the exact same meetings at the start of every shift, working the same rotating roster and sharing their breaks in the same crib huts onsite, it turns out the pay gap for these workers—at the Mount Pleasant coal mine in the Hunter Valley, operated by Theiss, though some of the workers are not employed by Thiess but by a labour-hire company called, interestingly, Programmed—the underpayment was between $37,000 and $45,000 a year. Now, only because the law was changed, those workers, it was announced last week, are now going to be directly employed. What does that mean in terms of your weekly pay? From 1 July, they're not just looking at a pay rise; they're also looking at a tax cut. And when you combine for these workers the pay rise—because of the laws we changed, law changes those on the other side opposed—and the tax cut—a tax cut they also didn't want us to deliver—these workers are looking at getting $500 more in their pay packet every single week. Those opposite and this Leader of the Opposition didn't want them to get the pay rise and didn't want them to get the tax cut. One of those workers, Danielle, has been there for 2½ years, working at the labour hire company. She said: 'For us to all be on the same rate of pay and have the same conditions will be a game-changer. We all do the same work. There's really no difference between someone wearing a Thiess label or a Programmed label in terms of what we do day-to-day.' Well, there is a difference in a government is a says yes to them getting $500 a week and a Leader of the Opposition committed to saying no. Immigration Detention 31 14:57 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Lebanese national Abdel Wahab Trad had his visa cancelled after being convicted of two counts of raping a child between 10 and 14 years, and three counts of intentionally sexually touching a child under 16. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and reverse direction 99? 14:58 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for her question. As I've said in relation to similar questions, this is a visa that was cancelled and remained cancelled by my department in line with ministerial direction 99. I believe these visas should remain cancelled and I've prioritised the number of cases for urgent cancellation consideration to that effect. Vocational Education and Training 31 14:58 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting more people to complete their training and get into secure, well-paid work? What approaches has the government rejected? 14:59 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and her strong advocacy for TAFE. I can't wait to get back to Holmesglen TAFE very soon because they're doing great work there. In the last two years the Albanese government has enacted big reforms and deepened its investment in education and training. We've had to work fast because we inherited the biggest skills shortage in more than 50 years from those opposite. Last year alone more than 355,000 Australians enrolled in fee-free TAFE, and a further 320,000 fee-free TAFE places from this year on are available to enrol in—investment which is absolutely vital. We also struck a national skills agreement with the states and territories—the first agreement of its kind in a decade, providing $30 billion of security of investment to the VET sector, which is critical. We're creating centres of excellence, bringing TAFEs and universities and industry together. It was great to hear how industry responded to the budget. Master Builders welcomed the focus on encouraging more women into trades and the announcement of more fee-free TAFE places in housing. The ACTU said our investment in education and training was needed after a decade of inaction and denial under those opposite—yes, we're allowed to mention unions in the chamber; it's okay! Bran Black, from the BCA, said, 'The government's commitment to reforming Australia's skills system is welcomed by business.' He added, 'The Business Council is pleased with the investments in growing the construction and housing workforce.' However, his response to the opposition leader's budget reply on skills was to warn, 'It may compound our existing skill shortages and make it harder to do business.' That's what BCA thinks of the Leader of the Opposition. Innes Willox, of Ai Group, said, 'The budget makes important investments in skilling and training of our workforce,' and welcomes the focus on construction and housing. In contrast, he called the skills portion of the opposition leader's budget reply 'a momentous act of economic self-harm'. That's what Ai Group thinks of the budget reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition—a completely momentous act of economic self-harm. On this side of the chamber we are supporting skills and education needed for a future made in Australia. By contrast the opposition's budget reply has made it clear they have no plan for the future for this country, and a total disregard for skilling young people and supporting apprentices and giving industry the skills they need. The only idea the opposition leader had was the bizarre call to duty for retirees to get back on the tools and supplement their pension. No wonder we have a skills shortage in this country, with those ideas. We'll continue to invest in skills in this country, and that's— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister's time has concluded. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right are not going to interject, so I can hear this question. Taxation 32 15:02 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Treasurer. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The next person who interjects on my right will leave the chamber. The member for Hume will begin his question again. Mr TAYLOR 231027 My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with the minister for industry that there should be a reduction in the company tax rate? 15:03 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's a very welcome opportunity and a very rare opportunity, indeed, to get a question from the shadow Treasurer, even though a budget was handed down from this dispatch box a couple of weeks ago. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I saw the comments the industry minister made at the Fin Review gathering earlier today, and they are entirely consistent with the sorts of things we have been saying for some time. He said that the corporate tax system has a role to play in incentivising manufacturing capital. It might just have dawned on those opposite that that was a central feature of the budget two weeks ago—to use the tax system to incentivise the kind of investment and production we want to see, to power the good, secure, well-paid jobs of the future in industries like manufacturing. I say, in addition to that, that the industry minister and I, the energy minister, the resources minister, the Prime Minister, the infrastructure minister and others have worked very closely to put together a tax package in this budget that we're very proud of. We're very proud of it because it recognises we can use the tax system and tax breaks for corporate Australia to incentivise a future made in Australia. A large proportion—indeed, most—of the $23 billion of the Future Made in Australia package that I announced from this dispatch box almost exactly two weeks ago was about company tax reform in the form of production tax credits. In addition to that—and here I pay tribute to the small business minister—we're also extending the instant asset write-off for small business, also in the company tax system. I think it says something about the absolute bin fire of incoherence and incompetence on that side of the House that at the same time as the— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! I want to hear from the member for Hume. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance—it was a very specific question on a very specific policy. If he doesn't have the authority to answer the question, he should just sit down. Mr Burke DYW It was a specific question on a specific area of policy, and the Treasurer is being specifically relevant to it. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer wasn't asked about alternative policies. He wasn't asked about the opposition. He wasn't asked about the shadow— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! He's not entitled to critique the opposition policy. He can talk about the government policy which he was asked about, but— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, Leader of the Opposition! The SPEAKER 53517 No, nice try—resume your seat. We've dealt with the point of order. It is not an opportunity to critique the opposition. The Treasurer will return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The irony of being asked about coherence by two guys who can't explain a budget reply which was given two weeks ago—my god. Give me a break! The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will return to the question or resume his seat. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I'm asked about the company tax system. I'm asked about the industry minister's remarks earlier today. I'm asked about incentivising production and investment in manufacturing. We are doing those things. That's a key part of the budget. That's the point I made at the very beginning of my answer. I have been proud to work with the industry minister and with the other colleagues to put together a package which is all about using the tax system to power the good, secure, well-paid jobs that we want to see in communities right around Australia so that we can build that future made in Australia together. Budget 33 15:07 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management repairing the budget and cleaning up the mess it inherited? 15:07 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the member for Spence. Because of his work, 74,000 people in his electorate will get a tax cut, and about the same will get energy bill relief as well. Our responsible economic management is all about fighting inflation and repairing the budget and paying down Liberal debt, not as an end in itself but to make room for our priorities: Medicare, cost-of-living help, skills and education, and housing. We saw all that in the budget. The budget also showed that our government has helped engineer a stunning turnaround in the nation's finances in our first two years. We have turned two big Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses. Last year, we turned a projected $78 billion Liberal deficit into a $22 billion Labor surplus. This year, we're turning a $57 billion Liberal deficit into a $9 billion Labor surplus—a $165-ish billion turnaround in two years and $215 billion overall. Debt this year is $150 billion lower because of our efforts and $185 billion next year because of our efforts. We're saving $80 billion in debt interest over the course of the next decade, and gross debt will peak much lower because of our responsible economic management. We found the savings; we've shown the spending restraint. All of that would be foreign to those opposite. When we came to office, there were debt and deficit as far as the eye could see. There was more than a trillion dollars in Liberal debt in a budget which was heaving with rorts and waste that we have been cleaning up. They had nine cracks at a surplus and couldn't deliver a single one. Last week, as the member for Hume was humiliating himself at the National Press Club, he was talking about fiscal guardrails and tax-to-GDP caps. He forgot to mention that the highest-taxing government of the last 30 years was the Howard-Costello government or that average real spending growth on our watch is a fraction of what it was on their watch. When he talks about $300 billion in overspending—get this—that includes the indexation of the age pension, the indexation of pensions that go to veterans, the indexation of pensions and payments that people rely on. No wonder they didn't come clean in their budget reply about the attacks that would come to Medicare and pensions and payments and all the rubbish we saw with robodebt last time when they came to office. Last time they went after Medicare and they went after people on payments, and that's why they won't come clean on how they'll pay for their tax cuts for people on the highest incomes. Theirs was the most shambolic response to a budget in memory. It was a bin fire of incompetence and incoherence, chaos and confusion. We are the party of responsible economic management, and we won't be taking lectures from those opposite, who made the mess that we are now cleaning up. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 34 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 27 to 30 of 2023-24 34 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 27 to 30 of 2023-24. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 34 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Immigration Minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe. 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— 15:12 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's actually a very, very sad day for this chamber today, because the No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the Australian community safe, and yet we have seen, time after time, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs fail, through his actions, to do that, and we've seen, time and time again, through the answers to the questions that we have put to him, his failure to take any responsibility whatsoever for keeping the Australian community safe. If you google 'Ministerial direction 99'—just google it on your phone—what you will see is that, on 23 January last year, the minister for immigration signed a direction, and this is what the direction said: that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia will become a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of a visa. Did we hear that from the minister for immigration today? No, we did not. That change was made on 23 January last year. Before then, that direction was not there. A tribunal did not have to take into account the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia as a primary consideration. What has the minister for immigration done since this debacle came to light? He's been hiding, like he normally does. Has he fronted up and owned his decision? Has he ever fronted up and owned one of his decisions? Where is he now? Has anyone seen him out in the media? Has anyone seen him at the dispatch box? He hides, he hides and he hides. And he hides—we've seen it—behind things. He hid behind the High Court when 153 hardened criminals got released into the community. 'It had nothing to do with me,' he said. And than what happened? He gave us a commitment that they would be monitored, that they would wear ankle bracelets. What happened to that? We found out a month ago that nearly 50 per cent of those 153 hardened criminals aren't wearing ankle bracelets and are not being constantly monitored, yet that assurance was given right there in that seat. Now what do we find out from this ministerial direction? I've got to say I find these examples very hard to talk about. On Saturday we read in the paper about a New Zealand citizen who had come to our nation, come on a visa, and what he had done was rape his stepdaughter while his partner was giving birth to their child. I don't think you could get a much more heinous crime than that. That that individual wasn't deported from this nation beggars belief, and that the minister will not own that beggars belief. He had two options. He could have acted himself, as the minister, and cancelled the visa on the spot. In another instance, one that was also available to him, he could have appealed it to the Federal Court. Do you think he did either of those options? He didn't. So now we are faced with this individual here in our community, staying as a direct result of the failure of this minister to act. The minister has tried to hide behind the AAT. But I'll give you just one example. This is about individual CHCY: … Rape—domestic violence offence and Indecent treatment of children under 16lineal descendant/guardian/carer… That is what the tribunal said. It went on: The Tribunal finds CHCY has lived for the majority of his life in Australia working full time, making a contribution to the taxation system, the community and his family. The Tribunal places weight on this consideration noting the Direction clearly articulates tolerance should be given to non-citizens in CHCY's circumstances: I don't think you could get a more direct example of the tribunal saying that that person stayed in this country because of the direction that the minister gave. It is as clear as day. Do you know what we heard over the weekend, Deputy Speaker? We heard the Prime Minister say: 'No, it's the responsibility of the AAT, and one of the members of the AAT was appointed by the coalition. That's where the fault lies.' That's what the Prime Minister said. He tried to blame a judicial body. But then it came out—and we haven't heard from the Prime Minister since then—that the former Speaker, Anna Burke, sat on the tribunal and said that she had to take account of ministerial direction 99. So that put paid to all that. They couldn't use that anymore because Anna Burke, someone who has sat in this House, actually pointed to it. Have we heard the Prime Minister come into this place and apologise? Have we heard Minister Giles apologise? I think today there were five or six questions to him just seeking a simple apology, just wanting him to admit: 'You know what? I got this wrong and I apologise.' We haven't yet got to the really sad situation where one individual who was released into the Australian community and not deported has allegedly—I say allegedly—committed a murder. Now, that shows you that, when you fiddle with these things, where you've got a government that thinks that it can change the law without consequences, this is the sad reality of what can happen in the Australian community. People are losing their lives, allegedly because of the actions of one of the people who should have been deported but, because of that ministerial direction, it would seem, were not. I want to finish up by again highlighting that that ministerial direction, when you Google it, has the minister's blue-pen signature. That direction says that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia should be a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of visas. Now, what will we do if we win the next election? We will rescind that direction and we will make sure that every single one of those individuals is deported. We will deport these people, and I would love to hear from the Minister for Education, if he's up next, an admission that the government has got this wrong—admit right here and now that you will start deporting these people. They came here as non-citizens. They did not abide by Australian law. They committed the most heinous crimes and they have no place in our community. 15:22 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The opposition has come into this place wanting to debate multiple and repeated failures. We heard about some of those earlier today: multiple and repeated failures, like the skills shortages that they left our country confronting; like the lack of school funding; like the numerous climate policies, none of which they were able to deliver; like the housing shortage that they have left Australians confronting; like the lack of wage growth that existed under their watch; like the high rate of inflation that Australians faced under their watch; like their mismanagement of the NDIS; like their lack of support for Australia's manufacturing sector; and like the sorry state of affairs that they left our aged-care sector confronting. But the most galling is to hear from those opposite about what they wish to debate today when they are led by a Leader of the Opposition who was also the Minister for Defence who repeatedly failed to support those who keep and have kept Australians safe. Those opposite, led by the former defence minister, now opposition leader, had the extraordinary practice in defence of making huge announcements carrying massive price tags but completely failing to put in place any of the necessary funding required. What's interesting is that the Leader of the Opposition doubled down on that in his budget reply, announcing policies about nuclear with no detail whatsoever and then having a fight, over the course of the week, between his shadow defence minister and his shadow Treasurer about the level of defence spending they would actually commit to, whether they would match our defence spending and whether they would try to increase their defence spending. Apparently the shadow Treasurer didn't agree to that either. What we do know is what they did when they were in government: multiple and repeated failures, not delivering the necessary funding that was so important to delivering the capabilities that our Defence Force require. And I don't just mean the hardware; I mean looking after our defence people as well. That isn't limited to those currently in uniform; it includes failing to look after those that have hung up their uniforms. The opposition leader as defence minister liked to roll out the red carpet, favouring cliched soundtracks and making grandiose statements, but, when it came to the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, with a cost of $35 billion, they committed just $1 billion. Mr KEOGH 249147 The members opposite want to know how this is relevant. A member raised an MPI in respect of repeated failures, and I am addressing exactly that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I give the call to the member for Wannon on a point of order. I'm pretty sure I know what's coming. Mr Tehan 210911 It's on relevance. I thought he might make one small effort to defend the minister for immigration— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You cannot argue the point now. You did have a discussion with me beforehand. I have sat in many MPIs, and there is a great deal of latitude given to the issue of relevance in these debates. I'm listening carefully to the minister 's reply. He has absolutely referred to the multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe. Granted, it's a different take to the one you have, but that is part of the topic. Mr KEOGH 249147 The member for Wannon seems quite concerned about this topic, and I am addressing it—don't you worry. I want to talk about the failures of the opposition when they were in government to keep Australians safe. I want to talk about their failure to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was adequately resourced. I want to talk about their failure to ensure that those who had kept Australians safe, those who had worn our uniform, those who had put themselves in harm's way for our nation, were provided with the supports, services and compensation that they very justly needed and deserved. Instead, what we saw was a continued failure to properly resource the Department of Veterans' Affairs, meaning that we had a backlog when we came to government of some 42,000 claims from veterans that had not even been looked at by someone within the department. That wasn't the department's fault; it wasn't given the funding for enough people to do that work. That's what this government has gotten about doing. In the October 2022 budget, all the way back then, we made sure that we funded 500 additional staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It wasn't just about providing the numbers; it was about making sure that they were staffed with Australian public servants, that we weren't relying on the churn of labour hire, people with insecure employment who sometimes didn't even last long enough in the department to complete the very necessary training to make sure that they could assess those veterans' claims. In the budget that was delivered the other week, we committed to further investing in an additional 141 staff to ensure that we can process the claims of veterans faster. Yet, when we talk about failure, we had the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply come forward and say that he thought the Australian government was employing too many public servants. Apparently, making sure we have enough people to process the very legitimate claims of veterans to get the support and services that they need is but a triviality to the Leader of the Opposition. He thinks we should get rid of those people. He also complained about the level of government expenditure. When we look at the level of government expenditure, part of what is driving that increase in government expenditure is that we have gotten on with the job of processing veterans' claims. What has that meant? It has meant that over five years we are increasing expenditure on veterans' pensions, on their compensation, on their health support and services and on their mental health support in the order of $6.5 billion. We are getting on with actually processing veterans' claims and making sure that they get what they need and deserve. Why do we do this, though? We do this because we understand the solemn commitment that every Australian government must make to their serving Defence men and women that we will look after them, that when they put on our nation's uniform, when they come home, when they hang up that uniform or when they face injury they will get the support that they need and, frankly, deserve and their families need and deserve. That's why we have made a lot about increasing our resourcing for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It's why we've been very clear that we're not just providing the additional resources that the department needed, and which it was without for so long, but that it improves the lives of the people who work for the department, it improves the lives of veterans and it improves the lives of their families. And we want to see that support for veterans to continue to be of a bipartisan nature across this chamber. So I think it is particularly galling when we see the opposition then say: 'Oh, you're employing too many public servants. You're spending too much money.' That's money that those veterans and families always deserved and were always entitled to but, because of a lack of resourcing, they were not able to receive it. It was like the foot was placed on the hose of support being provided to our veterans. So what have we done? In this budget there's an additional $477 million going to increase support for more than 340,000 veterans and their dependents. We'll soon introduce legislation to implement the first recommendation of the interim report of the defence and veterans suicide royal commission, to simplify and harmonise the legislation that underpins the entitlements for our veterans. We're employing an additional 141 staff in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and we're boosting veterans' home care and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million of funding to ensure that there are no gaps in the service provision provided to our veterans and families—so that they always get what they need and deserve. Australian veterans deserve better than what they were getting from an underresourced department from the previous government—the litany of failures that are the subject of the debate today. It's about protecting those who support and protect Australia. They deserve to know that long after they've hung up their uniforms they will be supported by the government that they have sworn to protect, the values of which they have sworn to uphold. Our veterans have kept, and continue to keep, Australians safe. Supporting them is the least we can do. 15:32 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I anticipated that I would need to commence my remarks by refuting some form of defence from the lead government speaker to the central proposition of this matter of public importance. In fact, I half expected I might be addressing comments from the immigration minister himself, because I assumed that he would take the opportunity to defend himself and stand up for himself. But he can't even get a member of his own government to address any form of defence of his actions, his behaviour and his conduct as immigration minister. Frankly, that says more than any attempt the government could make in this debate to defend or make excuses for this minister and this minister's performance. The first duty of any government is to keep our nation safe and to keep the people of our nation safe—to defend our nation and our interests. This minister has singularly failed in his responsibility, in his commission of office, to do that through the powers and responsibilities that he is given as our immigration minister. It's his job to make sure that we have a credible framework for controlling who comes into this country. And when the wrong people are in this country and they need to be removed from this country, it is his job to keep Australians safe in the process. As we know, anything but that has happened. Unfortunately, each and every day we open the newspaper to another horrendous story. And even though we know there are 150-odd people who have been released because this government failed to anticipate the circumstance that we find ourselves in, it still shocks me that, day after day, when they have an opportunity to correct their mistake, take responsibility for it and make the changes that we constructively suggest to them to keep Australians safe—to change the minister and to put someone else in charge who is actually capable and competent to keep people safe—this government prioritises politics, the protection racket for the minister and avoiding embarrassment of the government over the safety of the people of this country. That is absolutely shameful. As the shadow minister has articulated in his contribution, there are some simple things that need to be done immediately. I would say, first and foremost, remove the minister and appoint a new one, because this minister can't bring himself to admit any form of fault or failure or, in particular, appeal this ludicrous direction 99, which is putting Australians at harm. There is a community expectation for governments not to be obsessed with their own longevity, but to be obsessed with the interest of the people of this country. And you know what? Good governments tend to get re-elected. This government is so obsessed with politics and so frightened of admitting mistakes that are so obvious to everyone else. But they can't see the wood from the trees on this issue and they can't see the simple reality that people want action and they want change. The Prime Minister could take action. He could remove this minister. He's standing by this minister, and that says a lot, because there's a very long list of pretty fundamental reasons why this minister should have been removed well and truly before now. It's gotten completely ridiculous at this point. We won't have the Prime Minister coming in here defending the minister, we won't have the minister coming in here to defend himself and we won't even have a speaker from the government given the opportunity to say, 'Hey, opposition, you guys have got this wrong. He's doing a great job, and let me tell you why.' They can't even bring themselves to say that they stand by him. Maybe he's for the chop sooner than we know, and those opposite have been given the inside run on that and we'll find out sooner rather than later, but it seems to be taking an inordinately long period of time for the Prime Minister to do the simple thing that everyone expects him to do and get rid of this guy. He can't even get a single member of his government to stand up in the House of Representatives and defend him when given the opportunity in this matter of public importance. So I say to the Prime Minister and I say to the government, 'Please, please, please, do yourselves a favour as much as everyone else and get rid of this guy. Please appoint someone that is actually going to take the job seriously, get briefed properly, anticipate risks of court decisions that will put Australians at risk and make the decisions that are necessary to keep Australians safe.' Every day that you don't do that and every day that you stand by this guy—or at least pretend to or purport to stand by this guy—you're leaving the people in the community in harm's way and you will not be rewarded at the next election for that, I can assure you. 15:37 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'When this bloke stands up you know why Christopher Pyne sent him here. It's so we'd all miss Christopher Pyne, because Christopher Pyne certainly wouldn't win a gold medal for boring for Australia. I mean, they're losing it, aren't they? We just heard the last speaker say, 'Where's the minister? Why isn't he here? I haven't seen him for weeks.' He was just here in question time and answered every one of your questions. But don't let facts get in the way of your pre-prepared little rant. It is pathetic. They were a hopeless government. Their whole magic trick for the last two years is to try and make Australians forget that they were the government under Abbott and Turnbull and Morrison and the entire tragic catastrophe—three prime ministers, three treasurers, six defence ministers and God knows how many in total through the ministry. But no, it's not about them at all. They were a hopeless government and they're also no good as an opposition. They could bring any topic they choose for debate in the MPI. Their job—here's a tip—is to bring a topic about the big issues facing the future of the country. But no. They always bang the fear drum, they take the low road, as the former Prime Minister said, 'the hand in the chum bucket' whenever they get up to speak. It's pretty telling though, isn't it? They want to talk about safety and security, but they never want to talk about economic security, do they? It's always telling the topics they don't want to bring to debate. They don't want to talk about the strength of the jobs market, with more jobs created than any first-term government in Australian history. They don't want to talk about inflation coming down, which is critical for interest rate cuts. They don't want to talk about Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts or the $300 energy rebate. They certainly don't want to talk about the two surplus budgets that the government has delivered—the first in 20 years—that they couldn't deliver in a decade in office, despite getting the cups made. Remember the 'Back in Black' cups? They don't want to talk about debt being $153 billion lower in the forecast than the trillion dollar of Liberal debt and the mess they left behind. They certainly don't want to talk about safety and energy security, or that the retail energy bill benchmark is trending down after a decade of their mess. They certainly don't want to talk about a future made in Australia. No, it's all fear and loathing negativity, because they have nothing positive to offer. The Leader of the Opposition is all negativity; he has no plan. We saw that in the budget reply speech. Here's a tip: being negative is not a plan. Being angry every day is not a strategy. It is anger overload over there, as you've seen. They've got nothing to say on the cost of— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Wannon on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 The MPI did say, 'The immigration minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe.' I thought we would at least get one speaker trying to defend the immigration minister. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Wannon, I dealt with this a moment ago. If you are flagrantly going to abuse the dispatch box by repeating a point of order you have already brought to this debate, then I will not look kindly on that. Mr HILL 86256 I think he just proved two points with that little interjection: one, they don't want to talk about economic security and safety, and, two, he proved that the best thing the Leader of the Opposition has going for him is he has no challenger. Apparently this bloke is auditioning every day to knock him off. If you're the best that's coming behind him, he's going to reign there for a very long time, sitting in that chair. Even for them, the sickening irony in them bringing this debate is staggering—'keeping Australians safe'. Here are some inconvenient facts. The Leader of the Opposition was once the defence minister—oh, the glory days. He was one of six defence ministers they had in nine years, remember, with the chaos, the cuts and the cover-up. They cut promised defence investment. That's not keeping us safe. They failed to deliver projects on time, with 28 projects running a total of 97 years late. That's not keeping us safe. They were all announcement and no delivery. They loved the announcement—they ran out of Australian flags, I'm sure, in the Department of Defence; they were behind him for every announcement, crowding him out—but $42 billion of their announcements had no funding. You don't run onto the battlefield waving a press release or a photo of the minister in front of the flag. There are zero submarines from Japan, zero submarines from France and zero AUKUS submarines ordered. There is a battlefield airlifter which can't fly to the battlefield. That's not keeping us safe. The hypocrisy of bringing a debate on migration and home affairs when the Leader of the Opposition was the home affairs minister—his was an utter mess of a department, and having criminal syndicates, trafficking and rorts in integrity is not keeping us safe. A hundred thousand fake asylum seekers arrived by plane over their decade. Those opposite did nothing about it. That's not keeping us safe. No enforcement and fake cuts to migration. That's not keeping us safe. The home affairs minister and the immigration minister are cleaning up these people's mess. (Time expired) 15:42 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding the multiple and repeated failures by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to keep Australians safe. I thank the honourable member for Wannon, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, for bringing this MPI to the attention of the House. I did wonder whether I was in fact speaking on the same MPI as the member for Bruce, who, during his five minutes, at no time attempted to, at any stage, defend the immigration minister. He didn't even speak about immigration but spoke about a whole range of other issues. So it needs to be said that not even those on that side can defend their own minister. The first priority of a federal government must always be to keep our citizens, our communities and our streets safe. This immigration minister has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to do that, and he has done that in two main actions: his response to the High Court decision of NZYQ and his direction 99. I note that the member for Bruce did say that the minister was here today and answered questions in question time. By my count—and I asked one of those questions—he was given seven questions from our side. At three minutes each, he was given the opportunity to respond for 21 minutes. I don't think that for any of those answers he went for longer than 30 seconds. So to say that he was here and he answered questions is simply not the case. The NZYQ decision was a decision of the High Court. We, on our side, know that and we have never said that the minister responsible for the High Court decision; however, we live in a Westminster system of government. What the minister is responsible for are things that happen in his portfolio—and just to reminder the minister: that is immigration. The minister—as a responsible minister—was responsible for knowing what legal risks were coming up and to ask his department, for example, 'What court cases do we have coming up?' He was responsible to have been aware that, as his department had apparently told him months out from when the High Court handed down its decision, it was likely to find against the Commonwealth. It also did not help that, during that case, the minister put in a statement of agreed facts that NZYQ could not be removed from Australia. So, while the minister may say that he did all he could to defend that case, his direction to his own team of lawyers flies in the face of that. It was incumbent upon him to have legislation to deal with that decision ready to go the minute that the judgement came down. Instead, we then saw over 150 very serious offenders released into the community. These included seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders, and many of these have again committed heinous crimes within our community. Nobody who has seen the photos of poor Ninette Simons, a cancer survivor and grandmother, will be anything but repulsed by what has occurred there. For the minister to still fail to front up and apologise for this is completely wrong and shows that he will not take responsibility for his own actions. Minister Giles has blamed the High Court, he has blamed the AAT, and he has blamed his own department, but we need to look at ministerial direction 99. This is a direction that the minister himself has signed. He has now signed a document that says that a decision-maker must show greater tolerance to noncitizens if he or she has lived in the Australian community for a long time or could show a connection to Australia. That is signed by Minister Giles. That is not anything to do with the High Court. It's not the AAT. It's not the department. His department and the AAT have the obligation to have regard to that direction when they're making their decision. So how then can the minister say: 'Oh, this is not me. This is on somebody else'? In all of these circumstances, the immigration minister has failed to keep Australians safe. 15:47 Ms 264170 Paterson SWANSON () (): The overriding premise of today's matter of public importance is 'keeping Australians safe'. When you come to federal parliament, the two key tenets of what we do here in federal parliament—and I often talk to my students about this when they come to visit us here in Parliament House—are the budget and defence. We are charged here in Canberra with those two strings to our bow. The first part of this is really being able to balance the books, and we have been able to do that. We have been able to deliver three budgets now with budgets in surplus. Those opposite weren't able to do that, even though they did have the coffee mugs made and the press releases ready to issue. Even though they absolutely delight in saying, 'The problem with Labor is that they can't manage the books'—they say this by rote—here's the thing: we can manage the books. We have delivered surpluses. We've cut our deficit. We've cut the amount that we need to borrow to service the debt that our nation has. Treasurer Chalmers is doing a fantastic job. At an absolute base level for Australians, we are managing our economy far and beyond what anyone on the other side did for 10 years. In terms of safety, that is the primal thing for so many Australians. They want to know that they have a government that can manage the money like they do in their homes every day trying to pay their mortgage. The other part of what we're sent here to do is defend the nation. We regularly ask other Australians to pull on a uniform in defence of this nation. I find it very curious that the opposition brings matters of public importance like this one, beating that drum of fear and trying to say to our Australian community, 'Oh, it's a shambles. It's no good. The immigration minister is not doing a good job,' when for 10 years they systematically underspent in areas of defence and immigration. We had a one-million-application backlog in immigration under their watch. People came here on planes. When people did come by boats—and they did—we had no knowledge. The coalition said, 'It's an on-water matter, and we can't talk about it.' So to suggest that we are doing a worse job than they did in their 10 years is, quite frankly, bunkum. It is despicable actually. Also, all they're trying to do is raise the fear of Australian people, raise their ire with our government, when we have turned up, cleaned up the coalition's mess and really we are making a fist of the dreadful hand that was dealt to us when we came to government. To suggest that we are not doing a reasonable job and trying to fix this matter and clear it up properly within the constraints of law, and the High Court, is beyond the pale. I find it quite frustrating and almost insulting from an opposition who—it is now quite obvious—have really no policies to bring forward to the Australian people. All they've got left in their bag of tricks is fear— Mr Neumann HVO And loathing. Ms SWANSON 264170 and loathing, yes. Thank you, Member for Blair, for that interjection. It is fear and loathing and whipping up concern in the Australian community about a government that is delivering on tax cuts and health care and doing more in the education space. Some of us do remember promises like 'There won't be a dollar difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to education.' Thank you, Christopher Pyne. And then they went ahead and cut the budget. Some of us have got long enough memories to be able to remember what was said over there and what was delivered. And let me tell you: with every promise we have made as a government, we have delivered, and that is the difference between Australians being safe and those opposite telling Australians they're safe, albeit to a Tom Cruise soundtrack—and that happened in my electorate, so don't try and tell me that didn't happen. I witnessed it. It's this whole thing of 'You're not safe, and they're not doing a very good job with immigration.' Let me tell you: we are doing a far superior job than anyone opposite did for 10 years. (Time expired) 15:52 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I thank the member for Wannon, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, for this MPI, 'The immigration minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe'. I actually find it very difficult to be standing here today to talk on this issue. Firstly, it is staggering to me that not one of the members opposite speaking on this MPI has actually defended the minister and his actions—because you cannot defend the indefensible, and that's what the members opposite are facing. But what's even more staggering for me personally is that not one person—and not the minister—has talked about the human toll of these decisions, the victims. We've heard question after question today, and they do come back to the minister's decisions. The minister repeatedly in this House has given, over the period of his time, what I think are totally inane answers. It's a matter of shame for the minister. As we hear these useless platitudes, as they pretend to keep Australians safe, what do the minister and the government think about the victims, all those who have been offended against by, I think, at least 28 of those 150 people since they were released? What about the victims of those people? That's who I'm feeling for today—those people. I am a mum and grandma, and I'm very proud of my grandkids, and I think about how a New Zealand citizen, a stepfather, raped his 14-year-old stepdaughter at a time that his partner, her mother, was giving birth to their child, and immediate action was not taken to deport that man. The minister could have cancelled that man's visa immediately. Surely—surely!—given the circumstances, that should have been the immediate reaction to this. Anybody who would consider what that 14-year-old girl has gone through—and we have heard today question after question about absolutely horrendous crimes being committed against young people, young girls—can't excuse that. It's a matter of shame that this minister has sat on this issue. His ministerial direction actually gave strength to this by not deporting the worst of the worst criminals. For anybody who doesn't think this is catastrophic: how about they go and talk to or listen to the victims of these crimes and then come in here and say, 'This is not a serious matter of public importance'? How many other women and young girls—the members talk about shock and horror, and beating up fear: try being a single woman or a single young girl who gets caught in this situation. We heard about one repeatedly in question time today. Those opposite try to excuse the minister 's lack of action; I can't! On our side, we have a shadow minister who can't excuse that either—and rightly so. Anybody who takes this lightly is condemned, in my opinion. What on earth did Labor think would happen when the minister himself gave the direction that said the strength, nature and duration of an individual with ties to Australia was a primary consideration in cancelling a visa? Try telling that to the 14-year-old girl who was raped. Try telling that to her as a valid reason for not cancelling the visa, not getting him out of here and not keeping her and others safe. I don't find that to be a valid reason. I'm actually profoundly hurt that not one of those opposite has spoken about the human toll, because these decisions have caused a human toll. If it were any one of us who had direct connection to these people, we would be standing in this place and saying, 'It's not okay.' I'm standing for all Australians and saying, 'It's not okay, and what the minister has done here has been appalling.' 15:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'll go directly to the human cost. The former speaker mentioned the human cost. I've listened closely to previous speakers, and I want to shed some light on the significant support from our government for those who not only keep Australians safe but continue to do so. This is an MPI, and we all understand that we are able to look at the subject and see whether it's able to have some light shone on it. That's what those on this side are doing, because it refers to failures to keep Australians safe. We will shine a light on those opposite and their failures to do so. We're talking about Australians and the failure of those opposite to keep Australians safe—in particular, veterans. On the human cost those opposite talked about: try 42,000 Australian veterans in a backlog of claims to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That's because sufficient funds were not put into that department to deal with the claims. I understand well, as do many on our side—and also some on the opposite side of the chamber, if they're honest—the extraordinary human cost to Australian veterans and their families. Those opposite want to talk about human cost; those who put the uniform on should receive the best-possible care that we have and that we're able to put into place. That's what we did in the budget. Our most important capability is our people. An opposition member interjecting— Mr GOSLING 245392 I hear someone on that side scoff at that, and that's unfortunate. That's unfortunate, because what we saw over the years was a government—and the Leader of the Opposition, in fact, was a defence minister, and they did roll out the red carpets. Unfortunately, they didn't put enough money into capability. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to having the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. They finally agreed to do it but then continued to underfund the services that veterans and their families relied on. That's how we ended up with a backlog of 42,000 Australian veterans waiting to get the support that they needed. We've heard from the veterans minister himself previously—and this is not something that he has crowed about, but it is significant—that billions of dollars more were put into the budget to make sure that we continued to get rid of that backlog by helping Australian veterans. We funded 500 additional places to get on top of the claims and, now that we've done that, we're investing further with an additional 141 staff to process claims faster. But it's not just those on this side of the chamber. I think it was the member for Groom himself who said that he would leave the government should there not be sufficient funding put into the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He now sits over there on the crossbenches because those opposite, when they were in government, didn't properly fund the Department of Veterans' Affairs. With my own eyes I saw him stand up at a press conference and say that if those opposite, the government at the time, didn't put sufficient funding into DVA to deal with the 42,000—this was his own government he was talking about betraying veterans and their families by not putting enough into the services that they required. He now sits over there because he'd had an absolute gutful of that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Casey? Mr Violi 300147 The member opposite referenced the member for Groom. He should actually be referencing the member for Calare. The member for Groom is very much still a member of the opposition. I just think it's important for Hansard. I know he wouldn't deliberately mislead; I just wanted that clarified. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Would you like to clarify that? Mr GOSLING 245392 Yes. The member for Calare is the fellow over there on the backbench. He used to be part of their government but left in disgust because they wouldn't properly fund the DVA. But I've neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to those opposite who didn't spend the money that was required to look after the people who kept our nation safe, and that was the subject of this MPI. 16:02 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey The subject of the MPI has become very topical. I did have to make sure that I reread it multiple times. Just to confirm for those at home, it is: "The Immigration Minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe". Just to clarify for those at home, it is, again: "The Immigration Minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe". Sometimes in this House, it's not so much what those opposite say as what they do, but today they've shown through the minister's actions and also what they've done and talked about for the last 25 minutes in this MPI. For 25 minutes, this government, with their directives from their tactics committee and the talking points they were given, had a choice. They had a choice to defend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, to outline the great job he's doing keeping the Australian people safe, to pull our arguments apart and defend him. That's what they could have done. Instead, they've chosen to try to redirect to another topic because they know that the minister's actions are indefensible. I have no doubt that the member for Spence, who will speak next, will spend five minutes talking about anything but defending the minister for immigration—although I will stay and listen if he wants to defend the actions of the minister for immigration, if he wants to defend a person whose direction led to someone who should have been deported being in this country and raping someone's 14-year-old stepdaughter while that lady's mother was giving birth. I want to see them defend the minister's direction, his direct action. But they know they can't. The minister himself could have stood there for 10 minutes to defend himself today, and he chose to leave. He was asked five, six or seven questions in question time today where he could have defended himself and outlined his position for three minutes. Not once did the minister go beyond one minute in defending himself or the Albanese government. It is clear that he is not up to the job. Whether it's ministerial direction 99, whether it is the NZYQ case or whether it is the boats landing in Australia again, there's failure after failure by this minister. He refuses to take responsibility. Again, it's another test of this Prime Minister. He is refusing to lead the Australian people. He is refusing to keep us safe. In April 2022 at the leaders debate the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said: 'If I'm Prime Minister, I'll accept responsibility each and every day. I'll work hard and I'll accept responsibility, not always seek to blame someone else.' Is this Prime Minister going to take responsibility for the repeated failures of his immigration minister? Is he going to sack his immigration minister? After six months of repeated incompetence and failure, it's clear that he's not going to. This Prime Minister isn't prepared to make the tough decisions to keep the Australian people safe. As the member for Forrest so rightly articulated previously, these are not theoretical conversations we are talking about. These are young men, young women and young families that are victims of these crimes. Let's be clear: these are victims of crime that didn't have to be. If the minister had taken responsibility, shown leadership and shown courage, these people would not have been in this country to commit the crimes that they have committed. Those opposite know that this minister's actions are indefensible, because they are going to stand and spend another five minutes talking about anything but defending the minister for immigration, although I would be very happy to be proven wrong by the member for Spence. After sitting through 25 minutes of those opposite refusing to defend the minister's actions, I wonder if one member opposite will move away from the talking points and will actually try to defend the indefensible. It is the government's responsibility to keep Australians safe, and they are failing the Australian people— (Time expired) 16:07 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I am usually not one for commenting on the groundhog-day-like nature of the breadth and depth of what those opposite bring to the MPI table each day. Perhaps the member for Wannon has Tuesdays rostered in as immigration day on the calendar. If so, bring it on. Every day they want to come into the chamber and spruik the credentials of the Leader of the Opposition as a no-nonsense hardliner. They give a free kick to the government every time, right in front of the sticks. Can I just give a humble mention to the army of skeletons in the Leader of the Opposition's ministerial closet. Each and every passing review of the leader's time as minister has a litany of instances of incompetence at best. Those opposite moving a motion predicated on ministerial responsibility is a bit rich when they are led by the member for Dickson. I was waiting patiently for those opposite to extend their outrage to their leader after it was discovered that their leader granted a visa to a man who would go on to commit violence in the Australian community, one who was known at the time to have prior criminal convictions too. I can imagine the Leader of the Opposition having a range of options going through his head when he was making the decision to grant that ill-fated visa. He probably thought the man's CV was good enough to be awarded a contract with his department for his troubles, a department which was discovered to be doing business under his watch with companies whose directors were involved in everything from bribery and money-laundering through to avoiding US imposed sanctions of Iran. These were decisions that did not just make Australians less safe; these were decisions that undermined our allies and the system of rules based order that we aim to protect and defend. None of the many examples that have been unearthed about the time of the member for Dickson frankly surprised this side of the chamber in the slightest. And why should they have? I remember those opposite, led by the member for Wannon and the Leader of the Opposition, loudly criticising not just the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs but the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Attorney-General for good measure. They must have been some truly diabolic acts indeed to have provoked such an aggrieved reaction, not just in this place but outside of it, and in the media too. These ministers, as ministers of the Crown, were guilty of following an order handed down by the High Court of Australia. I remember many on that side of the chamber frothing at the mouth as they joined in the chorus, led by the member for Dixon, and shouted about the sanctity of our Constitution, at times affectionately calling it our rule book. But when it is convenient and suitable, he expects ministers to defy the High Court and the rule of law itself. If that is the way he expects a minister to behave, I can only wonder what future reviews might uncover from the Leader of the Opposition's days as a senior cabinet minister under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments and member of the National Security Committee of cabinet. There can simply be no rational response to those opposite when they try to justify their indifference towards the very bedrock that underpins the rules and principles that lie at the heart of our system of constitutional government as being optional. If the member for Wannon wishes to come into the chamber next Tuesday after question time to talk about which side in this place can better protect our nation or to talk about ministerial responsibility and accountability, he's certainly welcome to do so, but I urge those sitting behind the member for Wannon to wake up from their trancelike state of cognitive dissonance and drag themselves back from the ledge of attempting to use national security as something that is liable to partisan pointscoring. I'm sure all of us would like to think that the member for Wannon is better than that. This view might even be shared by the member himself. I would actively encourage the member for Wannon to take the words of former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss to heart, especially when she remarked that the member for Wannon has to show that he can play at a higher level. Today's performance, much like his performance during the previous Tuesday's MPI, proves that there's always a chance he will reach that level one day perhaps. It certainly won't be today. It may potentially be when a certain location freezes over—matching the member for Wannon's glacial pace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time allotted for this discussion has now concluded. BILLS 43 BILLS Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 43

Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024

Consideration of Senate Message 43 16:13 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This bill will abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replace it with a new and much-improved administrative review tribunal. In doing so, this bill represents the most important reform of the federal system of administrative review in decades. The Albanese government is committed to getting this right and has continued to listen and respond to stakeholder feedback throughout the parliamentary debate. Accordingly, this bill has been amended during Senate consideration to reinstate the current approach to secrecy and non-disclosure obligations under the AAT Act for tribunal members, the registrar, staff and contractors under the ART Bill; to require ministers and relevant Commonwealth entities to inform the Administrative Review Council of actions taken in relation to systemic issues in the making of reviewable decisions when notified by the tribunal president and to require the council to publish a description of such information in its annual report; and to clarify procedures that apply in proceedings in which the applicant dies, becomes bankrupt, is wound up or becomes subject to liquidation or administration. Stakeholders have repeatedly noted their support for the establishment of a new federal administrative review body that will promote greater integrity, accessibility, consistency, flexibility and transparency in our administrative law framework. In spite of these additional improvements, there has been broad support for the bill as a whole. The legislation is supported by significant new investment consisting of an additional $206.5 million on top of the AAT's current appropriation to ensure the tribunal is set up for success. The significant investment outlined in the budget complements the government's previous commitments to support the reform. The complete funding commitment will support the tribunal to deliver the measures in the bill, update its ageing case management systems, increase accessibility and assist to resolve backlogs inherited from the previous government. This legislation presents an opportunity to significantly improve Australia's administrative review system, a key pillar of our democracy. The passage of this bill will help restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of merits review. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. 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. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. 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. 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. 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. 53 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. 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. 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. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 45

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 45 16:25 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendment be agreed to. 16:30 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment to be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 87 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. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. (Teller) 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. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. 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. 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. 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. 52 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Fletcher, P. W. 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. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 47 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 47

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 47 16:32 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025: (1) the bills standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 is called on in the Federation Chamber, a cognate debate taking place with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025; (3) immediately after prayers on Tuesday, 4 June, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024 2025: (a) returning to the House for further consideration; (b) being called on immediately and questions being put without delay or debate on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; and (c) standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (4) on Tuesday, 4 June the Federation Chamber meeting from 4 pm to approximately 7.30 pm, and there to be no grievance debate; (5) on Wednesday, 5 June the Federation Chamber meeting from 9.30 am to approximately 1.30 pm and from 4 pm to approximately 7.30 pm; (6) on Thursday, 6 June the Federation Chamber meeting from 9.30 am to approximately 1 pm, with the question that the Federation Chamber do now adjourn being proposed immediately following the consideration of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025; (7) when the order of the day for the further consideration of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 is called on in the Federation Chamber, consideration of the schedule being in accordance with the following order and timeframes: (a) Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 5.15 pm on Tuesday, 4 June; (b) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 6.15 pm on Tuesday, 4 June; (c) Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 6.45 pm on Tuesday, 4 June; (d) Education Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 4 June; (e) Defence Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 11 am on Wednesday, 5 June; (f) Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Wednesday, 5 June; (g) Attorney-General's Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 12.45 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (h) Finance Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (i) Health and Aged Care Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 5 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (j) Home Affairs Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 5.45 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (k) Social Services Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 6.45 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (l) Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 5 June; (m) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 10.45 am on Thursday, 6 June; (n) Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 11.30 am on Thursday, 6 June; and (o) Treasury Portfolio, with the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put at the first opportunity after 12.15 pm on Thursday, 6 June; (8) any questions necessary to complete the consideration in the Federation Chamber of each of the bills being immediately put without debate; (9) the bills returning to the House and, when reported, any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of each of the bills to be put without amendment or debate; and (10) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 48

Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 48 16:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. I'd also like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its consideration of the bill. The government has moved amendments to the bill to fully implement the Senate committee's recommendations. This bill follows the advocacy and engagement of victims and survivors of modern slavery, civil society and business stakeholders who have campaigned over many years for the establishment of a Commonwealth antislavery commissioner. I want to acknowledge all individuals and organisations who have engaged so constructively with us. This bill delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to establish a Commonwealth antislavery commissioner. Modern slavery is an egregious form of human rights abuse. It deprives victims of their dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms. We know that modern slavery occurs in Australia. We've heard cases of domestic servitude, individuals trafficked into sex work and a young girl at risk of being sent overseas for a forced marriage. In January this year, a Melbourne man was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment for forced labour offences after he forced a person to work in his confectionery shop. There is no place for modern slavery in any form in the Australian community. To strengthen Australia's response to modern slavery, this bill amends the Modern Slavery Act to establish Australia's first Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The bill confers important functions on the commissioner. The commissioner will support, engage and empower victims and survivors of modern slavery. The commissioner will provide targeted support to business in Australia to help them address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. To ensure government can continue to lead by example, the commissioner will advocate for continuous improvement in policy and practice. The commissioner will be independent and will have discretion in performing their functions. The government thanks the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the bill and for its recommendations which have been adopted through government amendments to the bill. These include clarifying the application of the definition of sensitive information in the bill, specifying that a principal objective of the commissioner's strategic plan must include development of guidance to support victims and survivors of modern slavery, requiring the commissioner to engage with victims of modern slavery in carrying out their functions, and clarifying in legislation that the commissioner is able to refer matters for investigation to relevant Commonwealth government agencies, including to law enforcement agencies, so potential modern slavery matters can be dealt with appropriately. I acknowledge there have been calls for the commissioner to do more, including to undertake investigations to compel business to cooperate and to issue penalties for noncompliance. The government is currently considering options to further strengthen the Modern Slavery Act that may inform considerations of the commissioner's future role. However, this bill focuses on critical core functions of the commissioner that will set a foundation for further action in Australia. It's imperative that we do not delay the establishment of a commissioner. The commissioner will be a powerful and effective force for change in Australia. Question agreed to. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 50

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

Consideration of Senate Message 50 16:38 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 50

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Consideration of Senate Message 50 16:39 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The government agrees to the amended Public Service Act of 1999. This bill is a key element of the Albanese government's Australian Public Service reform agenda. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 will strengthen APS core values, build the capability and expertise of the Public Service and support good governance, accountability and transparency. One of the aims of the bill is to build in the need for consultation with agency ministers when an agency is undergoing a capability review. Another will ensure tabling requirements for capability review reports and long-term insights reports are enshrined in legislation. This will facilitate transparency of findings and a vital discussion in parliament on important issues facing Australia in the medium and long term. The changes will strengthen the existing accountability and transparency provisions in the bill. In closing, I want to thank the thousands of public servants, current and former, who have deeply engaged in the design process on various proposals in this bill. Their contributions have been invaluable. This pays down a very large investment in the Public Service that Australia needs today and into the future. The challenges that Australia faces over the coming decade are immense, and we recognise that our public servants play an integral role in meeting these challenges head-on. This bill will continue to support the evolving needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. Our APS reform agenda is ambitious and requires a sustained and structural effort over time. By amending the Public Service Act, this bill advances that agenda significantly and locks in important reforms to deliver changes that last. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 51

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

Consideration of Senate Message 51 16:41 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That the House insist on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is a good bill. It provides $20,000 in instant asset write-offs from July for over 300 small businesses in this country. It'll increase cash flow. It'll decrease the compliance burden and provide over $290 million worth of relief to small businesses throughout the country. About 10 days ago, the Leader of the Opposition stood at that dispatch box and gave his budget speech in reply. In his budget speech in reply, he said that he supported providing an instant asset write-off for small businesses in this country to provide more cash flow and compliance relief for small businesses. I thought it sounded good. You can imagine my surprise that, at the very same time, he was instructing his senators in the other place to vote against a bill which would provide an instant asset write-off for small businesses of over $290 million. What we see here is that they say that they want lower taxes and lower taxes for small business, but then they vote for higher taxes and higher taxes for small business. They say that they support small businesses, but then they vote to oppose the interests of small businesses. There's a pattern of behaviour here. They say that they want lower energy bills for Australians, but then they vote against energy bill relief for all Australians. They say that they want cheaper medicines for all Australians, but then they vote against provisions for cheaper medicines for Australians. They say that they want higher wages for Australians, but then they vote against measures which will provide higher wages for Australians. They say that they want the government to spend less, and then they tell their people in the other place to vote for amendments which will increase the spending. When it comes to the coalition, you cannot trust a word they say, because they say one thing and then instruct their members and their senators in this place and the other place to do the exact opposite. 16:44 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Unfortunately, Minister Jones has just given an entirely misleading explanation of what is going on here, which sadly is not inconsistent with his form in this place over a number of years. The simple fact is that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 contains measures to support small business, which is true, including provisions for the instant asset write-off, which is also true. What is not true is that the coalition is opposed to the instant asset write-off. On the contrary, we support it. The amendments that we moved in the Senate—which I am pleased to say received the support of the Senate in cross-party recognition of the compelling merit of the amendments we moved in the face of the obdurate opposition and obdurate resistance of this government—would extend and strengthen the effect of the instant asset write-off scheme. Why did we do this? We did this because on this side of the House we are consistent, resolute, determined, trenchant supporters of small business. We know that small business is the very foundation and bedrock of our economy. We know that small-business people do whatever it takes to open their doors every day. If sales are down and times are tough, very often it is the business owner who accepts less in their pocket every month in terms of owners' drawings out of the business so that employees can continue to be paid. Small-business people and small businesses are the very backbone of our economy. When we were in government, the previous coalition government consistently supported small business. We consider that the amendments that we moved in the Senate, amendments that were accepted by a range of other parliamentarians representing a range of other parties and quite a number of Independents as well, have compelling merit. It's disappointing, I have to say, that the government is not prepared to consider them. We think they speak absolutely for themselves in terms of the benefit they will bring to small-business people all around Australia. Let's remember: this is a cold, dark, long winter for small business. This is a very grim time. Very soon, thanks to the extraordinary laws passed by this government, laws that reflect the agenda of the union movement—every one of the Labor parliamentarians in this place dances to the tune of their union pay masters; the pre-selection of every one of them depends upon the union bosses—and as a consequence of the laws that have been passed in this place by these servants of the union movement, a movement that can command only eight per cent of private sector employees as members, small-business people around the country will very shortly have no legal protection when they are visited by a large group of burly, tattooed union officials with 'CFMEU' or other patches on their T-shirts and jackets. Those small-business people will have no capacity to resist the demand to enter, thanks to the perverse laws this government has passed. Small-business people, sadly, will face no option but to have union thugs enter. Sadly, certainly when it comes to the CFMEU, many of them convicted criminals, many of them convicted multiple times, they will be free to enter the premises of small businesses around this country. On the other side of the House they think that's a laughing matter. We don't think it's a laughing matter. We think it's very serious, indeed. We think it's a grave error in judgement. In this grim, dark winter for small businesses, the amendments that we moved in the Senate, which would have extended the operation of the instant asset write-off scheme, would bring a shaft of light into the lives of small-business people. They were passed by the Senate. On this side of the House, we strongly believe that they should also be passed by this House. 16:49 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I call on the government to stop playing politics with small business—97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia are small businesses, and they are hurting. I moved amendments when this bill was first before this place in relation to extending the scale of the asset write-off and the time frame for it to go for another year. The government dug its heels in, and I should say the opposition voted against it. You're all very happy to play politics, but the people on the ground that are hurting actually need this to happen. What happens in practice is this legislation is stalled. Of course, the government, at budget time—and it was back in the budget in 2023—made the big announcement that there was going to be this asset write-off. Businesses—small businesses—think they can count on that. They make provisions, and then nothing happens. The legislation doesn't pass either House and then they are left in the situation of not being able to do the measure that was promised by the government on budget night. What we saw last week, with the budget for this year, was the announcement again, but again the digging-in of the heels by the minister and by the government of insisting on this lower asset write-off. The reality is, you do not have majority in both places, and the majority in the other place has told you, loud and clear—has insisted—on returning this bill with an amended asset write-off to the $30,000. So the question to the government now is: are they going to continue to play politics and risk all small businesses? We know that some 43 per cent of small businesses aren't profitable at the moment and are continuing to face an ongoing storm of cost increases and regulatory complexity. The government have a question before them: it is in their hands now. Get on the side of small business and embrace these amendments. The will of the other place has been clear. The majority in that place have asked you to reconsider and to amend this provision to ensure it is of sufficient scale that small businesses can actually take advantage of it. The uncertainty is incredibly damaging. How can small-business owners have confidence in the government if they can't even know when something is going to come into effect or what scale it's going to be, and it takes so long? As it is, with the discussion in this place, so many small-business owners wouldn't even know what's happening. There isn't even a way of making sure that they are informed. Rather than playing politics, being obstinate and sticking to this to send it back to the other place—where it is clear it will not pass in its current form—I call on the government to recognise the need of small businesses to have access to this measure, to accept the amendments that the majority have asked the government to accept, and to ensure it passes amended. The amendment to $30,000 is incredibly important. This is an asset write-off around an energy incentive bonus. It will help businesses make meaningful investments to ensure they do increase their productivity, their sustainability and their efficiencies. For the government, the question is: are they going to stand up for small businesses, or is it just tokenistic on budget night that they make an announcement and there's nothing that comes with it? For the opposition, the same goes. They voted against it when it came here before, then it got amended in the other place and has now come back. I note it was part of the budget in response speech, yet here we are. It's a promise for the future in an election. Small businesses need you all to stop playing politics and actually get on with the job of helping them. Pass this legislation amended rather than sending it back to the other place, where it will again be stalled. There's always a lot of talk from all the major parties about being on the side of small business, but now's their chance to show it. Vote for this amended legislation. 16:53 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina One of the most important components of our economy is small businesses. They represent 97 per cent of our businesses. There used to be a joke: 'What is a small business? Well, when Labor's in government it used to be a big business or a medium-sized business. Under a coalition government, they made it a small business.' Whilst that is a slightly humorous little tale, the fact remains that we as a parliament should be doing everything in our power to help small business. All too often, what we see when Labor is in power is the unions taking the hand of the members opposite, and they just put so many obstacles in the way of our small businesses. Those opposite never knew a business that they wouldn't like to put a picket line out of the front of. It is so disappointing. What we are all about on this side of the House is making sure that we cut through that red tape, cut through that bureaucracy and make it easy for our small businesses to operate. Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I'll ask those opposite interjecting—and I hear the member for Moreton—how many of you have actually run a small business? I don't see too many hands go up. Run it into the ground, maybe! On our side, we are there putting small business at the very heart of our economic principles. That's what we do. When the member for Dickson, the opposition leader, stood here to deliver his budget reply speech—and I thought it was an excellent one, by the way—he said: 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. That's something we all should aspire to. That's something we all should agree with. Those opposite want to put in the instant asset write-off at $20,000 and just for 12 months. Why not give those businesses the security, the stability, and make it ongoing and make it $30,000? Let me tell you: when we were in government during COVID, as a productivity measure, as a boost to the economy, we made it unlimited—and so many tradies and farmers and other small businesses went out and bought a motor vehicle. You can't buy too many motor vehicles for $20,000. Let me tell you: under the new fuel efficiency standards and the ute tax those opposite are going to put in place, you won't be able to buy too many vehicles at all. But for businesses $20,000 is simply not enough. Make it $30,000 and make it ongoing. Those opposite want to impede businesses; they want to get in the way of businesses. I know the member for Forrest, who was here a minute ago, so often talks about the WA sheep farmers. They are businesses, and they are being impeded every step of the way. They've had their live trade cut from underneath them by those opposite. Why are we putting so many obstacles in the way of businesses? Why are we jacking up taxes? Why are we making it so much more difficult for our small businesses to pay their energy bills when those opposite promised on no fewer than 97 occasions that they would reduce power prices—and what do they do? Jack power prices up and put more bureaucratic measures in place to impede and hamper our small businesses. We need to, every step of the way, protect those small businesses. But it's not just me saying it; it's the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Any of those small businesses out there, whether they're the truckies driving up and down the Newell, Hume or Sturt highways or those other branch routes that are driving productivity and driving the goods around our nation, go onto that website and have a look at what is available for small businesses. You won't see too many compliments from those people who are accessing that website about Labor's budget. You won't see too many people who are genuinely praising the fact that the instant asset write-off is only $20,000 and is only for 12 months. People are getting behind the fact that we have promised to make it $30,000—that's what we should be aspiring to—and to make it ongoing so we give those businesses that certainty. That's what small business is craving—certainty, not just a 12-month stopgap measure and, 'Look at us in 12 months time or less', when, potentially just prior to the election, the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, goes and promises another 12 months. Let's do it now. Let's give small business the confidence it needs because, let me tell you, they are the ones driving and running this economy. 16:58 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I ran a small-medium business for a number of years. When I talk to other small-business owners in the electorate, they don't listen to what goes on in this House because they do not believe this House operates with their interests at heart. They believe this House is more interested in politics and playing games than in making a difference to small business. As a small-business owner, to be promised something in May and then the following May still not be sure if that promise is going to come to fruition, when you are the government, just makes the word of the government seem absolutely pointless. Businesses need to be able to rely on what government promises. And it is up to the government to make sure they pass the laws they have promised with much fanfare and asking for much support. They need to make sure they can pass those laws in whatever way they can, and get them through this House and the other place. This is not only about the instant asset write-off; this is also about the Small Business Energy Incentive. All these things have been tied up across these houses for the last year. If you are a business trying to do the right thing, trying to make the right investments to lower your energy bills and do the right thing for the climate, trying to do the right thing to increase the absolutely dwindling level of business investment—which we know is absolutely critical for productivity—you're saying, 'Where is the government on this, because the government said it's going to do something and has completely failed to deliver on this? Now it's over a year since they made that announcement, but we still do not have that support in the House. As a small businessperson, you need certainty. You need to know that you can make the investments that the government says you can make and that they will support that. They don't follow legislation and they don't follow this House. They heard it from the Treasurer last year in his words, and so I think many small businesses have taken him on his word, and it's about time that we made sure that this House lived up to the budget and made sure that this House delivers on the incentives. If it has to increase, I support that increase. That's what the government needs to accept because they can't control the Senate and they need to make sure that this bill passes now for those small businesses because small businesses lose trust in government and people lose trust in government when they make a commitment at the budget but it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen a year later. I ask everybody in this House to pass this legislation. It is time to move on and it is time to support this legislation, as amended, from the Senate. This is not a time to play with a double dissolution, which is what it feels like is being played for here. This is the time to do the right thing by small businesses and give them the opportunity to make the investments they need and make the clean energy investments that they need because they are hurting right now and they need our support. 17:01 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Australia's 2.5 million small businesses, which are families, generate one-third of GDP in this country and they make up 98 per cent of all businesses and employ around half of the private sector workforce. So why is this government punishing them and why is this government not adding that extra $10,000—that the opposition is asking for—for small and family businesses across this nation, when small businesses are the engine room of the economy and when they employ so many Australians? I started myself working in small business, as did many people one this side. At the age of 13 I was selling pianos in the local music shop. And for the bloke that owned the music shop—the retail outlet—that was his business and he worked there. He was the HR manager, the owner, the salesperson and even the accountant in that small business. And how much money did he take home at the end of the day? He was the last one to be paid. I made more money as a casual in his business than he did, with the hours. I think we worked it out once, and he got about $2 an hour for working in his business. We know what we will do for small business, but small businesses across the nation are perplexed because they don't know what this government has done for them since coming to power. We know that we will repeal the IR laws that the Labor government has put in place and we will cut red tape when we're in government to make it cheaper and easier for small business to employ Australians. On the Gold Coast we've got 72,000 small and family businesses and SMEs—small- and medium-size enterprises. In Moncrieff alone there are 32,000 small businesses, and they are hurting. They are having trouble keeping the doors open. An opposition member: They're doing it tough. Ms BELL 282981 They are doing it tough. And $20,000 will not buy you the kind of equipment that you need to make sure that your business runs well. And, can I say, a lot of small businesses across the Gold Coast have already bought their coffee machines with the coalition's instant asset write-off, they've already bought their utes that the coalition allowed them to buy under a higher instant asset write-off. It was unlimited under the coalition. We are the party of small and family business, and those on the other side are not. All we are asking for in these amendments is an extra $10,000 for small and family businesses across the nation. The Gold Coast needs an extra $10,000 for every small and family business so that they can write it off in their tax as an instant asset write-off. This is a government that's removing measures that would help drive productivity at a time when we've seen record collapses in labour productivity. They're distracted. What have they been spending money on instead of an extra $10,000 for SMEs? They spent hundreds of millions of dollars—$450 million—on a failed referendum that the Australian people didn't want, and hundreds of millions dollars on taxpayer funded spin units. That's what they're spending money on. There's $24 billion for more public servants that we don't need. How can the government tell the Australian people, in a cost-of-living crisis, that they are going to spend $24 billion on more public servants that we simply do not need? They are spending billions in subsidies for billionaires. That's right—they are spending billions of dollars in absolutely wasted revenue. But what are they doing for small business? I asked the Minister for Small Business, who is not in the chamber during this debate about small business, 'What is your government doing for small business?' An instant asset write-off of $20,00 for one year is not good enough. Small and family businesses are hurting, and what they need right now is a $30,000 instant asset write-off that goes on ad infinitum. That's what they need. Mr McCormack 219646 They need stability. Ms BELL 282981 They need security, they need stability— Mr McCormack 219646 And consistency. Ms BELL 282981 and they need consistency. They need to know what their costs are and what they can get back on their taxes, and the instant asset write-off is a very important part of that. Small businesses are the heart, the very engine room, of the Gold Coast community particularly. But right across Australia, in every electorate, small businesses are being punished by the Labor government, who have wasted billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on the wrong priorities. They should be looking after small and family business, the engine room of our economy. 17:06 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I join those in this House urging all members to support an extension of the instant asset write-off. All around our country you see how difficult and tough it is to be in small business. You see vacant shops in many of our regional towns and cities. If you talk to small-business owners, they will tell you how difficult it is to survive at the moment. They'll talk about increasing costs—like power costs—which are an absolute killer for small business. They'll talk about the red tape which is strangling them. It seems to get worse every single day. Our small-business people need our support, and that is why we need to extend the instant asset write-off—to give them a badly needed boost in a very difficult time. It's not just power prices but all types of issues, like supermarket price gouging, that are putting increased pressure on our small businesses. On the weekend, I was talking to one manufacturer in Orange who told me about the devastating impacts of supermarket price gouging on their business. These are pressures that our small-business people face every single day. Our small businesses are the engine room of the economy. They employ millions of people. They make up 97 per cent of all businesses in Australia. Our small-business people are innovators. They take risks. They are the ones who come up with the ideas and have the creativity, and they back their ideas. They often have to borrow money to do it. In borrowing that money, they often lie awake at night wondering if they are going to be paid so they can pay the bank or one of their other creditors. Our small-business people need our help. They need our support. Now is not the time to be playing politics with this. I urge all members of this House to back the extension of the instant asset write-off to $30,000. It's the least we can do for our hardworking and valuable small-business people not only in country Australia but right around this nation. They need our help. They've made that cry for help very loud, and this House needs to answer the call. I again urge all members to back the extension of the instant asset write-off and to do it now. 17:09 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about small business. It's interesting to note that the minister isn't in the House, but I'll take issue with his comment earlier, when he said that you don't listen to what we say on this side; you look at what we do. Well, if I have ever heard the pot calling the kettle black! It is the Labor Party with whom you don't listen to what they say; you look at what they do, because, nine times out of 10—or, as we're seeing currently, 10 times out of 10—they are two completely and utterly different things. They say one thing to one group of people and one thing to another group of people and hope those two groups of people don't talk and work it out at the end of the day. I've got news for those opposite: people do work it out, and they are working it out. Our small-business sector is some 10,000-plus businesses in my electorate of Forde and 2½ million across this country. They go out every day and, as somebody said earlier, they're the innovators. They come up with new ideas. They take risks. Their house is on the line. Their family finances are at risk each and every day that they open their doors. And yet we see, each and every day in this place, a government that is hell-bent on destroying small business, through a range of measures. We've seen the IR laws that were rammed through this place and are going to have a disproportionate impact on small business. We have seen the cost of electricity and gas go through the roof. When I talk to small-business manufacturers in my electorate, they talk about input costs. Electricity and gas are two very large input costs that have a disproportionate effect on the profitability of a business. If they're leasing, have a look at how much their leases have increased by with the inflation rate that this government has failed to get under control. Have a look at supply chain difficulties. All of these issues impact small business each and every day. In addition to that, one of the biggest issues they have is red tape. The owners of our small businesses do it all. They are the HR manager. They are the accountant. They're the business manager. They're out trying to get new business. All of this is in an environment that is being made increasingly difficult by the government. We've seen recently another piece of legislation in this House which will impact many of our small-business owners in this country, and it concerns the issue of additional tax on unrealised capital gains and superannuation. Many of our small- to medium-business owners have their business premises in their superannuation funds. If those buildings increase in value, and their super funds become worth more than $3 million, they are going to unnecessarily pay tax on unrealised capital gain. That is of enormous consequence to those businesses. So, when we look at these amendments that have gone through the Senate—increasing the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and making it permanent—I think that that is a tremendous win, albeit a small win, for small business, helping them reduce their red tape and regulation and simplifying their bookkeeping. Have a look at the success of that measure when the coalition was in government. The number of small businesses I spoke to who said that was a great initiative by the then government so they could go out and buy new plant and equipment to build the capacity and productivity of their businesses—it was extraordinarily well received. Increasing it from $20,000 to $30,000, as is reflected in these amendments, should be fully supported by this House, as a number of speakers have said, because it is one little ray of light in the darkness—as the member for Bradfield said in his speech—the winter of darkness that small businesses are facing under this government opposite. For any of the reasons that I have outlined, I fully support the amendments to this bill. 17:14 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It's important that I can stand and speak on this amendment, particularly after spending more than 15 years, prior to my time in this House, working in and with small businesses right across my community in the Yarra Valley, in Casey and also across Victoria and Australia. I've seen firsthand how important they are to the economy and to the community. It's not just the jobs they create or the economic growth that they create; anyone who has visited a sporting club in their community can look at all those signs on the side of the ground and I guarantee every sign there is a small business of that community. It's not a big business; it's a small business backing the community. That's why it's so important that we're doing everything we can to help small business. But sometimes we can talk about these terms like 'instant asset write-off', and other terms, and forget the people behind what we are talking about. I want to quickly share a story about one small family business in my community, but it could be any business in my community, any business in any electorate across the country. It's a company called Mainstream Cabinets. Matt and Tayte Tilney started that business about five or six years ago—they may be coming up on a decade now. Time flies! Matt was working as a cabinetmaker and decided to go out on his own and start his own business, and years and years later he's employing many young people and apprentices and giving back to our community. But the reason the story of Mainstream Cabinets is important is they've previously directly benefitted from the instant asset write-off. I got to visit their factory and see the great work that they're doing. They were able to invest significant capital into a machine that automates all the cutting that they need to do to precut a lot of the work for the cabinetry. This is something that was previously done manually but can now be done automatically. It saves time, it saves money and it drives productivity in that business. Most importantly, what it has allowed the business to do is continue to grow and to employ more people because of the investment that they made. When I spoke to Matt about that investment, I said, 'Would it be possible without the instant asset write-off that was quite generous at the time because of the former government?' He said, 'It wouldn't have been.' Without the instant asset write-off, they couldn't have invested that money into their business. That's what we're talking about when we debate this legislation. Small businesses aren't asking for a handout. They don't want welfare. They want the ability to run their businesses. When they make the decision to invest in their business, give them a little bit of support. Give them a little bit of support in how they manage their cash flow, their depreciation schedule and their tax schedule. It's only a little bit—$20,000 to $30,000. Let's be honest; small businesses are struggling in this country at the moment. This isn't going to make a huge difference, but it's going to help just a little bit. And when you've got everything else going against you, every little bit of help you can get is going to make a difference. Let's understand the economic environment that we have in this country. It is as tough as it has ever been. I was speaking to a business owner just last week. Well respected, with 40 years in business, he's not one prone to hyperbole, and he said these are the toughest economic times that he has seen. Increasing costs of energy, increasing inputs, increasing wages—everything is going up and revenue is going down, and small businesses are struggling. It is a condemnation of this government that the best they can come up with is this legislation that is 12 months late, but better than nothing. It's very funny how they're quick to criticise those on this side of the House for not supporting them and not being proactive. We put forward an amendment that has been supported in the Senate, working constructively and proactively with the government to support small businesses. The test of this government is: are they going to take that hand and work with us to deliver for the community, or are they going to continue to ignore small businesses? It's a shame that, going by the words of this minister, they're going to continue to abandon small businesses. By abandoning small and family businesses, they are abandoning the communities of Casey, of regional Australia and of every community in this country. As I said when I started, it is the small businesses of our community that back the community when they need it the most. 17:19 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I'd like to start by saying thank you to all the small business owners out there throughout the country. Thank you for being the backbone of this nation, for driving our economy, for employing people and for taking that risk of starting your own business or growing it or just taking that step outside your comfort zone. Without you, this economy would be crumbling. Without you, people wouldn't be getting employed. Without you, the backbone of this nation, we would come to a screeching halt. Small business, mum and dad businesses, those who have saved up, taken that risk to start whatever industry they want to be in, to take that step—you're what keeps the lights on in this country. Without you, this nation wouldn't be as strong and as good as it is. So I want to say thank you. Thank you for taking that risk. These amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 have come back to the House for a second time because the Senate has insisted on them. In procedural terms, this is a rare occurrence in the life of the parliament. Continued disagreement between the House and the Senate has, in the past, triggered a double dissolution. The continued disagreement— Mr Conroy 249127 Call for a double-d! Mr THOMPSON 281826 I'm actually quite glad that the Minister for Defence Industry is here, because many SMEs in the minister's portfolio have had to close their doors. Many in the minister's portfolio have had to close up and let people go. We have in this country a very strong defence industry, but, with the inaction of certain ministers, like the one at the dispatch box, we've seen SMEs close up for good. We have seen SMEs around the country have to let people go. Only the primes can continue to tread water from the inaction of the Minister for Defence Industry. But the small businesses, the ones that want to break into the defence sector, can't. They can't continue to watch the minister flounder around, not be confident in his portfolio, not make decisions, and cut projects like the infantry fighting vehicle from 400 to 129. Those small businesses that are there ready to work with the primes and Defence now can't. We see it throughout the country. We see in Townsville. Even last night, at a defence industry dinner that I was at in Sydney, there was continual conversation around inaction in defence. So it is encouraging to see the minister sitting here. I hope he's taking notes to know that the small businesses in his portfolio want action. They don't want to see the minister continue to drop the footy here. This is a very unique time for this House. For the second time, these amendments have come back. We want small businesses to have the instant asset write-off that they have been asking for, that they want, to have it ongoing— Mr McCormack 219646 That they deserve. Mr THOMPSON 281826 that they deserve so they can continue to drive our economy. Lamont is a printing business in Townsville. It's the only one in North Queensland. During the instant asset write-off under the previous government, the Morrison-McCormack— Mr McCormack 219646 Indeed, the golden age of policy! Mr THOMPSON 281826 golden age, they were able to invest in their business. They were able to invest. They were able to grow. From there, they were able to employ more people. They win awards around the country. But they were only able to do this because of the instant asset write-off under the coalition government. With this Labor government's position, which is not the will of the parliament or the Senate and goes against what small businesses have been requesting and what they want and deserve, we will see businesses around the regions finding it extremely tough to continue to grow, to employ more people and to do what they do—take a risk, step outside the door and go: 'You know what? We are going to expand. We are going to grow our industry and our business.' We want the government to back in the amendments. We want them to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's speech and agree that this is what small business needs. We want the government to listen to the Senate. 17:24 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I am a proud Victorian. I am the proud son of small-business owners. My father, who is in his 70s, runs a small business as a roof plumber and still climbs up multiple-storey roofs and is doing his best to survive in Victoria. In my home seat of Menzies I recently visited small businesses in my electorate, and I will tell you what you see when you walk through their doors. More often than not you see a family that wasn't born here. You see a family that is first in and last to leave, that pays their staff first and them last, that is struggling under the crippling weight of excessive taxes in Victoria and that is paying record energy bills, with gas up 26 per cent and electricity up 18 per cent, and when you compound that over many years—I walked into a dry-cleaner, and they said, 'My gas bill is six times what it used to be.' In the corner you'll often see their children doing homework, trying to have a better life. That's what small business is about. Small business is about a bet on your family, on your future and on Australia. For this government to be bloody-minded about extending the instant asset write-off from $20,000 to $30,000 shows they are taking small business for granted, and they are taking, in my home state of Victoria, migrant families for granted. In the last financial year Victoria was the only state in Australia that saw the growth of small businesses go backwards. In the last financial year we saw a decrease of 7,600 Victorian small businesses. Of course, there is a churn and new businesses who come and fail because they've taken a risk and it didn't work out, but year after year, in state after state, there's an aggregate increase except in Victoria. In that same year when Victoria lost 7,600 businesses my friends in Queensland saw theirs grow by 11,000. One of the things that's happening there is that Victorian small businesses are leaving our state and moving north. We've seen this movie play out before; we saw it play out in the early 1990s. I say to the Victorian members—and there are a lot of them over there; there are not many over here: you are taking your state, your seats and your communities for granted, and they notice. Victorian small-business owners are on their knees. They need you, and they need this small increase. It's not much. It's an extra bit of equipment, a second-hand van, a new coffee machine, a folding press. I will give an example. I spoke to a small business in my electorate called Fratelli Engineering, a proud Italian family run business in Box Hill North. They have employed many people, including people who are learning their trades. They're teaching them, taking that risk and taking that bet on them growing their business. They're not only bearing the brunt of increased costs and increased taxes; they're trying desperately to compete with the almighty weight of the state and the huge infrastructure costs that come with it. They're trying to compete with people who are earning over $200,000 holding a sign on union construction sites—and they can't. But we know when those construction projects are finished the small business is gone; it may have gone to Queensland or it may disappear forever. We can't continuously fund Victorian employment through big state construction projects. We can't continuously fund all the areas we need in the care economy if we're just going to rely on the state to generate employment. To those opposite: Victoria needs you. Victorian small business needs you. For the migrant families in my electorate, including many from the Chinese community who had an expo on the weekend—and I single out Laura and Aaron Qin, from Ausfocus, who ran that on the weekend. I spoke to those small-business members, and they feel like they're being taken for granted. Don't be bloody-minded. Stand up for Victorians. Increase the threshold from $20,000 to $30,000. They need it, and they need it in Victoria more than ever. 17:29 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom In speaking in support of these very sensible amendments, it is heartening to hear so many members on this side of the House speak passionately about small businesses. Like many here, in my log cabin story there's a small business. It was as small as you could get—just my father and I, and I wasn't paid. We had a rusted HiLux and went around South East Queensland doing concreting. It's a great way to start. There was no accounting division, no HR and no health and safety. It was just us navigating our way forward. I want to speak to another part of what small business does. I want to speak about one of the constituents of the member for Riverina and the opportunity that they provide for Australia. I'm talking about PYBAR, a small business in the mining sector that started off out in Parkes in the Northparkes mine. It invested heavily in good people, gave people a chance and gave them the opportunity to do more. One of the things with small businesses is there's always a chance to play up a level and to go further because there isn't some great big corporate body in front of you. If you can do it, they'll give you a shot. I think of Paul, Yvette, Brendan and Andrew Rouse from PYBAR, who did that and gave me an opportunity early in life, and I'm very grateful because it was a small business that was willing to give me that chance. I heard one of the earlier speakers say that small businesses don't really think about what happens down here. My experience has been quite the opposite. Small businesses are very focused on what happens down here. I remember during the COVID period the number of small businesses who knew exactly what the impact of things like JobKeeper would have on them. Afterwards they've spoken with tears in their eyes about how interventions by the government during that time kept their business afloat, kept their kids in school and kept the car payments going through. They are very aware of what happens down here, and they remember the role that we have played in helping small business over a long period of time. We can proudly look them in the eye and say, 'Yes, we're proud to have delivered the lowest small business tax rate in 50 years.' We did that They remember very well the poor friends that the ALP have been to them. If you speak to small businesses, their concerns are very simple. On IR, these aren't businesses that have lawyers on demand who can wade through the various IR changes that have come through. On red tape, they don't have the ability or the overheads to carry it. They're concerned about the impact of inflation and the very small margins that they're operating at. As the member for Moncrieff talked about, they are often operating at a personal loss. They are often the last people to be paid and are often walking away with nothing more than the pride of knowing that their business can open its doors the next day. What they don't like when they look down here and what they don't like to see is government's picking winners—a billion dollars for a computer company from Silicon Valley with a great big 'Australian made' sticker slapped on the side. They don't like that at all. It's a slap in the face when they hear that this government is supporting small business. They don't take too kindly to that. There are subsidies worth $13 billion going into an energy sector that has been absolutely tearing at their bottom lines. If you want to talk to small business about their big drivers, energy costs are a consistent theme. I think of John at the Southtown IGA in my electorate, who's invested $60,000 in energy-saving equipment and has still seen his energy bills go up after that investment. This is what they're concerned about. The ability to employ a casual workforce, this is what's important to them as they flex and they grow and they go through these teething stages. One thing small businesses rarely want is to stay small. They want to grow and expand like PYBAR did and to seek further opportunities. There is a reason for us to be focused on the instant asset write-off. I go back to that time during COVID when support was needed and businesses had their eyes focused very keenly on what was happening in this place. This was the ability to invest at a time when there were significant challenges. We have different challenges now, but they are no less threatening to small businesses. At a time when we have seen the greatest fall in productivity since we recorded productivity, they want the ability to focus on investments that can drive productivity—which is exactly what the instant asset write-off is all about—like being able to get that new ute, the new tools and the things that can do a little bit extra in the same time period. That's what this is all about. It could not be more important. Productivity has fallen off a cliff, and we know that with productivity falling so do real wages. They've been tied together, and we can see that, and that is where we will continue to drive under this government. 17:34 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Like my colleague the member for Groom, I rise to urge the House to accept the wisdom of the Senate and agree with the amended bill that they've sent back to us. In so doing, I point out, as all the other speakers have so far, how vital it is to send a message to the small-business sector that we back them and that we want to help them, particularly in these very tough times. I didn't think I'd say at any point in my career that I am in this chamber supporting legislation for the small-business sector that even the Greens will be voting for. But that is the situation that we're in now, where only the government are not supporting this very sensible proposition that we should increase the threshold for the instant asset write-off from $20,000 to $30,000. We've had contributions from the crossbench to that regard. We've had the Senate unite against the government to support increasing the threshold. And momentarily the government will have the opportunity to consider changing their mind, to consider being flexible and to consider listening to all the other political forces in this chamber and the other chamber. When we're in the community, when we're listening to our small-business sector, we hear that they really need this. Frankly they need a lot more than this, but this is one thing that we can do for them right now. We can send a message to the small-business sector that we want to back them to make decisions in their business, to invest in their business and to make purchase decisions that gain a greater tax advantage for them, because that is going to incentivise them to make those decisions and stimulate our economy at a very important time in which we need exactly that kind of activity. I really commend the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, for his budget reply speech and particularly the commitment that he announced that a coalition government will increase the threshold to $30,000 and will make that an enduring and permanent change to the tax system. It's one of the many great examples of a tradition in the Liberal Party and the coalition of supporting the small-business sector and saying to them: 'We back you. We want the private sector to grow our economy. We want government to be as efficient as possible. We want taxes on small businesses, in particular, to be as low as possible. And we want to back people who go out there, take a risk, put their capital on the line, invest in our economy and actually create jobs and grow it.' As we grow the economy, we can afford to fund the society that we're very proud of as Australians. But that comes from the private sector being encouraged and supported by government decisions and government policy selections. So the chamber has an opportunity to think deeply about that and think seriously about what sort of message we can send to the small-business sector tonight. I ask the government, I plead with the government, to consider the opportunity that they've got before them. I know that this isn't their idea and the default position in politics is to say, 'Well, that might be a good idea, but someone else has come up with it, so we'll just pretend that it's not and we'll use our numbers in the House of Representatives to stop it from progressing.' But this was such a good idea during the Morrison government. My friend the member for Riverina was in the cabinet that made the decisions around the COVID stimulus and saying to the small-business sector, 'Hey, we want to give you the ability to instantly write off assets up to these values from your tax this year.' How many businesses took up that opportunity and said, 'You know what, government, if you're going to back me and invest in my business, I'm going to invest in my business'? That's them not only investing in their business but investing in our whole economy and investing in our nation. It's a very, very sensible opportunity for the government to reconsider their position here and say: 'Fair enough. Increasing it to $30,000 will unlock more investment in our economy, right at the point at which we need it.' I've got nearly 7,000 small businesses in my electorate. Everyone would be similar in the number of small businesses they have that would benefit from making this change. We've united the crossbench. Even the Greens party see the merit in this proposition, and they're usually the last to come to the party when it comes to sensible opportunities to support the small-business sector. That should be very telling to the government. It should send a message to the government that this is very sensible policy. It's a very sensible opportunity for them to get on board and send a unanimous message to the small-business community that we back them to make decisions, to put their money on the line, to make investment decisions, to grow their business and to grow our economy. That's what increasing this threshold will do: send exactly that message to the small business community at exactly the time they need to hear it. I commend concurring with the Senate amendments to the House. 17:40 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden It gives me an immense amount of pride to stand to speak tonight, because the topic is essentially about supporting small businesses in Australia. It was 267 days ago that I stood in this place and gave my maiden speech, and I see some people filing in, no doubt to hear the maiden speech tonight from the new member for Cook. I reflect on that speech, because in that speech I talked about my experience as a small business owner and what I went through as a person who had a go—how difficult it is when you feel like everything is going against you in small business. I remember saying in that maiden speech, that I paid everyone else's super except my own. It still sticks with me to this day how difficult it was, but how worthwhile the endeavour really can be. So I'm really pleased that those speaking on this side of the House come to this topic with an immense amount of actual real-life experience. I say that because I wasn't the first generation in my family to be a small business owner; my dad sold oranges for the family farm—on the side of the road on a highway further up in northern Queensland. Of course, they were the oranges grown on my grandfather's farm. They had a go and they ultimately were very successful in that business. I believe that that small business blood came through to me, and I'm pleased to share my experience with this place tonight. I'm particularly honoured to represent a seat on the Gold Coast, the seat of Fadden, because the Gold Coast is the small business capital of Australia; it's the place where you go to have a go. We need to make every effort to encourage and facilitate small businesses to do what they do best: to deliver services, to do it on their terms and to do it at their price point—to fit in with their lives and, ultimately, to create something that's of value to them and their family. It is, unfortunately, in the DNA of those opposite, those in the Labor Party, that they will ultimately only want to support large union based workforces; small and family businesses are quite often the last thing on their mind. This message from the Senate is a test for the real Labor Party, that needs to stand up and show it cares for small and family businesses. I recall speaking not that long ago with a gentleman called Madoo who owns a cafe called Relish at Paradise Point. I asked him how things were actually going for him in business. He explained that the cost of everything was going up—everything! He talked about electricity prices and he talked about the carton of eggs he had to buy. Ultimately, things were very difficult, because you can't keep putting the price of coffee up, or the cost of a bacon-and-egg roll up, to meet those expenses. So the business owner is the one who is making the sacrifice. This instant asset write-off is not only good policy but it's supportive policy of the fundamental ethos of our Australian workforce: the small and family business. It absolutely should be increased to $30,000 and it should absolutely be made permanent. We know the types of outcomes that it will be able to deliver. It will drive productivity and cash flow, and support small businesses to make critical investments—to buy new equipment for kitchens, or manufacturing lines; to invest in energy-efficient appliances to try to beat those power prices; to buy power management tools to lower energy bills; or to buy new cars and vans to deliver services to their clients. I just think of so many Gold Coast families, particularly in the electorate of Fadden—people who live around the corner from me, my neighbours and my friends—who have a small and family businesses where their vehicle is their business and their family is the business. These are the people that we need to essentially support, and it's why this amendment is so critically important. I'll be there to support the people of the Gold Coast and the people of Australia who run small and family businesses. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House is that the House insist on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

The House divided. [17:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 73 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Belyea, J. A. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. 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. 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. 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. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 68 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chandler-Mather, 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. Katter, R. C. 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. 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. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 63 17:54 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Cook making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the honourable member for Cook, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. 17:54 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook What an honour it is to stand here today as the sixth member for Cook. This is a place of responsibility where we shape the future, but there's much to be learnt from Australia's past. Australia is a country that harboured an Indigenous culture for 60,000 years, disrupted by a penal colony, taking on successive waves of impoverished immigrants escaping war or desperately wanting for a better life. Yet in 2021 Australia was proclaimed as the richest country on the planet. What are the chances that a penal colony disrupting an Indigenous population, taking on waves of impoverished immigrants, could become the richest country on earth? If a government department had hired my old shop McKinsey to answer this question, they would have told them the bleedingly obvious: the business case does not stack up! What, then, created this improbable miracle of a society? It was Middle Australia. What is Middle Australia? It's the belief we are all equal in this country. It's the belief we all get a fair go. It's the dispossessed Indigenous Australians fighting to close the gap. It's the marginalised European convicts who built our first cities. It's the migrants who came here fighting for a better life. In each generation they have a name: Menzies's forgotten people, the small-businessmen and -women, the nurses, teachers, and the first responders too; Howard's battlers in our outer suburbs, who had the belief that, if you worked hard, you would get ahead; Morrison's quiet Australians, who rejected the class warfare of regressive taxation. These are the people too busy running businesses to tune into question time, too busy with their family to rage on social media, and for the first time in generations they are at risk of being let down by this country. I am proudly a product of Middle Australia. My story is about the opportunities that come from hard work, an unconventional-but-loving family and living in a lucky country. My mum and dad separated when I was a toddler. Dad was American. Mum is Australian. And, courtesy of the High Court, I am now 100 per cent dinki-di Australian! After Mum and Dad split, Dad moved home to the United States and I moved into a very full house with my mum, grandparents, aunt and uncle in Sydney's west. My mum, Louise, was my anchor and my nurturer. She made me who I am. She gave me the belief I could do anything but also the freedom to just be me. My dad, Tony, gave me a relentless work ethic, determination and, I think, male pattern baldness as well! Dad was one of 10 children, an American Irish Catholic, ferociously loyal and with a deep sense of family. Mum worked at the local high school while my grandfather Stewart, who I called Stew, was my primary carer. I never went to day care or preschool; instead I went everywhere with my grandfather Stew, chopping wood on winter afternoons in the backyard, painting the house or driving the 1935 Dodge—the family's only car—to do the shopping. Stew would tell me stories on Australia's history. He was born in 1912 in Demondrille Junction, a town in country NSW that no longer exists, an exceptional, honest, hardworking, quiet Australian. He shaped the values that I will seek to honour in this job. He told me about his family and childhood in Demondrille and how they relied on one another and didn't wait for government. That's how I learnt family must come first. He told me about the impacts of World War One, supporting his family in the Depression, and why he and my grandmother enlisted in World War II. That's how I learnt individual freedoms must be protected. One of his favourite things to quote was Menzies's 'Forgotten people' speech. That's how I learnt a strong Australia is built on the back of a strong middle class. Stew passed away 10 years ago at 101, but he's still with me in the values I seek to live out every day. Growing up, my school years were typical. I proudly went to local public schools and played rugby league, soccer and cricket. This love of sport was fostered by my stepdad, Bruce, a teacher like mum who later taught me year 12 economics. Bruce guided me through some of my life's toughest and biggest decisions. I started my working career delivering junk mail, moving furniture and even working as a bouncer in Kings Cross—a job, Mr Speaker, I'm learning has some similarities with yours! After university, I found myself working at McKinsey, a job which took me all over the world. That job changed my life, because quite late one night, in a bar in Washington DC, I met my wife, Nila. We eventually married and moved to Australia to raise our young family. Nila is my biggest supporter, and our family is the most important thing in my life. Nila, my son, Taj, and our daughter, Kaia, are in the gallery tonight. Professionally, while I worked with businesses, governments and communities around the world, I was always driven by the values Stuart taught me at home. I always had family, individual freedoms and social mobility at the forefront of my thinking when advising on Haiti's recovery from a devastating earthquake, the United States' recovery from the financial crisis, or Australia's recovery from the COVID pandemic. In doing this work, I gained a foundation for problem-solving that I still carry today. I learned the importance of listening, because it's impossible to solve a problem you don't fully understand. I learned the limitations of government, and that it is individuals, communities and businesses that chart a country's ultimate success. I learned to be evidence-based, to be guided by facts, rather than opinions, and to change my views as the evidence changes. Most importantly, I learned there is always more to learn. I see my role as an MP similar to my role for decades—to listen and to try to solve problems for the country and, most importantly, the people of Cook. Cook is a stunningly beautiful part of Sydney, surrounded by water, with Botany Bay and Georges River in the north, the Hacking River in the south, and the beaches of Bate Bay in the east. The suburbs in between are bursting with small businesses and tradies, full of surfers, sports nuts, clubbies and churchgoers. There are Sharks supporters, Dragon supporters and the occasional Bulldogs supporter too. More than a third are first-generation immigrants and, just like me, over half had one parent born abroad. Coincidentally, my first function as the member for Cook was to commemorate Captain Cook's landing in Kamay, Kurnell. Kurnell is in the sleepy heart of my electorate, the landing place of Captain Cook, the epicentre of the clash of two cultures, and I think it beautifully exposes the juxtaposition of Middle Australia. It provides the backdrop to European settlement, it houses sacred Dharawal Indigenous sites and is home to World Heritage listed wetlands. Its petroleum refineries used to power our nation, its waste depot takes what Sydney does not want and its sand mines have provided the concrete to construct half of Sydney's housing. It has one functioning church, no doctor in town and almost no complaints—that is, until a contentious housing proposal for 4,000 new homes, which beautifully illustrates Australia's housing crisis. Unlike much of Australia, Cook has quietly and regularly exceeded its housing targets. The prize for this achievement is, of course, congested roads, limited parking, overcrowded sporting fields and schools bursting with demountables. Infrastructure funding? I don't think so. The good citizens of Cook are still waiting for funding to complete the F6 freeway. This might be the most overdue project in Australia's history, being first announced 72 years ago in 1952. But the people of Cook know how to wait. The famous Cronulla Sharks coach Jack Gibson once said, 'Waiting for Cronulla to win a premiership is like leaving a porch light on for Harold Holt.' Then, after 50 years, Harold suddenly came home. I'm going to be asking the member for Ballarat over there to keep her porch light on, because I want to pop past and get some F6 funding pretty soon. The people of Cook don't complain; instead, they get on with things. It is an egalitarian electorate full of hardworking small-business owners—resourceful and optimistic people. It's a microcosm of middle Australia. But, rightly, they feel they are being ignored. Right now, our country is governed for the squeaky wheel, the vested interests, and the large corporates with their lobbyists and their megaphones. It's not for the silent majority and definitely not for the small business. There are three areas where I believe Middle Australia is at risk of being let down by government: firstly, small business; secondly, housing; and, thirdly, how we grow the economy. Firstly is small business. Today in Australia, the small business and the individual have never felt smaller, because large governments and corporations have never been larger. Large governments and large corporates share similar characteristics. They both believe their size gives them the power and moral authority to tell individuals and families how or what to think. As a Liberal, I believe the moral authority rests with the individual, with the family and with the growing small business. The beating heart of Cook and Australia is the small and medium business. Two-thirds of Australians are employed by them. Innovation, disproportionately, comes from young, small firms. These are the engine room of our economy, because small business hires while large business fires. Research has shown all net new job growth in the economy came from small and medium businesses that grew. If we truly want a vibrant and growing economy we need to support small and medium businesses better—support them to scale, support them to become more productive. Instead, we have allowed a system to develop that strangles the growing small business with anti-competitive regulation. We have given our big banks, supermarkets, airlines and unions an outsize voice in shaping this country and its regulations. We need to dramatically deregulate our industries to allow the growing small business to compete and flourish. Secondly, we are at risk of letting middle Australia down on housing. A core belief in this country has been that if you work hard you can buy a home and get ahead. Yet homeownership has never been more out of reach than it is for this current generation. In Cook, the median house price is over $3 million in Cronulla, Port Hacking and Burraneer, and over $2 million in Kogarah Bay, Blakehurst and Sans Souci. The good news? It's just $1.7 million in sleepy Kurnell. But is a house Kurnell in reach for middle Australia? If your family earned the average household income and scraped together a 10 per cent deposit and, luckily, got to lock in a low six per cent interest rate, the average household could never—I repeat: never—ever repay the mortgage on a median house in Kurnell. Even if you had no expenses—no food, no clothes, no energy, no water, no rates and no kids—and even if you lived and worked for an eternity. Once, more than half of all adults 29 and under owned homes in Australia. That number now is at risk of plummeting to less than one-third. It's hard to tell what this will do to the social fabric of Australia if allowed to continue. The promise of this next generation being better off than their parents is now disappearing rapidly. Governments and politicians have been talking about this issue more than ever; talking about how bad it is and talking about how it must be improved, but this is entirely a failure of government. Today in Sydney up to 50 per cent of the cost of a new house is government. That's tax, that's red tape and that's the planning process. How ridiculous is this? The rhetoric of governments around Australia has been to scream out about a housing affordability crisis, one that's largely of their own making. What used to make our country great is that government got out of the way and allowed middle Australia to build and grow. To help achieve this again, I believe the federal government should make states and councils compete for funding and allocate this funding based on their ability to quickly and cost effectively release land and approve housing. Federal infrastructure funding should be explicitly tied to housing completions. Areas like Cook, which have exceeded their housing targets, could be rewarded with funding for critical projects, like that F6 freeway, instead of being punished with overcrowding. We should also be incentivising states to provide people with pathways to prosperity. The federal government could offer to cover rent assistance in exchange for states redeveloping their public housing and providing pathways for public housing tenants to purchase their homes—public housing tenants to buy their own homes. If we can solve this housing crisis, we can empower younger Australians again. We can give them hope—hope and reward for their hard work, hope in the opportunity for social mobility and hope to invest in themselves and their families. Migration has been a huge part of Australia's success. We are the most successful multicultural nation on earth. However, right now our population is growing faster than at any time since 1952. Housing just can't keep up; for every new home being built in Australia we have more than three new entrants into the country. There are Australians who can't even find homes to rent, yet we continue to allow the demand for housing to grow. In the short term we need to match migration levels with the ability of the building industry to supply new homes. The one area where we do need to dramatically increase migration is migrants with skills in construction related industries. This would allow housing supply to catch up with population growth. The third way we are at risk of letting down Middle Australia is how we grow the economy. Currently, the government will tell you the economy is growing, but record migration is being used to paper over the weakness of the Australian economy. Large corporates enjoy this unsustainable migration because it means more profits and more customers, even if they do nothing. But the truth of this growing economy is a little bit murkier. We've actually been in a per capita recession for one year. Productivity has ground to a halt. But what do these technical terms mean for you and your family? It means your real income has gone down 7½ per cent in the last two years alone. It means you can't buy as much as you could before. It means you and your family can't afford a house. It means the 528,000 new entrants into the country only had 170,000 new homes to choose from. The maths just doesn't work. The government and corporate Australia tell us the economy is growing, but you and your family are just getting poorer. What's more, this lazy approach to economic growth is punishing state governments, who are left with the bill. The states are left to provide housing, schools, hospitals and roads for a booming population they have had little say in accommodating. So, if growing the economy through population is lazy economics and the participation rate is already at an all-time high, how do we improve the living standards for Middle Australia? The answer is productivity. Productivity has been responsible for 80 per cent of the increase in average Australian living standards in the past 30 years. But still there's room to improve. The average American worker produces 25 per cent more than the average Australian. But this is not the fault of the Australian worker; this is the fault of successive governments, who've kicked the ball into the long grass when it comes to unleashing productivity. We've seen little economic reform since Howard's GST and Hawke and Keating's economic liberalisation. A key part of creating productivity is making our federation work better. Federation must be a partnership for productivity, not a memorandum of mediocrity. When I lived in America I was impressed by the sheer competition across 50 states and the policy innovation this drove. Each state competed for corporate investment, federal government funding and for citizens to call it home. Australia needs to re-embrace competitive federalism so taxpayers get the best value for each dollar spent. This was the type of thinking behind Abbott and Hockey's asset recycling reforms and Keating's competition payments. Asset recycling transformed the face of Sydney. It spurred new metros, new roads, new communities and new homes, and it enabled many new Australians to build new lives. Currently, in Australia, states are disincentivised from improving productivity. Take stamp duty, a tax on people moving, or payroll tax, a tax on job creation. States believe, if they remove or replace one of these, the GST formula could punish them with less federal GST revenue. How can we better incentivise states to implement productive reform? Ensuring the Grants Commission will fund, not punish, states for productive reform must be part of the answer. How can we better incentivise states to build more homes? Again, I believe we should force the states and regions to compete for federal infrastructure funding based on their housing completions. Victoria's rising debt level should serve as a warning to us all. States should not be bailed out of trouble. Instead, they should be rewarded for productive success. Competition is about performance, and we need better performance at all levels of government, because improved performance will support Middle Australia with more homes, more jobs, more opportunity and more hope. It's an honour to be in this place today, with the opportunity to be part of solving these problems, and a privilege to represent the people of Cook. There are a few people I want to thank, because without them I would not be here. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a loyal servant to Australia and Cook: thank you for your advice and continued support. To those Liberal Party members who have supported my journey: thank you. Mum, you've spent your life caring for other people and you're a great inspiration to me in this job. Dad, thank you for your constant love and support. And thanks to the Kennedy clan for the warm Christmas memories. Bruce, you have played a pivotal role in my life and I am thankful to your family for embracing me. My sister, Rebecca, is a constant source of loyalty and laughs. My in-laws in the gallery, Selma and Malcolm, have travelled here all the way from America. Hari and Jung Lee's health has kept them at home. Thank you for welcoming me into your family. My wife, Nila, and two kids, Taj and Kaia—if you are still awake—I love you. You guys are the most important things in my life and I know I will feel the cost of this job when I am away from you. I hope I can make you guys proud. Lastly, I wouldn't be out here without the people of Cook. Thank you for the honour of choosing me to represent you. My family and I feel incredibly lucky to now call this electorate home. Australia's progress over the last 200 years has been nothing short of remarkable, but now we risk ripping opportunity and hope from the hearts of Middle Australians. We are kicking the ladder out from under their feet. This country must remain a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded, where everyone is given the opportunity to get ahead and where Middle Australians are empowered. They deserve at least that much. This is the Australia I will be fighting for. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I congratulate the honourable member for Cook. We wish him all the very best in his new parliamentary role. Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 66

Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024

Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Second Reading 66 18:18 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 will transition the current Net Zero Economy Agency from an executive agency within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to a standalone statutory authority, that being the Net Zero Economy Authority. Under the legislation, the authority's functions will be to coordinate net zero policy and planning across government, facilitate both government and private participation and investment, support affected workers, support First Nations Australians to participate in the transition and deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net zero emissions economy. There are two broad aspects to this legislation that operationalise the authority's powers. The first is facilitating the new investment in the net zero transition. The authority intends to be a shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with project proponents and state governments to get renewable projects to investment decision. The authority will also mobilise public moneys through vehicles such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund with private financing support, address enabling infrastructure needs and navigate regulatory processes. The second responsibility of the authority is to assist the impacted workers in that transition area through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. The Energy Industry Jobs Plan would allow the authority to utilise the industrial relations system to manage the redeployment of workers in closing coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and their dependent employers—for example, coalmines that are reliant on a closing power station. The plan does not specify or anticipate the types of employment that workers may transition into. This is essentially an industrial relations bill disguised as a bill for the regions and the transition. The coalition will oppose this bill due to the following: its bureaucratic waste duplication; its top-down, Canberra-centric approach, which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of the regions; its imposition of new obligations on small, medium and large businesses; and the fact that it is yet another example of Labor's haphazard approach on industry policy which delivers no guarantees for local workers. On top of these significant flaws in this piece of legislation, as we found out in the recent federal budget, the government has doubled the authority's budget to nearly—wait for it—$400 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27 alone, with further funding to total $1.1 billion over the medium term. That's according to Budget Paper No. 2, page 159, of the 2024-25 budget. The federal government cannot afford to waste over $1 billion on Canberra bureaucrats across the Net Zero Economy Authority, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Commission, when it has been unable to detail the actions that this authority would perform that are not—not—already being done. The component of the Net Zero Economy Authority that relates to new investment in the net zero transition is a bureaucratic waste which largely mirrors the responsibility of existing federal and state agencies. The investment facilitation aspects of the proposed authority duplicate the role of existing funding agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the CEFC; the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA; and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Project Facilitation Agency. The authority explicitly has responsibility for: … facilitating public and private sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and net zero transformation initiatives in Australia, including in new industries … This is almost copied and pasted from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's legislated role to 'facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector,' and to facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Similarly, the role of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is to (A) improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies; (B) increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia; and (C) facilitate the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The level of duplication on the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibility to promote new investment in the net zero transition and existing Commonwealth entities is beyond a joke; it truly is. How many federal agencies tasked with renewable financing does the Commonwealth require? It's a very, very good question. This approach, focused on facilitating investment consistent with net zero ambitions, also leans into the government's preference for picking winners rather than genuine investment facilitation and jobs creation. A national body risks a top-down, Canberra centric approach which does not fully consider regional needs and priorities. It is also likely that, once established, the federal government will continue to add additional powers and responsibilities to the authority to support its net zero and climate ambitions. Will the government rule out giving this net zero authority new powers to streamline and/or expedite regulatory approvals or financing for transformational green energy projects? Following the tabling of Labor's 2024-25 budget, the funding for this authority and its related activities is budgeted to be $399.1 million from 2023-24 to 2026-27 alone, with further funding to total $1.1 billion over the medium term—1.1 thousand million dollars over the medium term. This is on top of the billions of dollars of additional funding being moved into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the newly badged Future Made in Australia. Over $13 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies for big business don't address the source of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Labor's focus should be on dealing with energy costs, high inflation and out-of-control red tape; that's what they should be doing. Instead, Labor continuously fails to address the fundamental realities facing most Australian businesses. With insolvencies at record highs and more businesses going offshore, supporting a small number of big businesses is irresponsible and a slap in the face for small businesses desperately seeking answers from this government to survive, to stay afloat. The level of duplication between the Net Zero Economy Authority and existing Commonwealth institutions demonstrates a complete waste of more than $1 billion of federal government funds over the forward estimates. The proposed Energy Industry Jobs Plan is a long-held union wishlist item. It was an election commitment carried under Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, dubbed the Just Transition Authority, and has been adopted in some form in all Australian Labor Party national platforms since 2018. Australia's current industrial framework features a well-established safety net that applies and has applied for a considerable amount of time to instances of business closure and industry change, especially relating to the closure of coal-fired power stations. Under section 2.10.1(c2) of the AEMC's National Electricity Rules, coal-fired power stations must provide 3½ years notice before being able to close. Furthermore, a national agency to assist regions is also duplicative of state based mechanisms designed to achieve the very same outcome. For example, regional planning initiatives already exist through the New South Wales government's Hunter Regional Plan and the Victorian government's Latrobe Valley Authority Transition Plan. This new authority would also cut across the work and vision of existing regional development of Australian communities which recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating vibrant regions. This bill adds an onerous additional layer of regulation not previously considered by the fair-work system. The proposed Energy Industry Jobs Plan process overlaps significantly with existing industrial obligations, including consultation, paid leave, union access and enforcement, without dealing with how those overlapping obligations should interact. This bill takes no steps to harmonise measures which will cause confusion, uncertainty and disputation at a workplace level that can and should be avoided. There are justifiable benefits in mechanisms that attempt to keep jobs and employment in these affected communities, but, in reality, this legislation gives the unions a big stick to threaten employers to provide paid time off, facilitate activities to drive union membership and enforce obligations that a dependent business may not be able to afford. There is no sense of limit around what obligations, pay or work conditions can be applied; as much will be left to the Fair Work Commission to determine. The regulatory impact statement expects a total annual compliance cost of $1.5 million when the costs for individual employers are aggregated. It is important to note that the larger risk in this legislation is not for the large energy generation companies, such as AGL, Origin and Energy Australia, but, rather for smaller businesses which supply goods or services to a closing power station and may be caught up in this energy industry jobs plan process. These businesses, which typically don't have human resources and internal workplace lawyers, are unlikely to have any line of sight as to what is coming. In his address to the National Press Club earlier this year, current Net Zero Economy Agency Chair Greg Combet could give no guarantee on the transition of coal-fired power station workers to green jobs in the renewables sector. There is a real risk that these workers will be left with fewer employment opportunities and lower rates of pay. While the bill will require employers to offer workers retraining opportunities and to attempt to match employees with new jobs in the green economy, this is unlikely to benefit older, experienced workers who are approaching retirement or workers with highly specialised skill sets. There is concern about the scope of the legislation, particularly for smaller dependent employers. The explanatory memorandum provides an example of a local cleaning service that has a commercial relationship with a closing generator being classified as a dependent employer. It is not clear what liability or obligations a cleaning service would be expected to adopt under an energy industry jobs plan. It would be up to the Fair Work Commission to determine. There are no carve-outs or exclusions for small businesses in the legislation—none. These organisations are unlikely to have the resources or capacity to administer the services outlined in the bill. It is also unclear whether this plan will apply only to permanent employees of closing or dependent employers or would also capture casual employees. The energy industry jobs plan is bought and paid for by the union movement. The union movement want the Net Zero Economy Authority to be legislated, because the authority will be able to collect personal information of employees of coal-fired power stations, from financial records to telephone numbers. Indeed, this bill does not even require the relevant employees' consent for their information to be passed from their employer onto the Net Zero Economy Authority and the legally mandated trade union representation on its board. This bill is not a bill for the regions. Nor is it a bill to support the net zero transition. This is an industrial relations bill that the Labor government are gifting to the union movement. The coalition will oppose the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 because of their bureaucratic waste and duplication; top-down Canberra-centric approach which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of our regions; imposition of new obligations on small, medium and large businesses; and the fact that it is yet another example of Labor's haphazard, dysfunctional approach to industry policy which delivers no guarantees for local workers. The coalition will not be supporting these bills. 18:33 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I note that more than 150 countries, including almost all major economies and most of our trading partners, have committed to net zero by 2050. So I was very surprised to hear the former speaker, the former deputy prime minister, say that the coalition will not be supporting the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill. I was very surprised, because we know that to reach the crucial milestone of net zero we need to transform industries and complex economies as well as the way we live our lives. That's why I stress again how disappointed I was to see the coalition divesting themselves, cutting themselves off from the 150 other countries that are committed to net zero. I've been in this parliament a long time. I came here in 2007. I saw what happened when Tony Abbott took control of the Liberal Party on an anti-climate-change ticket. He knocked off Malcolm Turnbull. I then went to that other place. I don't normally go there but I went to that other place and saw the Greens sit with the Liberal Party and the National Party and vote against the carbon pollution reduction scheme, which locked this nation out of the economic opportunities that come with responding to climate change and delivering a better country for the next couple of generations. I am part of generation X. When I think of my kids in generation Y and generation Z and generation alpha, how can we stand at that dispatch box and say, 'This is not our problem.'? It sickens me to think that the coalition would go down that road again. I should say there were two Liberals senators that crossed the floor and sat with the Labor Party on that vote. I should call out those Liberal senators: Sue Boyce from Queensland and Judith Troth from Victoria, who had the guts to stand up because they believed in the future of this nation and who were then punished by their party for exercising that individuality. I go back to the legislation before the chamber that I hope the coalition will reassess their position on, because the United Nations calls the transition to net zero 'one of the greatest challenges humankind has faced', and nowhere will it be felt more than in the energy sector, which globally is the source of around 75 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. In Australia the make up in 2022 was: energy 56 per cent; transport 20 per cent; agriculture 17.4 per cent; fugitive emissions, particularly from mining and the like, 10.5 per cent; industrial processes seven per cent; and waste three per cent. A simple definition of net zero is when carbon emissions, otherwise known as greenhouse gases, are cut to the level that they can be absorbed naturally, leaving zero carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Obviously, it is hard to get to zero because of volcanoes, bushfires, rotting vegetation, animals cutting the cheese, all those other things, so we need to achieve net zero to keep our planet liveable and to try to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and increasing global temperatures. The key to reducing carbon emissions is renewable energy sources. Globally, that will address 75 per cent of the problem. In Australia, as I said, energy is 56 per cent of our emissions. Climate change is a global crisis. Transforming to net zero is a global endeavour that requires international commitment, cooperation and action. Australia's job is to develop structures and processes to manage this change on a national level, with the problem being that it is a federation. The Net Zero Economy Authority Bill establishes the Net Zero Economy Authority, which will ensure Australia and its regions are well-positioned to prosper in the future net zero global economy. Australia has long been a fossil fuel economy, and I say that as a Queenslander. To work towards net zero by 2050 will mean a transformation in our regions the likes of which we have never ever seen before. That's why we are putting over $189 million over four years from 2023-24 into resourcing for the authority and $53.3 million per year ongoing. The member for Riverina said we shouldn't do that because the people might be in Canberra. That is his solution to what the UN has called the world's biggest problem. He says, 'No, we can't do it because the people who might help us out might be in Canberra.' Unbelievable. That is so myopic, so shortsighted, like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. Australia is a land of opportunities from our unparalleled natural resources, particularly sunlight, to the strength of our business sector. We have the rule of law, a stable democracy, a diverse economy and a drive for renewable energy. All of these natural advantages position Australia to prosper as we move forward. But such transformation requires forward planning to support employment and the economies of the regional communities traditionally associated with the fossil fuel industry. To the people in Gladstone, in the upper Spencer Gulf, in the Pilbara, in the Hunter and in the Latrobe Valley, the old industrial power zones, you can be assured that Labor has your back. The development of the Net Zero Economy Authority is a necessary foundation block for our transformation to net zero. This independent statutory authority will have a substantial and important remit. Its overarching purpose is to ensure that Australia's workers and regions are looked after as we move from fossil fuels to renewables. How we navigate the economic and societal changes on the way to net zero is as crucial as getting there itself. So how will this Net Zero Economy Authority work? On behalf of the government, the authority will be a partner with industry and public and private investors to get the big transformational projects that we need underway. The key focus of this will be shoring up the economic base for the regions. The regions—they're the focus of this legislation. The core projects will be ones that decarbonise existing industrial infrastructure with new renewable energy industries—old power out and new power in. Those opposite forget about the second part of the equation—new power in. New power means more jobs. The authority will assist in coordinating policy and program design to ensure the necessary changes on the road to net zero are orderly. You just have to look at the facts about our key energy-producing areas to understand the scale of the task ahead. Gladstone and the Central Queensland region produce more than 40 per cent of the state's energy. The area is home to more than half of Australia's coalmines. Many Queensland mines produce metalliferous coal—coal for steelmaking. Transforming these industries will be a national endeavour. The bill outlines the remit and governance of the authority, as well as establishing a framework for the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. The bill requires the CEO of the authority to engage in a community-of-interest process once a coal or gas fired power station announces its closure. This process will protect jobs and livelihoods and keep regional communities strong—because we believe in businesses and families in these communities. The Energy Industry Jobs Plan will support workers to access new employment in clean energy industries and implement measures to upskill them if necessary. Importantly, at a societal level, the authority will also promote an understanding of the transformation to net zero amongst communities. It's crucial that our communities understand 'the why' and are engaged and confident in 'the how'. And it will support First Nations people to participate in and benefit from this economic transformation. This bill follows the substantial progress already made by the Albanese Labor government on our road to net zero. We've invested over $40 billion in planning and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The $20 billion Rewiring the Nation program focuses on modernising the existing energy grid so it can transition to renewable energy, which is a lot more scattered rather than just a couple of focused coal-fired power stations. Traditionally our resources industry and exports of iron ore, coal, liquid natural gas and aluminium have been the foundation of our national prosperity. Labor recognises the vital importance of the emerging industries of rare earth and critical minerals in the move towards renewable energy. Such minerals are the building blocks of a clean energy future and will be an essential part of our defence landscape for the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. We've already put nearly $2 billion into supporting the decarbonisation of existing industries with the Powering the Regions Fund. And the $6 million invested in the Critical Minerals Facility will support the growth of critical minerals production. Australia is a world leader in the provision of critical minerals, and this expansion will assist in the transition to net zero and provide technology, skills, well-paying jobs and economic benefits. As the Prime Minister said: My Government is committed to transforming Australia into a renewable energy superpower, and harnessing the critical minerals we have at home is crucial to achieving this. The Albanese Labor government has directed $2 billion into the Hydrogen Headstart program to develop large-scale renewable energy hydrogen projects. And we're proud of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, an initiative opposed by the Liberal Party and the National Party, shamefully. The priority areas for this fund include renewables and low-emission technologies. The National Reconstruction Fund harnesses Australia's strengths and natural resources to position us for a strong and affluent future, making use of our natural wind and solar advantages and all those other things I referred to. We're also collaborating with industry and researchers for input into Australia's first ever National Battery Strategy to develop and support a sustainable and thriving battery supply chain, a chain which will rely on rare earth and critical minerals dug up in Australia. This forward focused Albanese Labor government, rather than someone driving crazily with their eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror, is getting on with the job when it comes to renewable energy. We've doubled the speed of approvals for new projects. Since coming into office, we've approved 45 renewable energy projects around the country, creating enough power for 2.5 million Australian homes. There are another 128 projects in the approvals process pipeline. Ten years were wasted with the coalition in government. They didn't have an approvals process pipeline. They had a renewable hose with a dodgy colour-coded tap. We have a renewable energy pipeline. A future made in Australia is one that harnesses our natural strengths and resources. It positions us for emerging markets. It focuses on technology and jobs and provides the building blocks for cleaner and cheaper solutions to energy problems. This is Labor's focus, and we're taking action. The establishment of the Net Zero Economy Authority is an important part of this process. Industry, employers and unions all support the establishment of the Net Zero Economy Authority, and the authority will be run by people with the required expertise. There are clear experience requirements for the board. Two members must have a union background, and two members must have a business, industry, finance or investment background. The remaining members must have relevant experience, such as experience in economics, regional development and decarbonisation pathways, to name a few. The board will develop a stakeholder panel so that the insights and feedback from affected groups are front of mind during the changes. In his 'A future made in Australia' speech, the Prime Minister referred to our natural advantages. Some of these are our resources, both underground and above the ground, which are key components of the future of global energy. We're also ideally located next door to the fastest growing region in the world in human history. The Net Zero Economy Authority will harness these advantages. The authority will be responsible for supporting hardworking Australians through this change and working with employers and unions to move them into new renewable energy opportunities. We will do this, as the Prime Minister said, town by town and worker by worker. These workers are highly skilled, and we need their expertise in getting these new industries off the ground. The future is all about clean energy. That future is so bright that the nation has to wear shades. I do apologise to all those people from the eighties who had to hear that bad line. But Labor has a plan that accounts for workers, communities, industry, regions and the environment. We want all Australians to benefit from the transition to net zero. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, 'We will work in genuine partnership with businesses, unions and communities to help make sure no-one is left behind as we seize on this once-in-a-generation opportunity.' The establishment of the Net Zero Economy Authority provides the foundation for this crucial and necessary opportunity and change. I ask the coalition again to reconsider their opposition to this legislation, to get with the 21st century. Stop looking for the 19th century. The future is in renewables, and I enthusiastically commend the bill to the House. 18:48 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest It's interesting when I listen to the members on the other side talking a lot about regional Australia. Well, it will be regional Australia that will bear the cost and is bearing the cost already. I see the member in front of me right here and the impact that wind turbines are having in her electorate, as well as the disregard in total for her community and for the local environment as a result of that approach. This is all about Labor's renewables-only policy. When I look at the legislation, I again see a dismissive approach. We see another big Canberra-centric bureaucracy going to dictate yet again to regional Australia what we should and shouldn't have and how it should work. We have unique needs in the regions, but I don't expect—and I know, from many years of experience in this place—that those who will be part of this authority actually live, work, breathe and exist like we do in the regions and understand it well enough to make sound decisions. I understand that it's a very narrow approach that Labor's taking here—this shopfront for industry and investment around the redeployment of workers. As the coal-fired power stations and also their dependent employees are affected, I'll be particularly interested to see who is actually appointed to this authority and how many of those members will actually come from regional Australia that are on the authority itself that will be making the decisions. How many will there be with small, medium and large business experience—small business in particular? That's what we have a lot of in the regions. They are the ones that will be directly affected by Labor's renewables-only energy policies. There'll be interesting discussions around what jobs those workers will actually be able to transition to. How will Labor and the Labor government, through this authority, mitigate the impact that this will increasingly have in regional areas and communities? Even in mine, with 7,000 square kilometres of offshore wind proposed, a little like the member sitting at the table—same sort of issues in our patch. The regions carry all the cost of this, and they're dictated to by those who are city based. There is a lack of clarity and detail in what I've read in this particular bill. How many of the businesses will be affected? This is actually just another boondoggle jobs for mates at taxpayers' expense. It was originally supposed to cost $189.3 million, but I see the latest budget shows that that $189.3 million isn't nearly enough for this latest bureaucracy. The latest budget upped the ante, doubling the budget to over $400 million, with a further $1.1 billion that this is going to cost in the medium term. That's on top of Labor's extra 36,000 public servants in the budget at a cost of $24 billion over the forward estimates. When we actually see the membership of the net zero authority and look at the numbers that are there, I'll be very interested to see who's actually a member and those that are not just from unions but from actual business and from the regions themselves. We do know that this was another pay-off to the union—a long-held union wish list item that the government is delivering. We absolutely will see that this is, as I said, the next jobs for mates and a massive bureaucratic waste and duplication with that top-down Canberra-centric approach, and it does sideline the very useful Regional Development Australia committees that I worked very closely with in my role as the assistant minister. I just wonder how the authority will deal with the impact of those 28,000 kilometres of additional transmission lines that Labor has said are needed. How is that going to impact farmers and food producers that are affected, or will the new and improved net zero authority simply facilitate the steamrolling of our farmers and food producers who currently own and work the land and produce critical food for this nation and others? How will the authority deal with the impact of the thousands of hectares that Labor plans to be covered by solar panels and what it does and will do to the soil underneath over the years? Who will be responsible for rehabilitating and restoring the soil health at the end of life of the solar factories? And, of course, who will pay? Will this be part of the net zero authority role? I can't find exactly how the over $1 billion cost to taxpayers will actually guarantee and result in lower energy bills for taxpayers, businesses and industry. Exactly what jobs will there be for those who lose their businesses or livelihoods because of Labor's approach? Where are the guarantees for local workers that jobs will actually exist in their areas in their regions, where they probably are already paying off a house and living and their kids go to school? What are the jobs that they will be trained or retrained to work in? Where are the details of what those jobs actually will be? Smaller businesses will be affected by this transition that Labor is engaged in. Many of these businesses don't actually know that this isn't all which is going to hit them once Labor's new industrial relations policies start in August. I suspect that the unions may keep a lower profile until after the election, but I hope businesses are actually ready for more union control and interference in their businesses. This new authority adds yet another layer of regulation, overlapping existing industrial relations obligations for businesses. I just don't know what's going to happen to the smaller dependent employers noted in the explanatory memorandum. What liability or issues will those currently involved in providing goods and services—cleaning services or subcontractors—to those businesses and industries that are going to be shut down have? And I'm just not sure where the people are going to come from for the smaller businesses to do the administration required. That's not just the people; how will the small business pay for them? Along with having to report constantly on scope 3 emissions, it tells you that the Labor government doesn't understand small businesses at all. The ones that don't have IR and HR capacity in their business actually work all day and do all their accounts and business management at night. They can't afford to employ people do this work, but that's what's going to be expected. And we already know this comes at a time where we've had an extra 16,000 business insolvencies since July 2022. This layer, upon layer, upon layer for small and medium business is exactly what this government is doing to them. Labor can't keep taking small-business people for granted—those medium and larger businesses and investors who actually invest, those who actually take the risk, have a go and who are prepared to invest in, start and run a business. Unless they do so, there are, or will be, no jobs for our workers—unless perhaps you're one of the new Canberra bureaucrats: 36,000 of them will get more jobs. But this bill is a further waste of taxpayers' money; it duplicates existing state based mechanisms. We see that it's part of the additional $315 billion of Labor's homegrown inflation that's hurting Australians—inflation that's worse than in the US, Singapore, Germany, Spain, Japan, Canada and many other countries. We also know that after two years of Labor, a typical family with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off. I've asked what this new authority, at a cost of $1.1 billion to the taxpayer over the medium term, and $400 million over the next few years, buys? A rebranded agency and highly-paid jobs for Labor's mates. The eight board positions are two from unions, two from business and four other positions at the 'discretion' of the authority. Won't that be an interesting decision that will be made? But there are also issues here that I think Labor hasn't addressed. This is just another bureaucracy having to be paid for by taxpayers. I actually have a question for Labor: the government is providing support for workers whose jobs are disappearing because of Labor's policy decisions. But there are other Labor policy decisions where jobs and productivity are disappearing. So I just wonder: where is the live sheep export industry statutory authority? I didn't see that in the budget. Where is the same level of support for those who will lose their jobs and livelihoods with Labor's shutdown of live sheep exports, if this is all about jobs in the regions? The live sheep export industry is a $1.3 billion industry, but Labor has only committed $105 million over five years to the transition, and only $64.6 million for sheep producers. That doesn't really come close to the $1.1 billion that Labor is proposing for this new Net Zero Economy Authority. That's apparently just to do some work; it has nothing to do with the lives of the people affected. I just wonder: why isn't the same level of support provided to sheep producers and their communities? They're massively affected, but very little is provided for them. Apparently this is to benefit the regions in maintaining their social cohesion, employment and identity—what about those regions that are affected, particularly in Western Australia, by the live sheep export trade shutdown? What about the live sheep trade producers and their communities? Don't they deserve the same as the massive change that Labor is proposing through its renewables-only policies? They actually do. They have 3,000 people and jobs affected in that industry, but unfortunately farmers and regional people actually don't matter to this Labor government. Labor has repeatedly turned its back on farmers in regional and remote communities, and unfortunately we've seen some real contempt shown by the government. I know it had a real crack at introducing a biosecurity tax on farmers—another levy on farmers. Farmers are already paying $500 million a year in various ag levies, and yet the government wanted them to pay another $50 million a year simply for the biosecurity risk created by their competitors coming on shore. As each of the containers came into Australia, Labor wanted the actual farmers to pay for that. I know that a few weeks before the minister announced the shutdown of the live sheep export industry, five Labor MPs in WA recommended in a discussion paper that the WA government should provide more support for alternative proteins such as insects, algae and tofu. Well, how good is that? This is a really serious issue in Western Australia. I see such a contrast in what Labor is planning to do in supporting its own policy in relation to shutting down industries in regional Australia in the coal and resources sector and in energy with its plans for its ag policies. It's a completely opposite approach to supporting those communities that are going to be just as affected in the same way. Compare $64-odd million and $100 million in total for the live sheep, and yet what have we got for energy? There's $1.1 billion for what Labor's proposing in its renewables-only approach to this particular piece of legislation and its plans. This is a serious concern. This is just another major Canberra bureaucracy that has extraordinary costs for taxpayers and is a real challenge. Labor is ignoring the massive impost it is making with its policies on regional and more remote parts of Australia. 19:02 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Australia's transitioning to net zero by 2050 through investment in low-emission and renewable energy industries. Key steps along the way are increasing renewable energy to 82 per cent by 2030 and setting an ambitious 2035 target, which will be revealed in March next year. This is a huge change from two years ago, when the then coalition government had no plan for energy let alone a plan for our transition. Their energy plan was then characterised by energy chaos and secrecy—22 energy policies, which have now, in a moment of clarity, birthed the nuclear frolic. We are still waiting to hear where exactly these reactors would be built, and we are none the wiser as to how much this will cost or how much Australian taxpayers will have to cough up. How much will they have to forgo, perhaps in health or education or aged care? There will have to be cuts to make this a reality. And, of course, there is that minor problem of nuclear waste. Meanwhile, the Albanese government isn't wasting time—because there is no time to waste. We are in the teeth of the climate emergency and must get ahead given the standing start that we inherited. The Albanese government has committed over $40 billion across two budgets to turn Australia into a renewable energy superpower. Rewiring the Nation plan will invest $20 billion to modernise our electricity grid on the east coast to enable large-scale renewable energy projects—we're talking about gigascale solar and wind to connect to this system. The Safeguard Mechanism will reduce 250 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the nation's cars off the road. There is $2 billion going towards green hydrogen manufacturing through our Hydrogen Headstart program. There is the new Critical Minerals Strategy, which will make us an indispensable part of the global race to net zero. There is $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. There is $1 billion towards solar panel manufacturing through the Solar Sunshot program. And there is a further $41 million in energy efficiency grants to small businesses.We're also creating 10,000 new energy apprenticeships to ensure training and jobs for the future as our economy transitions to becoming a renewable energy superpower. In addition we are giving farmers $20 million in order to help them store carbon in the soil. In fact, we have developed a sectoral plan for our agriculture industry which will help them be part of this energy transition and make a contribution. Having set this course, we recognise that communities and certain regions, industries, people and families who have worked to power Australia for generations and who have built our wealth will be affected by this transition. If we get this right, those same communities will be among the biggest beneficiaries of this transition. The Net Zero Economy Authority is being established to ensure that these workers, industries and communities can seize the economic prize of Australia's net zero transformation and share in its benefits. There's offshore and onshore wind; green hydrogen, a tiny molecule with big ambitions, supported by our $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program; critical minerals processing and refinement; and novel energy sources such as biomethane, solar thermal, geothermal. But there's more from this third budget. We are unlocking more than $65 billion of investment in renewable capacity, through the Capacity Investment Scheme, by 2030. With one in three Australians homes having solar, we're investing $27 million to integrate consumer energy sources such as batteries and solar into the grid. The new vehicle efficiency standard, which has now passed after decades of inaction in this country, will save Australians around $95 billion at the bowser by 2050 and reduce transport emissions. It will also make us healthier. The government is committing $1.5 billion to manufacturing clean energy technologies, including $1 billion towards Solar Sunshot and half a billion dollars towards Battery Breakthrough. Then, of course, there's the skills investment. The government will expand our New Energy Apprenticeships Program to include work in the clean energy sector, including in construction and advanced manufacturing. This will provide a $10,000 incentive to attract 10,000 new energy apprentices into the sector. The government will commit $30 million to turbocharge the TAFE teaching workforce for clean energy courses and $50 million to upgrade and expand clean energy training facilities. The government will invest $55 million to establish the Building Women's Careers Program to support women's participation in these key industries, including clean energy and manufacturing. The Net Zero Economy Authority will coordinate transition activities, coordinate investments that create jobs in the regions and support workers through a transition that will span decades. This initiative is about community and people. We do not get to net zero unless we go there together. Pitting the cities against the regions, pitting one generation against another, and finger waving and preaching are not going to get us there. That's the politics of division which led to the climate wars and stagnation in this country. We don't want any of it. But providing an orderly plan which puts people at the centre and creates a pathway to secure, well-paid jobs in manufacturing, underwritten by renewable energy is a future worth signing up to. As I said in my maiden speech, our journey to a low-emissions future will be contingent on taking our coal and gas communities along with us. We owe them much and we are, after all, the party of the Hunter and Higgins—a broad church indeed. The Net Zero Economy Authority will provide the framework and common purpose so that our transition can occur successfully. These bills, the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, are about taking the country forward together. The bills establish the legislative basis for the Net Zero Economy Authority. We are also proposing amendments informed by the Senate committee's inquiry and feedback from stakeholders, including the ACTU, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. We want to cut red tape for employers and help them better engage with workers. We want employees and employers working together, rather than at loggerheads. We want to try a different model. The Net Zero Economy Authority has five main functions. The first is to facilitate investment. The authority will work with project proponents, state governments, and the private and public sectors to get projects up. It will be the government's shopfront for industry and investors. The second function is worker transition. It will support workers in emissions-intensive industries to access new employment or acquire skills to improve their employment prospects. This will include the establishment of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan to directly support employees impacted by the closure of some coal-fired and gas-fired power stations. We want the workers in the Latrobe Valley, Gladstone, the Hunter and all other impacted areas to be supported and not abandoned. The third function is policy coordination. It will coordinate net zero efforts across government and key stakeholders given that this involves energy, skills, manufacturing, resources and immigration—to name a few. It is a whole-of-government effort. The Net Zero Economy Authority is the conductor to keep the orchestra in tune. The authority's fourth function is communications and engagement, building community confidence with the transition—no-one held back, no-one left behind. The eight-member advisory board of the Net Zero Economy Authority must include two representatives each from business and the unions, and will value experience in industrial relations, economics, decarbonisation pathways, energy markets, regional development and First Nations advocacy. We can only get to net zero if we all go there together. The transition needs to be well-managed, leaving no-one behind. If we don't get this right, our mandate to transition will evaporate. It is too important to be left to chance. I commend this bill to the House. 19:11 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024. This bill represents a significant opportunity for Australia as we decarbonise and work towards a net zero economy by 2050. Most importantly, this bill represents an opportunity for regional, rural and remote Australia—the communities that will host the wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen and transmission lines that will power the rest of the nation. The transition to renewable sources of energy will be as transformational for our country as the development of our current sources of energy. I want to ensure we grab this opportunity for investment into regional Australia to reap the rewards of true regional development: a thriving workforce; reliable and cheap energy for households and businesses; access to affordable and accessible housing, health care, child care; better roads and more. Australians are proud of the nation and community building that came with Snowy Hydro, and this is the moment to do it again. There are two things I'm going to address in speaking on this bill. Firstly, that the authority is currently set up to support communities transitioning out of coal and gas; and, secondly, that the authority should also support communities transitioning into renewable energy so we can achieve true regional development right across our nation. The bill sets up a new statutory body called the Net Zero Economy Authority, whose functions include ensuring Australia's emissions-intensive industries and regions decarbonise and diversify, and supporting workers and communities through that change. I support an end to fossil fuel industries and I support a shift towards renewable energy that lowers our carbon emissions. I believe measures that support this goal, including those in this bill, are absolutely critical if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. During my first election campaign in 2019 and my second in 2022, people across my electorate came to me passionately wanting our parliament to address climate change. They were tired of years of inaction from government. They knew then, as they know now, that as long as greenhouse gas emissions continue, our temperatures will rise, and this will have devastating impacts to our health, our economy and our connection to our magnificent natural environment at home and around the world. I know, like my constituents, that decarbonising our electricity supply to renewable energy is one critical way to protect all that we love. It's why hundreds of members of my community and rural people from across the nation came together in 2020 to help me draft the Local Power Plan, a blueprint to bring in new jobs, new opportunities and an infinite supply of cheap, clean local power in regional Australia. And the plan demonstrated that in the regions, people are hungry for practical ideas about how to seize the momentous opportunity before us—that is in achieving net zero and utilising renewable energy to build a generation of shared prosperity. I want to briefly address 'net zero' in the title of this bill, because we must be very cautious about including controversial offsetting methods like carbon capture and storage in net zero. We must also be cautious about thinking that expanding gas production is part of achieving net zero. The authority must focus on renewable energy and multisector decarbonisation. I support the objective of the Net Zero Economy Authority to promote orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving net zero emissions by 2050. I also agree with the assistant minister, who said in his second reading speech when introducing the bill: We know there are communities in which the experience of the transition will be most concentrated. This government knows that we must support these communities and those that live in them. He went on to say: We will leave no-one behind. He refers to 'communities'. Whenever the Labor government refers to communities affected by the shift towards the net zero economy, they list places like the Hunter, Latrobe and Gladstone, where coal-fired power stations and gas-fired generators are closing. The assistant minister further said, in introducing this bill: The authority will help place these regions in a position to continue to play the vital role they always have. I have no argument with that. We must replace jobs in these communities as they transition out of fossil fuel generated electricity to a renewable economy and its why, ultimately, I support this bill. But I argue that we must, in parallel, consider the communities who have never been associated with electricity generation and who are now being asked to host the wind, the solar and the hydro that will power our future energy systems. What is this bill doing to ensure that the transition brings community benefit to these people? If the answer is, 'Nothing yet,' then I say, 'You are leaving these communities, like those in my electorate and many like them, behind.' In my electorate, communities may not be transitioning away from fossil fuel generated energy, but they are absolutely at the forefront of the transition into renewable energy: generation, storage and transmission. Indi hosts two renewable energy zones. Grid scale solar projects are being built apace by large international companies near Glenrowan, Wangaratta and Benalla, while the Meadow Creek solar farm in the King Valley and the Seymour wind farm in the Strathbogie Ranges are in the early stages of planning. Battery energy storage systems have also recently been proposed in Tolmie and the Alpine and Kiewa valleys. These are landscapes that have never hosted a coal-fired power station. They are mostly farming properties, producing high-value beef and dairy. The visual landscape is rolling hills and bushland. These regional communities need to be at the decision-making table. They need to be consulted with early in plans to generate, store and transmit power. These communities also deserve to benefit from these projects. While community benefit funds may assist in providing scholarships and small grants to local groups, we need to be thinking about bigger, transformative, nation-building benefit. I'm talking about a tangible, sustainable, long-term benefit to regional Australia. I want to see towns and communities across regional Australia truly prosper and thrive—not simply replacing jobs where they will be lost. I want regional Australians to look back in 20 years time and say, 'Australia's shift towards a net zero economy was when we got the best roads, when we got the best new health care, when new businesses came and when long-term, high-paying jobs for our towns became a reality. It's when regional development really happened, and we're benefiting from it for generations to come.' Communities, not just landholders, deserve to benefit from hosting large-scale renewable energy infrastructure. Take the Strathbogie Shire communities in my electorate, for example. These communities have long-term energy security issues. In fact, many communities in Strathbogie Shire have experienced up to 11 power outages between November 2023 and February 2024—this year. These communities are on the edge of the grid, and their energy security in a modern Australia is absolutely appalling. These same communities are at the forefront of a renewable energy project proposal of wind turbines and transmission lines that are being touted as part of the solution to keeping the nation's lights on. But under the proposal it's unclear whether this energy project would keep the lights on for this local community, who will see turbines and transmission lines in their backyards. There's an opportunity here that's not being realised: cheap, reliable power where it's generated, to bring benefit to the local people who are generating this power. If communities start talking about renewable energy in terms of benefit, rather than what they don't want to see, we'll get so much further along the path to net zero. This really is as much about achieving regional development as it is about simply seeking social licence. That's why I'm pleased that one of the new authority's objects is to 'ensure Australia's regions and workers are supported in relation to, and benefit from, Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy'. 'Engagement', 'benefit' and 'support' are important words. They're easy to say in a speech; they're easy to write in a bill. But how you achieve them is another thing entirely. This leads me to the actual details of the bill before us. As far as I can see, the only practical measures to achieve the authority's objective of supporting communities in relation to Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy are in part 5 of the bill. Part 5 sets out the authority's powers to create energy industry jobs plans. These plans will support workers in coal-fired power stations that are closing and gas-fired generators that are closing to transition to new jobs via retraining, redeployment and other practical measures. Energy industry jobs plans create a clear pathway for the authority to assist communities in the Hunter and Latrobe valleys. I welcome that, but it's really the only 'how to' in this bill. There is nothing setting out how the authority will 'ensure Australia's regions and workers are supported in relation to, and benefit from, Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy'. There is nothing for the communities across my electorate, and across regional Australia more broadly, whose land use and workforce aren't transitioning from an economy powered by fossil fuels but very much transitioning to one powered by renewables. They're experiencing something completely new, and right now they feel it's happening to them, rather than with them. To bridge this gap between what the authority is supposed to do and how it will achieve it, I will move a number of amendments to this bill. These amendments are for communities like Meadow Creek, Dederang, Bobinawarrah, Ruffy, Benalla and the many others still to come who will host wind turbines, a solar farm, a battery or a transmission project. These amendments set out how the authority can ensure communities are meaningfully engaged by renewable energy project developers, through a developer rating scheme and local energy hubs which would bring evidence based, neutral information and guidance to local communities. My amendments set out how these communities, through community benefit plans, can receive touchable, tangible benefit when a project is built in their backyard. My amendments would ensure we have a bottom-up, not top-down, approach when it comes to figuring out what communities want from this new economy. My amendments would also add sensible, simple provisions that really should already be there, like acknowledging renewable energy zones, requiring the authority to submit annual work plans, and ensuring that the board which provides advice to the authority includes a member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in regional, rural and remote development advocacy and community leadership. It's not much to ask, actually—quite a modest ask. Many of my amendments implement the recommendations of the Community Engagement Review, which I worked with the Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to establish last year. They are recommendations for a developer rating scheme; a communications program, so that the public understand energy transition; and a package to realise community benefits. I'm pleased to see the government acting on the Community Engagement Review's recommendations through the budget, but this announcement, again, lacks detail of the how to. It fails to show regional Australia how it will benefit from the renewable energy transition. The budget announcement didn't indicate any future legislation for the how to. That is why I'm moving amendments to this bill. To achieve community engagement and benefit, there must be measures set out in the primary legislation, not just line items in a budget, which can be removed at the whim of a political party. I will move around 18 amendments to this bill. It shows that the bill is a start but it has a long way to go for regional Australia. Rather than simply criticising the government for introducing a bill that ignores regional communities like those in my electorate, though, I am putting forward sensible, constructive amendments—amendments which I know will give communities and developers all the tools to make this transition the best thing to happen to the regions in a generation and put regional communities right at the forefront of their own future. Unless we legislate practical measures for this authority to undertake, the bill is just words on a page. It's a nice intention from this government but one which delivers no meaningful outcomes for regional communities like mine. My amendments are about action. So I call on this government: support my amendments and improve this bill so that you truly fulfil your noble intention of leaving no community behind as we transition to a cleaner economy and a stronger future. 19:25 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm This is really important legislation before us tonight, and I'm so pleased to support it and be part of a government that takes climate change and our responsibility to our communities really seriously. The global shift to net-zero emissions is Australia's opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower. The shift to net zero is happening. Australia, along with the rest of the world, is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by the middle of this century. That's why this legislation is before us. Our government is introducing the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 to establish the Net Zero Economy Authority to ensure that Australian workers and regions realise and share in the benefits of the net-zero economy. Our government has also announced $189.3 million over four years and $53.3 million per year ongoing in resourcing for the authority. The authority will support the economy-wide net-zero transformation that is underway by acting as a catalyst for private and public investment. The authority will also support major projects development, job creation and transition, along with skills and community development. We know that global efforts to reduce emissions have already started transforming traditional industries. This transformation will create new opportunities to broaden Australia's industrial base and strengthen our sovereign capability. This is really significant. The Albanese government is already delivering a strong policy agenda to reduce emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. This authority will be pivotal to delivering this goal, realising the broader benefits for our nation and ensuring that no community is left behind. The legislation before us tonight is another step forward—a significant step forward—in our plan for a net-zero economy. Importantly, this new Net Zero Economy Authority will be a new statutory agency, and its functions will be to coordinate policy and planning; facilitate both public and private participation and investment; support affected workers; support First Nations Australians to participate in the transition; and deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net-zero-emissions economy. The Net Zero Economy Authority's mission will be to promote orderly and positive economic transformation for Australia, for regions and for workers as the world decarbonises. This recognises that the way in which we navigate economic transformation is as important as reaching the destination of a net-zero economy. As emissions-intensive industries and technologies decarbonise, the authority will help ensure Australians can access the opportunities new net-zero industries bring. I'm very excited about the opportunities new net-zero industries bring. I recently had the great privilege of visiting and meeting with scientists at the CSIRO in my electorate of Chisholm and hearing about the innovative discoveries and new technologies that are going to enable an exciting new future for our nation with plenty of good, secure, well-paying jobs. The Prime Minister has previously stated: There is no nation on earth better placed than Australia to achieve the energy transition here at home and power it in the world. The Net Zero Economy Authority will play an important role in one of the most significant economic events in Australian history and position us as a renewable energy superpower. This is really consistent, again, with what I heard just recently from scientists and experts in the field from the CSIRO. We are committed to working across governments with regional communities and industries and with our international partners to secure the opportunities of Australia's net zero future. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Renewable Energy 77 19:30 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Ausgrid and other New South Wales energy service providers will introduce new rooftop solar feed-in tariffs that will charge solar panel owners per kilowatt for exporting power to the grid during peak production time. This announcement sparked controversy this past week, including in my electorate of North Sydney. I admit this is not a simple issue. It raises complex questions and equity considerations, particularly about who should bear the additional network costs that come with high rooftop solar penetration. Certainly, some shock jocks have latched onto the story, misreporting some of the details and missing some of the facts. To me, what the debate highlights is that households must be at the centre of energy and climate policy and that more support from government should be directed towards helping households electrify and invest in energy storage. For context: the market rules that paved the way for these tariffs were actually introduced in August 2021 by the Australian Energy Market Commission. This national rule change was a necessary precursor to the changes which will be introduced in the next Australian energy regulator pricing review, in 2025. Ausgrid, Essential Energy and Endeavour Energy, in New South Wales, as well as Evoenergy, in the ACT, have all previously flagged their intentions to introduce solar export tariffs. Electricity networks are required to offer a choice of tariffs: a free basic service with a lower export threshold or a high-level service with unlimited exports most of the time but a network levy at some times. Owners can opt into an export tariff that suits them. The tariff is designed to move much of the energy use to the middle of the day to coincide with its peak generation, effectively squashing what is commonly referred to as the 'duck curve'; however, there has understandably been upset from solar owners who cannot afford the energy efficiency or storage solutions that would help them benefit from this tariff structure, and therein lies the problem. Managing solar exports well requires additional spending. You could have smart appliances that can be set to run at times of peak demand, but that costs money. You could have an efficient heat pump, hot water system or reverse-cycle air conditioning system, but that costs money. You could have hardware such as smart meters for consumption monitoring, but, again, that costs money. And there is the ultimate solution for optimising solar self-consumption, which would be a battery or electric vehicle. Both cost money. Certainly this outlay will be more than recouped by the energy cost savings over time, but the upfront spending is not insignificant. Just because a house has solar panels, that does not mean it will be able to afford these additional options. Many solar households have striven to do their part and contribute to the renewable transition, and it is fair to say that they should not be penalised simply because they cannot afford a battery or an electric vehicle. At the same time, the money to upgrade the grid to accommodate increasing amounts of rooftop solar while also keeping the grid running smoothly should not be borne by poorer, non-solar households, particularly when the issue is arguably the result of distributors failing to manage voltage. Clearly, more support is needed to get solar onto low-income households, including rental households, and to support the uptake of home and community batteries and energy-efficient measures so everyone can benefit from the energy transition. The federal budget was an opportunity to do this, but it fell disappointingly short. While it included welcome commitments to build clean energy manufacturing and improve the nation's electrical skill base, there was little for household electrification or to encourage the take-up of battery storage by households. According to analysis commissioned by Solar Citizens and conducted by the Australian PV Institute at the University of New South Wales, there is a massive $9.3 billion per year in potential cost savings for Australians if people living in apartments or houses with more space for solar panels were supported to install more rooftop solar. Let me repeat that: $9.3 billion worth of savings a year. Yet the budget delivered next to nothing for the millions of Australians who cannot afford the upfront investment to ditch expensive gas and petrol for cheap and healthy solar, EVs and electric appliances, and there was nothing to install a residential battery alongside rooftop solar or to better integrate community energy resources into the grid. The federal government should do more to help reduce the cost of the transition for households, and should remove barriers preventing households from installing solar panels, batteries and electric appliances, particularly in apartments. This is the cheapest and fastest way to bring down energy bills for everyone and eliminate expensive and polluting fossil fuels. Households must be at the centre of energy and climate policy. Foster, Mr Tony, AM, Mies, Mr Peter, Lyons Electorate: National Volunteer Week 78 19:35 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Tasmania's longest-serving local government mayor, Brighton Council's Tony Foster, died peacefully at the age of 81 yesterday, 27 May, after a short illness. Tony served on the council for 35 years, for 27 as mayor. He retired three years ago, aged 78, having overseen significant growth and development in the Brighton municipality. Tony's years of service to the community were recognised by an Order of Australia in 2005, upgraded to a Member of the Order of Australia in 2015. Tony was quietly spoken and always a gentleman to deal with. In his time as mayor he lobbied for and won hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state infrastructure funding, including for the Brighton Transport Hub, highway upgrades, the new Bridgewater Bridge and Brighton high school. Tony was a passionate advocate for better education. His legacy is a bigger, better Brighton that thousands of Tasmanians are flocking to. Tony is survived by his wife, Noeline, and sons Stephen and James, and he will be greatly missed by the Brighton community. Vale, Tony Foster. I also acknowledge Launceston City Football Club legend Peter Mies, who died two weeks ago. Peter recently turned 88, and he missed his first game in decades after becoming ill. Peter was born in the Netherlands, and he moved to northern Tasmania with his late wife, Christina. He helped build the Launceston club from the ground, helping create the soccer field that the club now calls home in Prospect Vale from wasteland. Peter's son, Roger, is also a club legend, and his grandchildren Noah and Olivia have played in the top tier of association football in Tasmania. His inspiration goes beyond his family, where he inspired generations of players to play in the iconic black and white stripes of his beloved club. Just 12 months before his passing, the Meander Valley Council helped fund a short film of Peter talking of his life in football, which is now a treasured piece of history for the family and the club. Vale Peter Mies; you will be missed by family and friends, and also by your club and the wider football community. Last week was National Volunteer Week, and on Wednesday I was invited to Brighton Council's Volunteer of the Year Awards for 2024, presented at the Civic Centre in Bridgewater. I acknowledge some of the fantastic volunteers who were acknowledged for their incredible contributions to the community. The Community Event of the Year was won by the Tea Tree Community Hall committee for their 200th birthday celebrations. The Young Volunteer of the Year was awarded to Stevie Coe for her work across multiple Smith Family Learning Clubs in the community, offering free afterschool tutoring. Community Volunteer of the Year was awarded to Caroline Bedelph from the Brighton Community Food Hub. Caroline and the food hub team tirelessly source low-cost food and grocery items so families have access to affordable food via the hub, and she graciously accepted that award on the entire team's behalf. Brighton Mayor, Leigh Gray—who took over from Tony Foster—was also able to formally acknowledge local award winners from the Keep Australia Beautiful national awards, presented in Gascoyne Junction in WA earlier this month. The Dame Phyllis Frost award was awarded to Joselle Griffin from Australian Red Cross Tasmania. A Bridgewater local, Joselle embodies community empowerment through participatory approaches rooted in her Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage. As a place-based worker at the Red Cross, she tirelessly champions asset-based community development, fostering grassroots initiatives like the food hub. Highly commended in the young achievers category was the Brighton Youth Action Group—this is a group of young people who are simply amazing, and it has been a real privilege to be invited to a number of their events and to witness their ongoing growth and confidence. Huge congratulations to all the nominees and winners. I'm sure that every member of the House agrees that volunteers in this country are the beating heart of all our communities. They make a lasting impact on people's lives. I know many of us—all of us, perhaps—would've been involved in Volunteer Week last week, and we thank each and every volunteer across the wide spread of organisations for all the incredible work they do and the contributions they make. They are absolutely invaluable. Longman Electorate: Infrastructure 79 19:40 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I would like to raise the issue of what can only be described as flagrant pork-barrelling by the current Labor government. As one of the fastest-growing areas of new dwellings in Australia, the electorate of Longman is crying out for infrastructure funding from all levels of government. The City of Moreton Bay council handle most small projects, but larger projects require, mainly, state government assistance and, at times, federal government assistance. But where the federal government takes full responsibility is mobile coverage, and here the federal Labor government are letting the people of Longman down badly. Under the coalition government, Longman received funding and approval for eight additional mobile towers under the blackspot and peri-urban mobile programs—programs designed for fast-growing electorates just like Longman. In contrast, under this government the good people of Longman received funding for zero much-needed new towers. All funding for new towers was in Labor electorates. To rub salt into the wound, in the fine print in the budget we see that combined funding for these programs is being reduced from $76 million next year to $49 million in 2025-26, then to $22 million in 2026-27 and zero in 2027-28. This is despite demand growing—in no small part due to their crazy immigration policy. So I say to Labor: if you're going to increase immigration in this way, you have a responsibility to ensure that the services needed are provided. Infrastructure is crucial to the Longman electorate. As we speak, the Caboolture West precinct is underway. This housing development will provide 30,000 homes to house approximately 70,000 people. To put this in perspective, this is the same size as the city of Mackay in North Queensland. That's right, this one housing estate is the size of Mackay. Of course, I welcome any initiative that will help ease the housing crisis we are currently enduring. One of the critical pieces of infrastructure needed for this Caboolture West development is the Caboolture River Road-Buchanan Road project, which will give residents easier access to the Bruce Highway, or M1. This project will four-lane Caboolture River Road to Morayfield Road and will then provide a bridge that spans over half a kilometre, traversing a block of shops, a bowling alley and a train line, and finally connects to Buchanan Road. It, too, will be transformed into four lanes right through to the M1. I was proud at the last election to be able to secure the commitment that, if the coalition won government, we would contribute $110 million towards this $210 million project. Sadly, Labor chose not to match this commitment if they were elected, so the current and future residents of Caboolture West missed out on this vital piece of infrastructure being rolled out in advance. This is a new concept for government, I know. Of course, two years on we know that this project will now cost in excess of $250 million. I implore this government to not neglect the people of Longman and to match the election commitment I made, as it's the right thing to do. Exit 150 on the M1 is simply inadequate. This exit, which services Morayfield and Caboolture residents via Buchanan Road to the west and the exploding new residential estate of North Harbour and the upcoming industrial estate to the east, exceeded its capacity many years ago. It must be upgraded to the same type of exit as the previous coalition government funded at New Settlement Road, Narangba, and Boundary Road, Dakabin, to the south. We simple cannot continue to ignore the needs and safety of these residents, as this exit is congested every day of the week. Oftentimes the offramp is backed up to the highway, which is simply unacceptable. One of the great Australian traditions is that many Australians reward themselves with a social drink after a hard day at work. I'm not condoning excessive or irresponsible drinking here—I want to stress that. I'm talking about those who just enjoy a relaxing drink, whether it be a glass of shiraz or sauv blanc, a beer or a Bundy and Coke, this little treat is becoming more and more of an unaffordable luxury for these hardworking Australians. We have some of the highest taxes and excises on alcohol in the world. In fact, we are the third highest in the world on spirits. To put this in perspective, in my home state of Queensland, arguably our favourite spirit, Bundy rum, has $38 of taxes and duties taken out of the purchase price of $60 on every 700-millilitre bottle. That is well over half the purchase price going to taxes and excise. This is simply outrageous and it needs to stop. We need to not only freeze any increases in alcohol taxes and excise; we need to reduce them and let Australians unwind and relax with a drink after a working week, because they have earned it and deserve it. Cybersecurity 80 19:45 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce If I was giving this speech 20 years ago, the focus would be on warning Australians, especially older people, against falling prey to door-to-door salespeople pushing a scam or products they don't need. I'll never forget my mum's reaction when we visited my grandpa one Sunday. It was after my grandma had died. To use the technical term, she lost her mind at him when she realised that he'd fallen prey to a door-to-door carpet salesman who'd sold him massively overpriced, crappy carpet that was put through every square centimetre of the house, including around the toilet, which was not ideal for an elderly gentleman living alone and struggling with his own cleaning. You can imagine the visuals yourselves. If I was giving this speech 10 years ago, the focus would be on warning people against telemarketing scams and giving credit card and personal information over the phone. These things are still a problem, but, today, they are dwarfed by the scale of the losses Australians are incurring through online scams. They come in all shapes and sizes, the modern-day criminal syndicate. Most of it is highly organised crime. Scammers are determined and also creative. The majority of scams are investment related. If an investment sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true and is not true. There are stellar returns and also a sense of urgency—you're told you've got get in now to get the returns. I heard from the National Anti-Scam Centre recently that that psychological pressure, the fake urgency that is created with deadlines and missed opportunities, is part of their toolkit. Some of the scams are almost little comical. I do accept that the Nigerian princess doesn't want to marry me if only I send money for the plane ticket. I'm pretty sure that I didn't win lotto and don't need to give my bank account details. I often get invited to give my details about a Commonwealth Bank account that I don't have and so on. But it is a deadly serious issue, which is why the government is taking it seriously. There's good news, though. We don't always do good news here. But both the dollar value lost and the number of people scammed in Australia are now falling for the first time in a decade. Losses are down from $3.1 billion. Last year, Australians lost $2.7 billion to scams. This year, it's tracking a lot lower just in the first quarter. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and particularly the Assistant Treasurer for their work on implementing a serious anti-scams policy. It's something the Assistant Treasurer personally worked on and drove in opposition. It came out of forums from around the country, from listening to Australians. It's a really good, cost-effective policy, and it's working. The National Anti-Scam Centre is up and running. The SMS Sender ID Registry to prevent scammers using trusted government or industry brand names is in place. ASIC, the corporate regulator, has been given resources to go after investment scam websites. They've already taken more than 5,000 scam websites down. There are mandatory industry codes coming for banks, telcos, social media, digital messaging, search ad services and so on, with legislation to be introduced over the next financial year to give effect to those codes in a legal form. The ATO, the tax office, is taking action to stop fraudsters. The government's determination and action comes with a considered policy developed in opposition. Unlike that mob, we used our time in opposition to good effect. We developed—I'm glad those opposite are sitting down!—actual, real policies to respond to a problem and make things better. We are implementing them and they are working. There's a tip for free. Anger and negativity is not a plan. Anger and negativity is not a strategy to make the country better. But there's only so much the Australian government can do on scams, of course. This is highly organised crime, and we need to work with our international partners and collaborate globally. It requires a regional approach. Many scammers are organised criminal outfits in Myanmar, Cambodia, Eastern Europe and so on. Often, shockingly and shamefully, they are run and perpetrated by people who have been trafficked, who are bound and bonded in slavery and torture. Countries like Cambodia and others need to take this far more seriously. We work with Interpol, we work through our cybersecurity agencies, through the AFP and so on. The final thing I want to say is that community response and action is important. I encourage everyone in the community to speak up to report a scam they're experiencing, because it's only with that intelligence that our law enforcement agencies and the National Anti-Scam Centre can do their job more effectively. Budget 81 19:50 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson The budget went over like a lead balloon. The budget left the entire nation feeling like they were stuck in the middle of the ocean without a life raft, barely keeping their heads above water. Australians all over the country are exhausted from the past two years and they're just trying to stay afloat. Those living and working in my electorate of Dawson are tired; they're tired of trying to navigate and survive this Labor-government-created cost-of-living crisis. They're tired of the false promises and they're tired of being ignored, forgotten and punished simply for living in a regional area. Through no fault of their own, the people of my electorate are having their dignity ripped away from them. We're seeing a new class emerge: the working poor, the working homeless, the working starving. We can forget about the great Australian dream of home ownership; there are entire families in my electorate who have lost their homes due this Labor-created cost-of-living crisis. There are entire families who must now sleep in their cars, sleep in the streets or sleep in tents. Even this is going to be more difficult, due to the Prime Minister's new farm or family car and ute tax, which is going to see the cost of cars skyrocket. Parents are now having to make decisions on whether to feed themselves or feed their children. The elderly must now choose between paying their rent, buying their groceries or buying the life-saving medication they need every single day. The Albanese Labor government-created cost-of-living crisis has gotten so bad that families, couples and individuals are being forced to surrender their pets to rescue and rehoming organisations because they can no longer feed themselves, let alone their beloved animals. These are families, couples and individuals who, even though they have a job, are being forced to visit neighbourhood centres, charity organisations and food banks just in order to survive. Mackay's Neighbourhood Hub is now taking 12,000 Mackay residents each year. To put that in perspective for everyone in this room, that's close to 10 per cent of Mackay's population. Such soul-destroying experiences are not uncommon. The people in my electorate of Dawson are struggling. They're struggling because, for some, their last power bill has gone up more than 50 per cent in relation to the same period last year. This is despite the Prime Minister promising 97 times that they'd see a $275 reduction in their power bills. They're struggling because we've seen interest rates rise 12 times under Labor. We've seen the worst inflation of any developed country around the world. This Labor government have betrayed our fishers, they've deserted our miners, they neglected our farmers, they've hammered our tradies and they've abandoned our families. The good news is that there's an alternative: the great Peter Dutton has a vision for Australia and, if elected, will bring our country back on track. A coalition government will curb inflationary spending; remove the regulatory roadblocks that are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead; condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing our mining jobs; remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on business; extend the value of assets for the instant asset write off to $30,000 and make this ongoing for small business; and provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn. A coalition government will deliver reliable, consistent, clean power by adding zero emissions nuclear power into the energy mix, speeding up approvals and unlocking gas in key basins. There is much more that a coalition government will do for the people of Australia, for the people of my electorate of Dawson. Australia cannot afford another three years under the Albanese Labor government. National Reconciliation Week 81 19:55 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan 'Now more than ever'—that is the theme for National Reconciliation Week. It's a reminder that, despite setbacks and disappointments, we must stand together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to build a better future for all Australians. Now more than ever, Australians have an opportunity to fully understand our First Nations history. If you think about it, we need to know where we've come from to know where we're going. National Reconciliation Week provides an opportunity to learn about our history, culture and achievements. There are different ways people can get involved in learning about this culture. That could be taking a language class, such as what's happening in my community of Swan on Thursday. There are Noongar classes run by Dylan Collard at the Vic Park Community Centre. Dylan is a proud Whadjuk and Ballardong Noongar man and also a Vic Park local resident, primary school teacher and language expert. These classes are being held at the lovely Vic Park Community Centre, which is in the heart of my neighbourhood. They have a number of different experiences and community activities. It's a gorgeous, inclusive, innovative and vibrant hub of activity, and I congratulate them for the work that they do that is above and beyond. For the classes in Noongar that are running this term at the Vic Park Community Centre, children get to go along for free. They learn Noongar language and culture through a range of fun games, songs, craft activities and storytelling. Other activities for Reconciliation Week in WA include a together walk, which is happening on Friday across the river at Langley Park. The thing that I also love having the opportunity to do is listen to stories or storytelling. I note we stand on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country, and I recognise that every grain of sand has a story that spans tens of thousands of years. It's only by sharing stories that we get to increase our understanding and history, that we can come together as a nation. I will say that learning about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history should not stop at the end of the week. There are so many opportunities to embrace Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and history. I'm grateful to local elders in my community who give up their time to foster this learning. My good friend and neighbour is local Aboriginal elder Simon Forrest. Simon delivered a moving welcome to country last week at Optus Stadium, as part of the AFL Sir Doug Nicholls Round. It was a sellout crowd to watch the almighty Waalitj Marawar defeat Kuwarna. People could hear the roar from kilometres away when Waalitj Marawar won the game. It was the same Simon Forrest who took a small group of Swan locals to Mogumber earlier this year, on 13 January—which happens to be my wedding anniversary. It was a really special wedding anniversary, and I felt really privileged to have the opportunity to spend time in places where a lot of hurt had happened for Aboriginal elders in the past. But the thing that's amazing is you don't necessarily have to go on a bus trip to learn the history. Missions Connect, at Curtin University, has some really innovative technology. They've managed to create a virtual reality world where people that have spent time in orphanages, the stolen generation, have the ability to basically scaffold places where they spent their childhood and tell stories without necessarily having to go and travel kilometres away. This is one of the things they've done with Mogumber. It's not the same as the real thing, but it's pretty close and pretty time efficient. It was a four-year-long project that was directed by the views of the stolen generation survivors and their families. The goal was to transform the mission sites of Mogumber-Moore River Native Settlement into healing spaces for survivors. It's a way to engage the WA community to learn about WA's stolen generation history. I encourage every person in my community to embrace opportunities to learn how we continue to grow and heal alongside our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 82 NOTICES Presentation 82

Tuesday, 28 May 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms McKenzie ) took the chair at 15:59.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 86 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Climate Change 86 15:59 Ms 286042 Wentworth SPENDER () (): 2023 was the hottest year on record, and these records are already being broken in the first few months of 2024. The climate crisis is accelerating and the world's top climate scientists recently told us they expect global temperatures to blast past 2.5 degrees, causing catastrophic damage to our planet. To avert the worst impacts of climate crisis, we have to get off fossil fuels, we have to stop opening new coal and gas projects, and we need to move as quickly as possible to renewables. And yet, despite the commitments Labor made during the election, despite saying they want to hold COP31 in Australia, despite spruiking a Future Made in Australia based on green industries, Labor are proposing to expand the fossil fuel industry through the Future Gas Strategy. This document is practically written by the gas industry. It is a political strategy to keep seats in Western Australia. It is not a strategy that is based on climate science or energy economics, and it's so disappointing for everyone who voted for stronger climate action at the last election. Nobody is suggesting that we stop using gas tomorrow. We will continue to use gas for several years. But the truth is that gas is expensive, it is polluting and when it's used in the home it can be bad for our health. And, frankly, it's on the way out. Gas use for electricity has halved in the last decade. It generates less than five per cent of electricity in the national energy market. And in the last quarter of 2023, gas-fired generation was the lowest on record since 2000. We should be planning for a future that minimises gas use, not opening up major new projects. And for those who claim we have a gas shortage in Australia, let's look at the facts. We export three-quarters of our gas overseas, and more gas is used in processing these exports than in our entire manufacturing sector. We don't have a gas shortage. We have some challenges in getting the gas we have to the right places, but this must not be used as an excuse for opening up major new projects for export and providing more than $1 billion in subsidies for fracking in the Beetaloo Basin. The government had options for a future gas strategy. They could have used it to introduce new measures to reduce gas demand, like ending gas connections to new homes and accelerating home electrification. They could have used it to make sure Australians get value for money whenever resources are sold overseas by strengthening the petroleum rent resources tax. They could have used it to ensure that Australians are not forced to pay sky-high international prices for their own resource. But they haven't. It's the same story from the major parties—more fossil fuel projects; more climate pollution—and huge disappoint for those who hoped for better. Invasive Species Management: Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer 86 16:02 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Western Australia has a new enemy. This one is not political, it does not play sport and, like a submarine, it is very hard to detect. This new enemy is the polyphagous shot hole borer. More and more Western Australians are learning what a massive biosecurity risk this beetle from South-East Asia is to Australia. This invasive beetle is just two millimetres long and it's on a rampage from Fremantle to Perth and a number of suburbs in between. This borer infects trees with a fungus which stops trees being able to transfer water and nutrients. Already I'm seeing in my electorate trees in people's backyards being chopped to the ground. In Hyde Park, a loved Perth park in the middle of our city, we're looking at some hundreds of trees being removed. Sadly, Kings Park and its trees that have outlived the Bond Corporation, trees that were here before colour television, trees that have provided shade for family picnics for decades is also on the chopping block. What we know now is that some 400 plants can host this beetle. Some 100 are reproductive hosts and, sadly, 28 are Australian native species. It was first detected in Fremantle in August 2021 and, since October 2022, there has been a National Management Group plan. It is clear that we cannot be complacent on this, and that our community has to act fast. I'm a measured person who dislikes alarmists, but this borer beetle is a pandemic for Western Australia's trees. And, as hard as it is, I support the actions to remove the infested trees. Indeed, we need the state and local governments to move as fast as possible. There is not a day to waste. I will very happily get my chainsaw out if I need to, because without swift action WA faces massive economic disruption. In California, the cost of this beetle is estimated at some $15.9 billion. That's enough to build 16 brand new hospitals. I've raised our community's concerns with local, state and federal government representatives because we need more action to stop this pest. If we don't our local parks turn to dust bowls, the WA agriculture sector shrinks and we see trees dying in our local streets. There is, however, a little bit of hope and action we can take. To protect our agricultural sector, there is already a ban on wood movement outside the Perth metropolitan area. Residents are also being asked to learn to identify this bug. Thankfully, some of our smartest researchers at the University of Western Australia and the CSIRO are looking at what new treatment options are available. I wish them every success. Fast action and a community response now is the only way to ensure that Perth's tree canopy is there for the next generation of Western Australians and that this invasive beetle does not affect the rest of Australia. Wordsworth, Major-General Robert Harley, CB, CBE 87 16:05 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Just before Anzac Day I stepped across the electorate boundary into Lyons to speak at the launch of the book Lastof the cavalrymen: memoirs of Major General Robert Harley Wordsworth, edited by his daughter Ana Scarf and granddaughter Charlotte Scarf. It was a great honour to be invited to launch the book, and it was a lovely afternoon in the grounds of historic Hagley House, listening to the reflections on his extraordinary life, edited from his own recorded recollections in this fine book. Robert Harley Wordsworth was born on 21 July 1894 in New South Wales, the son of William and Robena. After he left school he joined the local militia at Cowra, serving in the 41st Infantry and then the 9th Light Horse. At the outbreak of World War I he was commissioned as second lieutenant in the 1st Light Horse Regiment, AIF. He fought at Gallipoli and then in Palestine. At the conclusion of the war he joined a cavalry regiment in the Indian Army. He served in two campaigns on the north-west frontier of India, serving again during World War II. Mentioned in despatches, Wordsworth was appointed CBE in 1943 and CB in 1945. Wordsworth retired from the Indian Army in 1947 and settled on a farm near Westbury in northern Tasmania, continuing his love of sporting pursuits such as polo and fly-fishing. He stood unsuccessfully at the state election in 1948 in the seat of Wilmot, now Lyons, and then agreed to attempt the Senate in 1949 and was successful. He served as a Liberal senator for Tasmania until 1959. Wordsworth considered his 10 years as a senator the unhappiest of his life, soldiering having been his profession. 'A soldier,' he wrote, 'is trained to be concise in speech and to act quickly and decisively,' while, 'a politician must be a talker above all else.' He came to abhor uninformed criticism, particularly in debate. After his parliamentary career he served as Administrator of Norfolk Island. Ana did suggest to me, ahead of the launch, that perhaps I'd like to ponder on the life of a politician today compared to the 1950s when her father began his almost 10-year political career. Although we're generations apart and politics today is markedly different to when Senator Wordsworth represented the people of Tasmania as a Liberal senator, I was pleasantly surprised to find that we had a lot more in common than I had first thought. It's a great book and a remarkable life. Congratulations to Ana and Charlotte in bringing to life his entertaining and amazing life adventures. The book is published by Forty South Tasmania. Budget 87 16:07 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand When we were elected, Prime Minister Albanese he said that under our government no Australian would be held back and no Australian would be left behind. That's why the 2024 federal budget delivers responsible cost-of-living relief for Australians who are under pressure now, while also making the investments we need to take advantage of a future made in Australia. There's no better example of the way that we are doing this than vocational and higher education. The 2024 budget reduces financial barriers to training and education, while also providing cost-of-living relief to Australians who are studying and upskilling. From July 2025 eligible students will be able to access over $300 per week to help manage the cost of going on practical placements while studying. It's an initiative that invests in our aspiring teachers, nurses, social workers and more. It's an initiative that will deliver a pipeline of frontline health workers and highly trained educators to deliver the health and education services that Australians rely on. It's an initiative that will benefit over 16,000 students in Victoria, including many in my own community in Melbourne's west. We're also increasing the number of fee-free TAFE courses and increasing financial support available to apprentices in the new energy and construction sectors. We're investing in the workforce that we need for a future made in Australia, investing in the skills that Australians will need to grow the industries of the future in our country—clean energy and the green economy—industries like battery and solar panel manufacturing, green hydrogen production and critical minerals extraction and refining. We're investing in the skills of the tradies that we need to help build more affordable housing and to help get a generation into the housing market, all while directly benefiting some of the 2,400 apprentices in my electorate. We are also wiping out nearly $3 billion in student debt for university students and graduates and implementing reforms to ensure that student debt never grows faster than your wages. Our student debt changes will deliver cost-of-living relief to over three million Australians, including over 21,000 people in my electorate in Melbourne's west. Of course, on top of these specific vocational and higher education initiatives, every taxpayer in Melbourne's west will receive a tax cut on 1 July, and every household will receive a $300 energy rebate. The 2024 budget is a Labor budget because it benefits every Australian, not just some Australians and not just now but also in the future. It delivers responsible cost-of-living relief for households who are under pressure in Melbourne's west today, while also making the investments that we need to set us up for the future. We know that there's more to do, though, and I will keep working every day in my community and in this building to keep delivering for all Australians. Moncrieff Electorate: Schools 88 16:10 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Since the beginning of 2024 and the school year, I've been visiting many schools to present school leaders with certificates and to engage in discussions about leadership skills. In the heart of the Gold Coast, Moncrieff is home to 33 schools, 20 of which I have had the privilege to visit so far this year. I love to sit down with the senior class cohorts and discuss all things leadership, goal-setting, dreams and aspirations for life after school, and to see if I can help them in any way possible. I'm inspired by our youth, with their informed questions about Canberra and my role as their federal member and shadow minister for youth. It was indeed a pleasure to answer their questions, be present in their lives and educate them a little bit more on Australia's democratic processes. The year 6 or years 11 and 12 students were very inquisitive, and our interactions are always very candid, with nothing off-limits. Many students asked about my favourite part of the job, and of course that's an easy answer, which is: engaging, indeed, with them and my Gold Coast community that I love so dearly. During each school visit, I touched on what I believe are the three Ls of leadership: listening, learning and leading by example. It is important, as a leader, to actively hear what people say and to understand what they really mean. I also outlined that learning doesn't just stop when you finish school. It goes far beyond that, into tertiary study, into a trade or indeed into a job. We should all never stop learning. Hopefully, all of us here in this place listen to the three Ls of leadership. The third, and lucky last, is leading by example. Young people cannot be what they cannot see. So the examples that we set are the showcase for these young leaders. I always encourage young people to make up their own minds, when they see and hear their leaders, as to whether they think they are good or not, and they, of course, take that on board. I also talk about the ABC of life, which I consider to be that your attitude affects your behaviour and that your behaviour then affects the consequences of that, good or bad. Another key reminder that I talk about is to say yes to any opportunity that young people have in front of them, even if they are nervous or they feel that they are out of their comfort zone, because we all know that that is when young people grow and learn. That is when older people grow and learn as well. Time doesn't always permit me to visit all of the schools across the central Gold Coast at the beginning of the year, so, to all of those schools in the heart of the Gold Coast: I congratulate your school leaders and I wish you all the very best for the rest of your year. I am so very proud of your achievements. Your role is critical to those around you who rely on you to lead the way to a better future. HMAS Armidale 88 16:13 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak about an issue that's very important to me and, I think, to our nation, and that is the loss of the HMAS Armidale north of Darwin, between Darwin and Timor-Leste, or East Timor, in late 1942. On 24 November 1942, Allied land force headquarters approved the relief and the reinforcement of the Australian commandos of the 2/2nd Independent Company, which was, at that time, holding out in Japanese-occupied Portuguese Timor, as it was at that time. Members may remember me talking about a film that I made for Channel 9 called A Debt of Honour about these men. They were truly incredible Australians. The Armidale and another corvette, HMAS Castlemaine, and a smaller naval vessel, the Kuru, departed Darwin to conduct the ship-to-shore operations for that reinforcement, from a place called Betano on the south coast of East Timor—what's now called Timor-Leste. Around 3 pm on 1 December, HMAS Armidale was attacked by no fewer than nine Japanese enemy bombers, three fighters and a floatplane. The fighters split up and came in at low level, strafing HMAS Armidale's decks with machine-gun fire. With her gunners thus distracted, the torpedo bombers mounted their attacks from different directions as HMAS Armidale's Captain Richards manoeuvred desperately to avoid those torpedoes. However, the ship was hit twice by torpedoes and immediately keeled over to port. As well as the Australian sailors and soldiers, there were two British sailors and 65 Dutch East Indies personnel on board. Many of those were soldiers from Java. In total, 102 souls were lost with the sinking of the Armidale, and it's well past time that we had a monument to all those who lost their lives and to the rest of the 151 Australians and allies that were aboard the Armidale at that time. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:16 to 16:41 Mr GOSLING 245392 Darwin would be the most appropriate place to have a permanent memorial to these men, and I support every effort by the Remembering HMAS Armidale Association to achieve that aim. Members may remember when the members for Lyons and Braddon and I rose to our feet in this place in support of Teddy Sheean when he was denied the Victoria Cross. Alongside many others, we called for a review, by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, of the decision. Teddy Sheean got his well-deserved VC for defending his Armidale shipmates in the water, and they should all get their memorial. Live Animal Exports 89 16:42 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The Albanese Labor government recently announced that it was going to shut down the WA live sheep trade from May 2028. This decision was not backed by science. It was not backed by legitimate animal welfare concerns. Instead, it was all about politics and ensuring the Labor hold on inner-city seats in Sydney and Melbourne. On Wednesday, I attended a very important roundtable discussion in Perth with key live export industry stakeholders, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for O'Connor and Senator Brockman. The Leader of the Opposition has done what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have failed to do. The Leader of the Opposition has taken time to sit down, listen and engage with this very important Western Australian industry. I'd like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for listening to the members of my community and for reiterating his support for the live sheep trade. An important point that the Prime Minister would know, if he bothered to listen to the concerns of regional Western Australians, is that it isn't just farmers who will be impacted by the end of this trade come 2028. During our roundtable, we heard from members of the transport industry and the shearing industry. They made it clear that this decision will mean less work in WA regional communities. Just think of the trickle-down effect that this ban would have on regional towns. It would mean less money going through local businesses and will ultimately force people out of towns. This means fewer children enrolled in schools and sporting clubs becoming unviable. We also heard from the live cattle exporters from my electorate of Durack, and I want to thank them for coming along to this very important meeting. They understand that they will be the next target of this antifarming, anti-WA government. The activists have already shifted their focus to the live cattle trade, and we all know that Labor is prepared to sell out regional WA communities to pander to the inner-city activists or to the microparties like the Animal Justice Party. Regional Western Australians were clear that banning this trade would be crossing a red line. Those opposite thought that they could make this decision and that there would be no political consequences. I'm very glad to inform this chamber that our agricultural sector and farmers aren't going to give up without a fight, and the Labor government is about to feel the power of regional Western Australians. This Friday, thousands of Western Australians will come together to launch the Keep the Sheep campaign. We'll see up to 1,000 vehicles, mostly farm vehicles and tractors, involved in a rally spanning Perth. The purpose of this campaign is to inform the people of Perth and the whole of Western Australia how Western Australian farmers and regional communities are being ignored and attacked by this Albanese Labor government. The message from regional WA and our agricultural industry is clear: keep the sheep. Infrastructure 89 16:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa We hear a lot about infrastructure. No newspaper, TV or radio bulletin fails to mention the term on a daily basis. It's a term bandied about with, at times, little thought to what it actually is or means. I thought I would begin my contribution with the definition from the Cambridge dictionary: the basic systems and services, such as transport and power supplies, that a country or organisation users in order to work effectively. Working off that definition, I am proud that this government, the Albanese Labor government, is delivering infrastructure in spades to my part of Western Sydney. It is delivering genuinely needed basic services that will allow Western Sydney, the third largest economy in Australia, to work effectively, and that's something that wasn't delivered under previous New South Wales and federal governments. Let me take a few minutes of the chamber's time to paint a picture of the government's commitment to basic transport infrastructure in my part of the world. It's a picture of substance over spin and deliverables over vain press releases. Let me begin with the announcement on 6 May by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The announcement committed $1.9 billion towards 14 new projects and additional funding for two existing projects. The new projects provide solutions for traffic and transport bottlenecks all over Western Sydney, including Mamre Road, Mulgoa Road, Elizabeth Drive, Garfield Road, Memorial Avenue and Appin Road. Anyone familiar with peak-hour traffic congestion will sadly know each of these roads and how desperately they need the investment. Further, the announcement on 6 May committed $20 million to partner with the New South Wales government to expand the scope of the South West Rail plan and business case to include consideration of expanding the line to the Macarthur region. On top of the $1.9 billion for new construction projects, the announcement also committed an additional $147 million in funding for planning projects and $70 million in additional Australian government funding for existing projects. It's an impressive package. Moreover, it's a package that will deliver real solutions for those who call Western Sydney home. It will help get children to school on time and commuters to work on time. It will help the transport industry to keep things moving and, in general, help Western Sydney to grow into the economic powerhouse that it is. The commitments to my part of Western Sydney underline that the landscape of Western Sydney is changing for the better, and they show that our government has a commitment to our community and has listened to the advocacy over the last eight years. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 90 16:48 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn In April, I hosted guest speaker and noted environmentalist Steven Nowakowski for an open discussion on Central Queensland's energy future including wind, solar, coal fired power and nuclear. It was an important opportunity for the communities of Gladstone, Biloela and Gracemere to have their say about the future of energy in their region. Over 230 people attended these three forums and were able to listen to Steven's presentation and insights on this topic of energy, including his concerns that the hurried employment of large-scale wind and solar projects might lead to the degradation of high-biodiversity landscapes and the loss of wildlife. When the ABC's Four Corners program informed me that they were going to attend these energy forums and shine a light on the issues affecting Central Queensland, I was surprised. My staff changed the three-day itinerary to accommodate them. I invited them to my Gladstone office for a sit-down interview, and I also had an interview with them after the Gladstone energy forum. It quickly became abundantly clear that they did not care about the issues that affect Central Queensland. They did not once ask for contact details of residents affected by large-scale wind and solar projects. All they wanted to focus on was personality politics. The story they wanted to run was, 'Why on earth is a coal-supporting conservative hanging out with a tree-hugging former Greens candidate?' I'll answer that question: it's because people from both sides, the Left and Right of politics, are concerned about what the reckless rollout of renewables means for the communities, the native flora and fauna and the environment. The following day I politely told the team at ABC Four Corners that we would go our separate ways due to their inability to present an objective story on the issues rather than obsessively focusing on personalities. Later that day Four Corners presented at my Gladstone office while Steven and I continued our scheduled itinerary. They disrupted my team by filming footage of their journalist walking in and out of my Gladstone office, obviously to salvage and conclude their botched lack of a story. Recently we have also seen the ABC's chief political correspondent, Laura Tingle, launch an extraordinary attack on Australia, declaring it a racist country. Two months ago, ABC Chair Kim Williams warned journalists that activism was not welcome at the taxpayer funded broadcaster and said that, if reporters failed to observe impartiality, they should leave. I hope the team at Four Corners and Ms Tingle are packing their bags, as there is no place for radical left-wing views at taxpayer expense. People want and deserve objective journalism from the ABC. Chisholm Electorate: Small Business, Chisholm Electorate: Story House Early Learning 90 16:51 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm It is so important that we shop local, love local and support our local businesses, and I've been working with our local community in Chisholm to encourage support for some terrific local businesses. It means so much to local businesses when we choose to shop local. I've heard from local businesses about what shopping local means to them. Melissa from Soundfair Hearing Centre in Mount Waverley told me that shopping local strengthened our community. Maria and Maria from Tinta Crayons in Burwood told me that shopping local means that they can keep doing what they love. Ben and Jerry's at Burwood Brickworks shared with me that they have supported over 60 local young people with their first jobs. Dorothy from Young and Foolish in Wheelers Hill told me that, when people shop local, it creates jobs for locals and supports local suppliers. Tristan from Natural Science Wine and Liquor in Blackburn told me that, when people shop local, they are choosing to have the most impact with their spend. Johnson from The Roe Australia in Glen Waverley told me that shopping local is about investing in the heartbeat of our community. I encourage everyone to shop local and love local today and every day. In Chisholm, we are lucky to have some incredible early learning centres, and recently I had the great pleasure of visiting Story House Early Learning in Mount Waverley to deliver some flags. I delivered three flags—the Australian, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags—and I had a lovely morning with the children and their wonderful early childhood educators. They knew a lot about the flags themselves and were telling me about them. I was able to present the flags, and they were received with great pride. I was really touched, too, that the children made me a really beautiful card with drawings, and I'm very grateful for that. It now has pride of place in my office. One of my favourite moments of the visit was speaking to the children about what they had illustrated for me on the card and why and what their favourite colours were. It was really wonderful to see what they'd been learning with your educators at the early learning centre. I want to take this opportunity to thank the brilliant early childhood educators in my community for their important work educating and caring for the youngest residents in Chisholm, and I want to say to them: your work is important, you deserve a pay rise, and I'm so glad that this has been recognised in our budget. I look forward to visiting early childhood educators and children in our electorate again really soon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 124514 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 91 BILLS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 91

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

Second Reading 91 16:54 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'll rehash some figures I mentioned before my speech was interrupted. I do support the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. I think we all in this place want to see the end of illegal logging because we know that those logging practices, domestically or internationally, are not sustainable, unlike the native hardwood industry not just in New South Wales but in other states and territories, with the exception of Western Australia and Victoria, which I'll speak about in a moment. These are the facts that people need to listen to. In New South Wales alone there are 20 million hectares of state forest. Some 30,000 hectares are available for selective logging. That is less than one per cent or 14 out of every 10,000 trees. So these claims that there's widespread destruction with these sustainable logging practices are just not true. What we have seen in Victoria is the Victorian government decimating an industry overnight. My colleague and friend the member for Gippsland has for months and months and months fiercely represented his community and championed the sustainable practices that his local timber harvesters employ. But the Daniel Andrews government not only shut down that industry but brought forward the closure of that industry by a number of years, giving those in the industry, locals, mums and dads and business owners zero time to go out and plan for the future. Thousands and thousands of jobs were gone overnight. The member for Gippsland is out there fighting for them every single day. Given the opportunity—and I appreciate it was the state law in that case—we will work with any government to reinstate a practical, sustainable timber industry, but I expect that by then it will be too little too late. They've tried it here as well in New South Wales. The North East Forest Alliance challenged the regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states, trying to say that the agreements were not valid. So what they were doing was trying to take the first step to shutting down the industry in New South Wales. The industry in New South Wales is worth more than $1.8 billion to the economy—this is just in New South Wales, not across Australia—and employs 9,000 people, 5,000 of whom are in my electorate. Thank God for Justice Perry in the Federal Court. She vindicated the sustainable practices of our timber workers in New South Wales, and she found in favour of the timber workers and the forestry agreements. If she had taken the other view, then we would have seen 9,000 people out of jobs—instantly. As for the Environmental Defenders Office, we heard the opposition leader only recently, in the last budget reply, saying, 'We will defund them.' It makes absolutely no sense that the federal government gives an organisation money to sue the federal government. That's an absurdity in itself. It is not in a logger's best interest to negatively impact their environment. How could it be? The creation and management of thriving forests is literally what keeps them employed and keeps them profitable, not just in the short term but for the decades and generations to come. Let's look backwards because we haven't seen deforestation and destruction, and we have been doing this for generation after generation since the early 1800s. I mention this with a particular focus on sustainable native hardwoods. Sustainable native hardwood practices are not deforestation. These practices are not land clearing. They are not irreversible. Our local native timber harvesters are positively impacting emissions through the planting of native saplings, and they are responsible for managing local forests and protecting them from pests and introduced species as they are contributing to biodiversity outcomes. A true environmental zealot would be screaming this from the rooftops, would be telling their communities how important it is to have native saplings that absorb the CO2, that improve the bushland, that improve the sustainability of our native hardwood industry. So, I ask cabinet members to accept the continued offer from the member for Gippsland—and also from me—to come and see this for yourself: go down to Gippsland or come up to Dorrigo and have a look at these best and world-leading practices that are occurring right now—well, not now in Victoria, because they've killed it. But come up to Dorrigo and see what's on the floor in your house, see what is building the houses around Australia. I noticed today that a report came out saying that the timber hardwood industry can build 50,000 homes a year through sustainable practices. Why wouldn't you engage with them? Why wouldn't you say, 'That's fantastic; this is a great resource'? Now that they've shut the industry down in Victoria, do you know where they get their hardwood from? The Northern Territory. They are taking the wood from the Northern Territory and importing it down to Victoria. That is madness. They had a perfectly good industry down in Victoria. They've killed it. And now they're taking it from the Northern Territory. Where are they going to go next, when the Northern Territory says, 'Sorry: we're building our own houses'? Do they then go overseas? Guess what? We are a net importer of timber, when we do not have to be. That's a disgrace. That is a national disgrace, that we are importing timber from other countries. With that said, I will state that this bill does deliver important changes that the coalition had initially outlined prior to the change of government, and I thank them for that. I hope to be able to assist in any way that I can to ensure that our timber industry thrives and to make sure that illegal logging ceases. 17:02 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today somewhat incredulous that our country hasn't previously acted to stamp out the importation of illegally logged timber into Australia. So I rise to emphatically support the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, which will strengthen regulations around the importation and processing of timber products from overseas. It's critical that we monitor and regularly improve our systems to address the problem of illegally sourced timber from overseas making its way to the Australian market. Acting to stop the importation of illegal timber would shut down that fatuous argument that Australia should continue to log and destroy our own beautiful native forests simply because other countries are illegally logging and perhaps some of that timber ends up here in Australia. Already in Australia almost 90 per cent of the timber that we produce here comes from plantations. So, to ensure a future domestic supply, the timber industry should be focusing on expanding plantation timber and engineered wood production. However, a lot more needs to be done to protect our own native forests and bushlands both from illegal logging and from legal but outdated, highly destructive logging practices. Here in Australia we have our own serious problems with illegal logging and deforestation which are yet to be adequately addressed and which are certainly not addressed in this bill. For example, this bill does nothing to address illegal logging undertaken in Australia by industries other than the timber industry. As an example, we can look at the illegal logging undertaken by the beef industry here. When the act that this bill amends was passed in 2012, it was hot on the heels of the European timber regulation, which brought in similar reforms. Importantly, that was 12 years ago. Since then, the European Union has considerably progressed its thinking and its laws and has taken concrete action to address illegal logging caused by other industries. Australia simply has not kept pace. On 1 December this year the European deforestation regulation will come into force. That regulation will require exporters to the EU of all sorts of products to conduct due diligence to ensure that the products have not been produced on lands subject to deforestation or forest degradation and that they have been produced in accordance with the laws of the country of production. It will capture exporters of cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber and soya to the EU. If exporters want to send those products to the EU, they will have to prove that they have been produced without causing deforestation. Australia must follow suit. Let's take the cattle industry as an example. In relation to that industry, Greenpeace Australia said recently that Australia has one of the world's worst rates of deforestation, driven mostly by the beef industry. Every single day about 100,000 native animals are killed from this destruction as threatened species habitat, including for the iconic koala, is bulldozed at a rate of knots. In just five years, 668,000 hectares of koala habitat was bulldozed by the beef industry for pasture. That's 2,400 times the size of the Sydney CBD. Major global markets like the EU are moving rapidly towards responsibly sourced beef. If the Australian beef industry does not clean up its act, it risks losing market and financial access, which would be a disaster. It is deeply disappointing to see the minister for agriculture seemingly go against his own government's goal of zero new species extinctions by railing against the EU's critically important deforestation-free regulations. This bill does not prevent illegal land clearing from occurring here. It only means that timber mills will not be able to process timber that was logged illegally. The second key area that needs urgent action by Australian governments is the devastation caused by legal logging of native forests in Australia. This bill of course does nothing to address that. Australia is well overdue to completely phase out native forest logging in this country. New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland must follow the lead of Victoria and Western Australia in banning clear-fell logging of remnant native forests. In this age of climate change and species extinctions, continuing to destroy these precious habitats is anachronistic and senseless. Logging contributes to climate change. Logging of mature forest releases carbon that has taken centuries to accumulate. Each year, logging releases greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to around six per cent of Australia's annual emissions. Logging also destroys critical habitat for threatened species. We are facing an extinction crisis. Despite the government's promise to prevent further extinctions, the continued logging of our native forests is a major threat facing endangered species like koalas, greater gliders and the Leadbeater's possum. Not only is native forest logging still perfectly legal in some states; regional forestry agreements mean this logging is exempt from scrutiny under our national environment laws. If a regional forestry agreement is in place between a state government and a state owned forestry corporation, vast swathes of logging can be conducted without any of the protection afforded by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In 2020 in my own state of New South Wales, logging destroyed or degraded 40,000 hectares of Australian public native forest—40,000 hectares of thriving ecosystems. In 2022, the environment minister delivered her speech on the State of the environment report. This report made for utterly devastating reading, even for the most hardened of political heads. It was an indictment of the efforts of previous governments to enact even basic measures to protect our environment and ecosystems from broad and deep destruction. In her speech the environment minister promised to overhaul our broken national environment laws this term. Subsequently, the minister also promised to end the regional forestry agreement exemptions. But now, over 18 months later, this government is no further progressed on and has expressly washed its hands of substantive environmental law reform in this term of government. The minister has also evaded the phase-out of regional forestry agreements by saying that this may not happen until 2040 when those contracts expire. It is unbelievably disappointing. With the bill, the government is legislating to protect overseas forests while not protecting our own native forests. It's little wonder that Australia stands as the only developed country in the world classified as a deforestation hotspot. We are also a global leader in mammalian extinctions and we are one of seven countries responsible for more than half of global biodiversity loss. A shocking part of this story is that the native forest logging industry in Australia is loss-making. It is not commercially viable. It has to be propped up by taxpayer subsidies to survive. Even worse, the vast majority of our native forest timber is being sold off, not as you would have been led to believe for beautiful timber products or the construction of our homes or furniture, but for cheap, low-quality products such as woodchips, fence palings, tomato stakes and pallets. The vast majority is shipped overseas on the cheap for pulp. It's really quite sickening. Last year the native forest logging division of the New South Wales forestry corporation lost $30 million despite receiving $80 million in government subsidies. In 2021, it lost $20 million, and, in 2022, $9 million. As taxpayers we are subsidising the destruction of critical habitat of Australia's unique native species. The Blueprint Institute, a conservative think tank, has conducted cost-benefit analyses of logging of our native forests. It has done that for the Central Highlands of Victoria, for the North Coast of New South Wales and for Tasmania. Its work assessed the economic potential of native forest conservation by modelling the value of carbon sequestration, water supply and tourism against continued logging. In all three cases the Blueprint Institute's findings demonstrated conclusively that there is no economic case for continued logging of our native forests. Victoria has shut down native logging in that state because it is not financially viable. For the North Coast of New South Wales the modelling showed that ending native forest logging in 2024 instead of 2040—the date that the regional forestry agreement is currently scheduled to expire—and using that land instead for carbon sequestration and tourism would deliver a net benefit of $45 million in present-day value. That is after paying generous compensation to the industry and workers and making pay-outs to break trade agreements. It also found that managing the North Coast region in a manner consistent with conservation would abate an average of 0.45 million tonnes of carbon annually, which equates to a net present value of $174 million. In totality, from the present to 2040, using the forests of the North Coast for purposes other than logging will generate at least $294 million in revenue. The numbers for Tasmania are even more compelling. So it is nonsensical to continue subsidising this loss-making industry, particularly in the current context of increasing climate change disasters and native species extinctions. So, yes, we do need to ensure that illegally logged timber from overseas does not make its way here. This is a vitally important step. But even more importantly we need to take care of what's happening in our own backyard and to crack down hard on the vast problem of illegal logging here in Australia. If the Labor government is genuinely concerned about the issue of deforestation, forest destruction and extinctions then the carve-outs for regional forestry agreements from our national environment laws must cease. State governments must also ban logging of our native forests. This is why, in partnership with the WWF, last year I launched the Forest Pledge. The Forest Pledge is a promise by signatories to do what they can to help end native forest logging in this country. It is supported by 36 environmental and civil organisations, including WWF, the Climate Council, the Public Health Association and the Blueprint Institute. It is also supported by 29 scientists, experts and academics, and, importantly, it is supported by former senior politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, including Bob Debus, Geoff Gallop, Robert Hill and others. While I do support this bill and feel it is a vitally important step, I also use this opportunity to urge the government to fulfil their promises this term to do more to protect and preserve our forests right here at home by, firstly, cracking down on illegal logging and deforestation by industries other than the timber industry and, secondly, by ending native forest logging once and for all across the entire country. 17:15 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I move the amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: notes that: each year around 300 000 hectares of Australia's native forests and woodlands are lost to logging and land clearing; if Australia ceased all logging of native forests, the avoided emissions alone would be close to what is needed annually (15.5 Mt CO2) to achieve our national target of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels of emission by 2030; and Australia's native forests are among the most carbon-dense in the world; and calls on the Government to end native forest logging immediately". Australia's native forests are unique and beautiful. They are home to some of our most iconic wildlife. They are the lungs of our country. They store enormous amounts of carbon. They are unceded country for traditional owners, with precious totems and songlines woven through them. Protecting them means acting on the climate emergency, protecting our water supplies, lessening bushfire risk, saving threatened species from extinction and preserving the places that we Australians love. Labor and LNP governments have permitted and overseen decades of native forest logging that destroys intact forest and releases over 11 million tonnes of carbon each year. This is the result of agreements between the federal government and states and territories. These agreements have created legal loopholes for native forest logging even where threatened animals and plants are killed and destroyed. Labor has broken its promise to strengthen our national environment laws, which means they plan for this destructive logging to continue in Tasmania and New South Wales. Logging has mostly stopped in Victoria and Western Australia because of the efforts of community campaigners, First Nations groups and the Greens. However, forests are still under threat in these states from destructive forest management activities, including salvage logging, thinning and excessive burning. Logging native forests is uneconomic and unsustainable. The only reason this damaging money-wasting activity continues is because it is propped up by massive government subsidies. Our tax dollars are facilitating these unviable, destructive operations. We must support regional workers and communities through a just transition away from industries that are fuelling climate change and towards ecologically restorative jobs. This includes completing the transition of the timber industry from being 90 per cent based on plantations and farm forestry to 100 per cent. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S Is the amendment seconded? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 It is, and I reserve my right to speak. 17:19 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro The Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 will modernise and strengthen Australia's illegal logging laws to better protect the Australian market from illegally harvested timber and to support legal and sustainable timber trade. It will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory framework by strengthening the monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers, including through new timber-testing powers and the use of injunctions and enforceable undertakings. It will also strengthen requirements concerning due diligence, thereby enhancing our ability to identify patterns of compliance or non-compliance with those requirements and take appropriate enforcement action. These changes complement the work the Australian government is delivering through a $4.4 million investment to improve timber identification testing and illegal logging traceability. I thank the members for their contributions to this debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ryan has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER F2S As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 95

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 95 17:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I would like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 contains measures that will deliver significant deregulation benefits for businesses who engage in the manufacture, importation and distribution of fuel and alcohol. The excess regulation and administrative costs for these businesses will be reduced by these measures through making changes to licensing and fuel arrangements. The fee and renewal requirements associated with licences for manufacturing or storing fuel and alcohol will be removed. Businesses will now be able to consolidate separate licences into a single licence and access simplified movement of these dutiable goods between licence places. The measures will make access to information easier and timelier for fuel and alcohol businesses by establishing a public register of businesses that hold an excise or customs warehouse licence for those goods. For fuel producers, this bill will remove unnecessary administrative burdens by removing the requirement for onshore oil producers to hold a licence in certain circumstances. These changes support the government's strong commitment to deregulation, the aim of continuing to reduce administrative and compliance burdens for businesses. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 95

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 95 17:25 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This is a six-schedule bill that covers a mixture of legislation covering a mix of general revenue and financial matters for many industries: the entertainment and arts industry, in particular, moviemaking; the petroleum and resource extraction industry; financial advisors; and other income tax assessment matters. The first schedule is a response to a review that was commissioned in the last government. There are many commonsense reforms. There was a commission of inquiry by Justice Hayne into financial advice and many recommendations were made. This bill amends the Corporations Act, changing and clarifying financial advice fees. We all need our superannuation fund to achieve the best for our investments. Good advice is worth its weight in gold is a very sound piece of common sense but there were many cases where financial advice was not up to scratch. In fact, untrained and unqualified people were giving financial advice to over-the-counter investors at banks. A lot of conflicted advice was delivered. Financial advisors across the industry traditionally have been very experienced people who have worked in the finance industry, grown with it and had on-the-job training as well as a background educational qualification for it. But all the uncertainty around these new regulations, the fees they can charge, the extra refresher courses and all the recertification processes for many people who are as wise as Solomon regarding financial matters has led to an exodus of financial advisors from the financial advice industry, such that we only have 16,000 left across the country. Considering we have 26 and a bit million people, who all have super funds and who all, at some stage of their life, will turn for financial advice, it's a bad situation. To have many more of them leave will have major consequences for mum-and-dad investors through to high-scale, sophisticated investors. One of the things we have highlighted that our support will be contingent on is fixing the drafting around the ban on insurance commission structures that are linked with financial advice. Many independent financial advisors put an awful lot of time and their reputation at risk. An income earner having some insurance at the back to support their family, should accident or illness or sudden death happen, during their productive work life, is a pretty sensible thing. I know that, when I was employing 13 people in a day surgery and a medical practice, supporting my wife and family, and paying off business loans and housing loans, there was a lot riding on my health. Fortunately, I had an adviser who gave me good advice and said: 'A person like you needs income protection insurance because there is so much riding on what you are doing. Your whole business could go out if you get sick.' Thank goodness he did, because I did get sick and I was out of work for three or four months, which I couldn't have got through if I hadn't had that insurance for the business and for me personally. So financial advice is really important, but some of the financial advisers won't have a business case if they cut most of their fee advice parameters and make it bundled into one price, and that's what we think needs fixing. Another schedule, which I'll move on to now, is updating the petroleum resource rent tax anti-avoidance rules such that income tax assessment will be much more robust so that people can't avoid their rent tax. Mining and resource licence depreciation is a matter of some importance because some of these licences are held for years, and people have been depreciating the value of them without actually doing any mining or assessing for oil and gas. The next thing is another technical financial legislation amendment. For countries where we already have treaties—like in free trade agreements—establishing financial institutions, any time legislation on either side of the ledger gets changed, it can lead to a lot of other paperwork. This will streamline that so that automatic changes of legislation will be incorporated into the process such that the intent of the original policy continues. The last one I want to talk about, which is very pleasing to see, is schedule 6, which amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 for movie production. There is a location tax offset built into the system to encourage movies to be made here in Australia. They got a tax deduction of 15 per cent of the value of the work that was done making the movies here. If we didn't have that, we would be at a competitive disadvantage, because lots of other countries give a similar tax break or an actual co-investor grant. Making movies is a very competitive world, and, if we want to, we need to make sure that our industry people get the benefit of large-scale productions in this country. This refundable tax offset has been very successful, but we had an outstanding committee inquiry in the last parliament looking into this, and many recommendations were made to increase the location tax offset to encourage bigger investments by overseas movie makers. There were conditions attached to that, including a minimum expenditure threshold or a minimum number of actual hours over the season that the movie was being made and work was being done on the movie here. So it was encouraging activity and billing the cost of work that was done here, not something that was done in postproduction back in England, France or America if they were overseas people coming here to make movies. So this will simplify matters. The minimum rate for that location tax offset will go from 16½ per cent to a much more internationally competitive 30 per cent. The minimum qualifying production threshold will increase to $20 million, or $1.5 million per hour for a television series—and some of the series that are made now, like Netflix or Stan serial episodes, and up really being a very long movie. We want to grow domestic employment in movie production, and this will be very rigorous. There'll be minimal training obligations to contribute to the broader Australian workforce and infrastructure in the Australian capability. It will also require one or more Australian postproduction digital and visual effects providers to work on the program. That was a problem with the old system, because people could come here and do the work when actually filming the movie, but then all the postproduction would be back in the mother country where the original production team came from. But that's one of the skills that we have here. We are really good at all that postproduction digital stuff: cutting, editing, music, score—you name it. The minimum expenditure threshold to get the producer tax offset for drama series is now $35 million per season in qualifying Australian production expenditure. This is a good encourager for iconic Australian productions. The quality of the productions that we've seen recently on Netflix is unbelievably good, looking at some of the recent series that I have seen that were wholly and solely Australian produced. It was really pleasing to see Boy Eats Universe. That turned out to be a wonderful series, true to the book and very popular overseas. Finally, the forum on GST and administration subgroups in the industry were consulted on this. It has probably been one of the most discussed issues in the arts and entertainment industry for the last three years, and I'm pleased that this is coming through. But they really do need to tidy up the advice of the financial advice sector to not ban a commission for insurance sold when you're getting financial advice. Otherwise, as I mentioned, many more of our remaining financial advisers will become unviable. The best advice you can get is accurate, good, independent advice. If our independent financial advisers leave, we will end up back in the situation of egregious financial advice being given by the same institutions that are selling the advice. Unskilled people in banks, through over-the-counter advice, were leading people to in-house products, rather than an independent financial adviser looking at the whole scheme of products that you can invest in and looking at the whole person, including all those risks that you use insurance to mitigate. If you can insure your risk, and it comes at a good price, it's a good idea. But if this was followed through to its full extent, a lot of that wouldn't be recompensed, which means you would be getting much less effective advice. Otherwise, we continue the debate, and I commend the bill with that reservation to the government—that we need to change that and correct the drafting. 17:39 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I am excited to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In beginning, I would like to acknowledge the thrilling and spirited contributions of the colleagues that have come before me. The regulation of financial advice in Australia has been the subject of much attention since the release of the Hayne royal commission, which uncovered countless examples of financial institutions delivering conflicted advice that failed to put the financial interests of consumers first. While reforms were implemented in response, in many cases they have not resulted in improved financial advice but, rather, simply caused financial advice to be inaccessible to ordinary Australians. That's why the Albanese Labor government is committed to delivering a package of reforms that will ensure that quality financial advice is accessible to working people. This legislation represents the first tranche of that package, which comes in response to the government-commissioned Quality of Advice Review. With this bill, the Albanese Labor government is reducing red tape and removing regulatory barriers that don't add a consumer benefit and are making professional advice very costly. By providing clearer legislative support for personal and general advice, this legislation will reduce the number of hoops consumers have to jump through in order to receive assistance. It will provide greater flexibility for providers of personal financial advice and apply that flexibility to more advice situations to maximise the benefits from this measure without weakening consumer protections. Specifically, this will enable providers to provide more tailored and relevant information to consumers by allowing financial services guides more flexibility, both in content and presentation. At the heart of the government's proposed changes, through this bill and subsequent tranches, is the concept of accessibility. We want to increase the amount of high-quality advice Australians can access and ensure that it comes at an affordable cost. Currently, accessing qualified financial advice in Australia is a hurdle race for many. The high cost, often exceeding $5,000, puts it out of reach for the average person. Additionally, the number of qualified financial advisers has declined by approximately 35 per cent in the last five years and simply can't meet the growing demand from a population of over 25 million. This has left a gap filled by unregulated sources such as social media influencers. At best they offer very questionable advice and at worst they expose people to scams, potentially jeopardising their very hard earned savings. That's why in response to the Quality of Advice Review the Albanese Labor government has proposed a new category of 'qualified advisers'. These professionals will receive specific training to offer simple, targeted advice on matters such as budgeting, superannuation contributions or navigating mortgage options. This will inject much-needed affordability and accessibility into the system. These reforms will be particularly important for the five million Australians approaching retirement who may need support in navigating the pension and superannuation systems. Most of these people, especially middle-income earners, will retire on a mix of superannuation, personal savings and government support rather than fully self funding or relying on the age pension. With these various financial sources come a range of potentially complex decisions, and these reforms will provide far greater legal certainty to financial institutions about the provision of advice to their customers—for example, by allowing super funds to consider personal and household circumstances when providing advice to members. It's worth noting that while the government's response to the Quality of Advice Review, including this legislation and subsequent bills, is about making financial advice more accessible it does not compromise the quality of advice or the financial safety of Australians seeking that advice. Ensuring that Australians can easily and affordably access financial advice is essential. With Australian households facing cost-of-living pressures, financial advice must be readily accessible to ensure working people are getting a good deal on financial products such as mortgages, insurance and superannuation. By removing roadblocks, increasing choice and prioritising safety, this bill empowers individuals to easily navigate financial product markets and get a better deal for themselves and their families. These reforms are components of a broader Albanese Labor government plan to ensure that working people can access and take advantage of the best financial products and services the market has to offer. I commend the minister and their team for the diligent work and the values based commitment to this legislation. Our government will continue to deliver the necessary legislative reforms to deliver for working people in communities such as mine. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:45 to 17:56 17:56 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 contains a broad set of changes to a number of laws, so I will take these part by part. Let me first go specifically to schedule 6 and the important and welcome changes to the location and producer offsets. These are of particular interest to my community in Wentworth, many of whom work in, or alongside, the film and television industry. Schedule 6 increases the location tax offset from 16.5 per cent to 30 per cent for an international film and television programs made in Australia and makes changes to the minimum expenditure thresholds for the producer offset. These changes provide support to international film and television producers operating in Australia and match the incentives provided by other countries who are competing against us for these productions. Without these changes, it's likely that international investment would be diverted overseas, harming our screen sector and the economy. The new laws will give greater certainty to both investors and the production industry. These are welcome changes which I and others have been advocating for since early last year. The film and television sector is an extremely important driver of economic activity across our community. Close to 50 per cent of the industry is based in New South Wales, including over 2,300 screen production businesses that employ over 15,000 people. My electorate of Wentworth has probably the highest concentration of filmmakers and film and television companies in New South Wales, perhaps even in Australia. A simple Google search on film producers in the eastern suburbs of Sydney produces over 400 companies alone. According to Ausfilm, five major international productions have recently spent an estimated $28 million in Wentworth, while engaging more than 480 crew and over 260 businesses. If you haven't seen The Fall Guy yet, I encourage you to go out and see it, not just because of Ryan Gosling but also because of the wonderful Wentworth scenery that is on show. The measures in this bill will help ensure that international producers keep making films in Australia, providing important investment in state-of-the-art production facilities, like the Disney Studios in Moore Park, and employing our talented crews and tech support. We know that, when large film and television companies shoot here, the economic benefit is felt across the community. It's not just our creatives but also those ancillary people and businesses that benefit, such as caterers, drivers, hotels and restaurants. It is also a great benefit to building skills, including screen skills, in our community. According to Screen Australia's Drama report, foreign dramas that shot in Australia spent a massive $809 million across the country in 2022-23. We must do all we can to ensure that these businesses and people continue to thrive into the future. I'm also pleased that the location offset will require that companies accessing the tax incentive use our digital and visual effects post-production companies, invest in training Australians and develop our infrastructure. These are important conditions that will contribute to the sustainability of our own local production industry. While I support this legislation, I am concerned by the length of time it has taken to be introduced in the House and disappointed that it has not been accompanied by other measures to support our domestic screen producers. I'm particularly concerned by the delay in implementing Australian content obligations for international streaming services. Streaming services like Netflix, Binge, Apple TV and Disney Plus are at the core of how most people will access creative content in the future. If we want to continue to have Australian stories on our screens, it's essential we place a guarantee or an obligation on these streamers to produce local Australian content. I've often spoken about how important our homegrown arts and cultural industries are to the health of our community. They help define us as a people, show us who we are to the rest of the world and help us understand the complexities of the world around us in our country. They build connections and a sense of belonging, which has never been more important at times such as these, when social cohesion has become so fractured. The domestic screen industry is just one part of our arts and culture ecosystem that helps build a sense of national identity and togetherness. It must be cherished and protected for the future. I know the arts minister is dedicated and sincere in his support for the domestic screen industry, but, despite the government promising to bring in content obligations over a year ago, we are still waiting. It's time the government delivered on this promise. I urge them to act quickly so that our creative economy is not left exposed to the whims of international streaming services. Let me now move to another schedule in the bill. I'd like to talk about schedule 1, about the Quality of Advice Review. Whilst I strongly support the provisions in schedule 6 of this bill, I want to put on record my concerns about schedule 1. Schedule 1 begins to implement the recommendations from the Quality of Advice Review, which made important proposals on how to improve the provision of financial service in Australia, remove unnecessary red tape and reduce the cost of advice to customers. Whilst the intent of schedule 1 has been broadly welcomed by the industry and I also welcome it, it is extremely disappointing to see that this first tranche of reforms has been marred by significant drafting errors. These have been highlighted by submissions to the Senate committee from organisations including the Financial Advice Association, the Financial Services Council, the Australian Banking Association and many others. It appears that there are drafting errors across several aspects to the legislation. I want to highlight particular concerns in respect of requirements imposed on super fund trustees. As currently drafted, the bill inadvertently sets very strict conditions on trustees to comply with before they can provide advice to members—well beyond what I understand was the intention of the recommendations from the Quality of Advice Review. The Financial Advice Association has said: In practice, these requirements would significantly increase red tape for both super fund trustees and for financial advisers. The Financial Services Council has warned: The unintended consequences of the drafting could undermine the positive intentions of the law. It is clear that these drafting errors need to be fixed, and I urge the government to do this before it passes the House. I would also like to raise separate issues in relation to the Quality of Advice Review in the sense that this is just a small selection of the recommendations that the Quality of Advice Review has made. I urge the government to move on the rest, because we have been waiting some time for the first movement, and that is why it is so disappointing that it is badly drafted. But the government still needs to be held accountable for the fact that we have a significantly dwindling number of financial advisers in this country. Part of the concern we have is that lack of financial advisers, which means that many people are not able to access financial advice right now. That is incredibly challenging given that, firstly, we have a baby boomer community that is retiring and needs that financial advice for their planning and, secondly, so many Australians are struggling with the cost of living right now and actually need that advice to make the right decisions as they try and manage their complicated finances. Many people are losing businesses. This is the time when we need quality financial advice. The government has not moved fast enough and now seems to have taken missteps in its moves in relation to quality of financial advice. The government needs to do better in this area. Finally, I would like to raise a concern with this omnibus bill and omnibus bills more generally. I want to put on the record my extreme frustration at the government rolling together disparate pieces of unconnected legislation in omnibus bills such as these. It makes no sense that changes to the location tax offset are bundled into the same bill as laws regarding capital allowances for mining and prospecting, as well as changes to implement the recommendations from the Quality of Advice Review. Putting these disparate measures together undermines the ability of the parliament to consider different policies on their merits and can potentially lead to important changes being delayed or inadequately considered by members of this House. It is a worrying trend from this government. The worst example of this was a recent bundling together of changes to the PRRT and the response to the PwC tax scandal. They had nothing to do with each other, but there was a political reason to put those together. The government said in May 2022 that it was committed to better parliamentary process. I urge them to live up to that commitment and allow the parliament to debate different policy measures on their merits rather than present large omnibus bills combining disparate and unrelated measures. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Petrie has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Cost of Living 100 18:08 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne People are worried. They're worried about how they're going to pay the rent or the mortgage. Of those on low incomes, 42 per cent are in rental stress and in danger of being pushed into homelessness. They're worried about whether they can afford a jar of Vegemite or fresh fruit and vegetables. According to Foodbank, 3.7 million households across the country ran out of food last year. Millions of people across the country are doing their best to keep their head above water, but, thanks to this cost-of-living crisis, they are drowning in rising costs. People are working harder than ever before, but they still can't get ahead. Almost a million people are working a second job, and over half of all gen Zs say they would need to look for a second job to make ends meet. At the same time big corporations are making record profits. In the last 12 months Coles and Woolworths have made over a billion dollars in profits, which is nothing, really, when you compare it to the $105 billion in profits oil and gas corporations made exporting oil and gas in 2022-23. Even though they made billions, your bills keep going up. Food prices, power prices, rents and mortgages all keep going up while these big corporations make massive profits. While millions are cutting back and making sacrifices, one in three big corporations pays no tax at all, and some of these corporations, such as News Corp, Exxon, Santos, Whitehaven and Woodside, are also making donations to Labor and the Liberals. No wonder so many people say that it is getting harder and harder to tell the Liberals and Labor apart. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I'd ask the member for Melbourne to resume his seat. I've just been advised by the Clerk that there are other matters which we need to deal with before we go to the grievance debate. It will only take a moment, and then the member for Melbourne will have leave to resume his speech. BILLS 100 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 100

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024

Second Reading 100 18:11 The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being no speakers I put the question. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I'll put the report question immediately. Mr Zappia HWB Could I seek clarification from you on this. The debate on the appropriation bills—I know that there is a list of speakers from both sides of the House wanting to speak. Does that mean that there will be no debate and that members will not be able to speak once you put the motion? The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I appreciate the question from the member for Makin. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024—there are no speakers listed, so we're just going through the procedural matters to get them through the House. Mr Zappia HWB Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Makin for raising that point. Just to be clear, the question is that this bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024, be reported to the House without amendment. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024 100

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024

Second Reading 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE 101 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Cost of Living 101 18:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I could maybe start again given the unusual interruption of the speech. 18:14 The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I will agree to that given the circumstances. Member for Melbourne, do you seek leave? Mr BANDT M3C I seek leave to have my full allocation of time and to start my speech again. Leave granted. Mr BANDT M3C I thank the chamber. People are worried. They are worried about how they will pay the rent or the mortgage. Of those on low incomes, 42 per cent are in rental stress and in danger of being pushed into homelessness. They are worried about whether they can afford a jar of Vegemite or fresh fruit and vegetables. According to Foodbank, 3.7 million households across the country ran out of food last year. Millions of people across the country are doing their best to keep their heads above water, but thanks to the cost-of-living crisis they are drowning in rising cost. People are working harder than ever before but they still cannot get ahead. Almost a million people are working a second job and over half of all gen Z say they need to look for a second job just to make ends meet. At the same time, big corporations are making record profits. In the last 12 months Coles and Woolworths have made over a billion dollars in profit, a huge amount but it pales in comparison to the $105 billion in profits oil and gas corporations made exporting oil and gas in 2022-23. Even though those corporations made billions, your bills keep going up. Food prices, power prices, rents and mortgages all keep going up while big corporations make massive profits. While millions are cutting back and making sacrifices, one in three big corporations pays no tax. Some of these corporations like News Corp, Exxon, Santos, Whitehaven and Woodside are also paying donations to Labor and Liberal. No wonder so many people say that it is getting harder and harder to tell Liberal and Labor apart. The Labor government is not tackling the rising cost of living; they are managing perceptions. Labor's bandaid solutions are not going to reduce the rent. Labor can't even bring themselves to say we are in a housing crisis let alone freeze and cap rents, while people set up tents in public parks. They are not going to make food cheaper. They will pay one of their mates to write a report, ignore the findings then claim they have done all they can, while people skip meals and starve. They will claim they have made it cheaper to go and see the GP or a bit cheaper to get child care but the only thing people will be able to tell is they have less money each week and that big corporations keep making more and more money. Labor's managing the country for big corporations at your expense. They are giving out a bit here and there so they can say they are tackling the issue but it's not enough. It is not working. You don't get claps if you are making the problem worse. It's hard to get a pat on the back when people are struggling to keep their heads above water. It must be galling for someone who is struggling to feed themselves and their family to be told by Labor, who are meant to be the party are working people, they have actually already fixed the problem. It must be frustrating to see your rent go up and up but be told by the Prime Minister you should be grateful for an extra $9 a week in rent assistance, which most renters don't even get. The budget's cost-of-living measures are a joke. They are kidding no-one who is struggling to keep their head above water. It's no wonder people have stopped listening to this government. They don't have time; they have to work! To those people who are worried about paying the bills, the Green say this: you can't keep voting for the same two parties and expect something different to happen. Labor and the Liberals aren't going to change. More and more they are growing closer and closer together. They don't have your back; they are managing the country for the big corporations at your expense. If you want change, you are going to have to support someone who will fight for you. The Greens are the only party who don't get paid off by the big corporations which are making massive profits at your expense. We want to take on the big corporations, make price gouging illegal and make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax. We want to stop big corporations making massive profits off the back of these huge prices they are charging you and to restore public ownership of public services like health, education, power and housing. We need real action. We need to make dental care and mental health care part of Medicare. We need to freeze and cap rents. We need to get the government to build homes which can be sold or rented at affordable prices. We need publicly owned renewable power. Band-aids and empty promises aren't going to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. If you want change, you're going to have to vote for it. Budget 102 18:20 Ms BELYEA 309484 Dunkley The Albanese government knows that many families in Australia are doing it tough and that cost of living is front and centre in their minds. During the Dunkley by-election campaign, I heard from a young woman in Carrum Downs who was training to be an early childhood educator. Her rent had increased substantially, and she and her partner were selling household items in order to pay the rent. The Albanese government has those people who are struggling with the cost of living in mind and delivered a budget to support them. Just over a week ago, we announced a $325 energy rebate and a $300 per week practical placement payment for students studying midwifery, nursing, teaching and social work. We also worked on, and delivered, the elimination of a $3 billion HECS debt, and 18,000 people from Dunkley will benefit from that change. This budget also delivers a 10 per cent increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, benefiting close to one million households across Australia and nearly 7,000 households in Dunkley. The government is also investing about $4 million to deliver cheaper medicines to ease pressure on household budgets. Patients who have a concession card or who are on a pension are set to save even more thanks to our freeze on the maximum cost of PBS medication at $7.70 per prescription. We are also working to strengthen Medicare, investing $2.8 billion by providing an additional 29 Medicare urgent care clinics. The Frankston clinic is open from eight until 10 o'clock Monday to Sunday and provides free, high-quality care for patients with non-life-threatening injuries and illness. All you need is your Medicare card. In addition to this, we have more free mental health services, higher Medicare rebates for common medical tests and a women's health package worth over $160 million, with new initiatives focusing on endometriosis, pain, and supporting women and families after a miscarriage. We also passed reforms on paid parental leave, ensuring that, from 1 July, Australian families will be better off. By 2026, every family with a new baby will be able to access a total of six months paid leave, shared between the two parents. Housing is obviously a big issue across the country. In Dunkley, 59.5 per cent of household families are low-income families. To work to address this, the government has invested significant funding in the construction of new homes. The policies and funding are focused on increasing supply, supply and supply, ensuring more Australians have a roof over their head and aren't sleeping rough, particularly women impacted by domestic and family violence. To support women to leave relationships where there is domestic and family violence, a $5,000 escaping family violence payment has been locked in, with support to referral services, risk assessments and safety planning being part of the strategy. Further, the Albanese government has legislated 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, increased rent assistance with the largest increase in 30 years, and invested in crisis accommodation and affordable housing for women and children escaping violence. In addition to this, the eligibility for parenting payments has been expanded, helping 82,000 more single parents remain on higher payments until their youngest child turns 14. There has been $6 billion in new measures announced by the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing to build more homes and support Australians, bringing our government's new housing initiatives over the next decade to more than $30 billion. Just last Saturday, I was talking to Tony from Frankston. He spoke to me about the reality. He and his wife are both working. They are renting in the local area, having had to move from the Mornington Peninsula due to the increase in rental prices. He mentioned that, despite both him and his wife working, he is likely to have to move again and out of the area in the next 12 months. He is nervous about homelessness, due to the increasing cost of rent and the lack of housing supply. The Help to Buy scheme will support 40,000 Australian households to purchase a new or existing home with an equity contribution from the government. This sort of investment in housing, an investment the previous government neglected for over 10 years, is what the Labor government is going to do to support people like Tony. While on prepoll, I spoke to many families with teenagers who were keen for their children to get a great education however concerned about the cost of university and HECS fees. At the time, I was able to share with them the information on the fee-free TAFE program that could support their children to access courses at Chisholm and other TAFE colleges in the south-east. This initiative has offered over 355 fee-free TAFE places in 2023. I am thrilled to announce this funding has been expanded and will offer an additional 300,000 places across 2024-26 for students studying in areas of priority skills. In addition to this, apprentices in priority occupations will be eligible for an incentive of $5,000 to assist with cost-of-living pressures and to support them to finish their training. Two thousand apprentices will be working towards a nationally recognised qualification in Dunkley. To support businesses with employers taking on apprentices in priority occupations, we will also provide an incentive of $5,000. This means more opportunities for secure, well-paid work and more skilled workers in the construction and housing workforce that can build more homes in communities like Dunkley. This government wants to ensure that, no matter what, no matter where you come from, whether it's Frankston, Carrum Downs, Langwarrin, Mount Eliza, Seaford or Frankston North, you get a fair go and you can purchase a house of your choosing, close to your place of work, and don't have to spend hours commuting. This is an aspirational budget that is focused on supporting people that are struggling now and setting this country and its people up for the future. My colleagues and I are determined to make the lives of those we represent in our communities, like Dunkley, better now and into the future. This budget reflects this vision. It reflects that the Albanese government is listening. We are acting on the issues that are most important now, and we are planning for the future. This budget is better for families, better for young people, better for women, better for Dunkley, better for the nation. The budget invests in building back for a better future so everyone can get ahead and no-one is left behind. Budget 103 18:29 Mr CALDWELL 306489 Fadden I rise this evening to speak to the growing pain that's being endured by Australians under the leadership of this Albanese Labor government. It has been two years since the Labor government was elected. They promised a $275 reduction in your power bills, they promised cheaper mortgages, and they promised to make Australian families better off. The Albanese Labor government have now had three budgets, but the decisions they've made have just made it harder for families and for our communities. Labor are failing Aussie families, and small businesses in particular. They are doing it really tough. Put simply, Labor's promises have been broken. As the Reserve Bank Governor has noted, our inflation is now largely homegrown. It's what some of us like to call 'Jimflation'. Under Labor, Australia's inflation is worse than the US, Singapore, Germany, Spain, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, South Korea, Canada, France and the entire Euro area. It's worse because of Labor's weak economic management, including $315 billion in extra spending, a 5.4 per cent fall in productivity and, of course, the dangerous renewables-only energy policy that is driving up power prices. After two years of Labor, a typical family with a mortgage is now more than $35,000 worse off. Australians know that despite the Treasurer's spin—and perhaps he is a doctor of spin—prices have increased by nearly 10 per cent, with increases for many essential items well beyond that. Housing is up 12 per cent. Rents are up 12 per cent. Electricity is up 18 per cent. The list goes on. While Australians are struggling to pay mortgages and rents, Labor is making the housing crisis worse by bringing in a record 1.67 million migrants over the next five years. While immigration continues to soar, Labor isn't delivering enough houses. Labor is always focused on the wrong priorities. A distracted Labor government has also just delivered one of the most irresponsible budgets in living memory according to several senior and respected economists. Labor's budget fails the economic tests and, more concerningly, it was a self-styled 'quintessentially Labor' budget. That is something that every Australian should be concerned about because when Labor can't manage its budget, it makes it much harder for Australians to manage theirs. In these uncertain economic times, we needed a budget that went back to basics. This means a budget that restored our standard of living by finally addressing inflation and the pressures being felt by families at the checkout and with their energy bills. A budget that restored prosperity and created opportunity by supporting small businesses and helping young Australians into a home. A budget that restored budget discipline and honesty by restraining spending, bringing back the fiscal guard rails, a tax-to-GDP cap and delivering a structural surplus, not a windfall surplus. Labor's third budget has failed on all these tests. But since coming to government they have managed one thing, one really big thing: 36,000 more bureaucrats in Canberra. They've also managed to spend nearly $500 million on a divisive and failed referendum. And they have managed to break promises and raise taxes. Believe me, when Labor run out of money they will come after yours. As I highlighted earlier, Labor's decisions are making inflation even worse. Under Labor there has been an additional $315 billion of government spending. Extra spending doesn't take pressure off inflation; in fact, it makes it worse. It's the phenomenon that I like to call 'Jimflation'. The RBA Governor has confirmed that inflation is homegrown. It means that the Reserve Bank knows full well, as we all do, that inflation is a direct consequence of Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities. Despite their lofty statements prior to the last election, Labor have trashed our standard of living. Over the last two years of the Albanese Labor government, family budgets have been smashed by higher prices, higher mortgage repayments and higher taxes. Ask yourself this simple question: am I better off today than I was two years ago under a coalition government? Across the electorate that I represent everyone knows that they are worse off under Labor. There is nothing in the current budget that restores what has been lost. Families and small businesses are feeling the impact of Labor's failures. And while Labor has floundered in government, a Peter Dutton led coalition team has a plan to get Australia back on track. Coalition governments know how to manage the economy and secure our borders. We will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on businesses. Just on the weekend, at the Sanctuary Cove boat show, I was talking to a major local boatbuilder, who said, 'These new IR laws are going to destroy us.' I asked, 'Well, what about your power bills?' They said that their power bills had doubled in the last five years. It's quite extraordinary, what has been going on under this terrible Labor government. The coalition has vowed to extend the value of assets eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and make this an ongoing and permanent feature for small business. We will simplify approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing mining jobs and entrepreneurialism. We will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn. Importantly, we will ensure that Australians have affordable, reliable and consistent power. We will also revitalise the Australian homeownership dream. I see the struggle of aspiring homeowners all too often in the electorate of Fadden. To address this, we will implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia, reduce the permanent migration program by 25 per cent, and reduce the excessive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities, to relieve stress on the rental markets in our major cities. We will work constructively with all levels of government to increase supply. After two years of Labor leadership, not many people are feeling more financially secure, safer in their communities or better off. With less than a year to go until the next federal election, it is clear that the Prime Minister has been distracted and doesn't have any solutions. Only a coalition government can return us to economic prosperity and restore our standard of living. Green Energy Transition 104 18:37 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I've been happy to see the steadfast commitment of the government to our future prosperity in the transition to a green economy. The budget delivered by the Treasurer just a fortnight ago was a budget aimed squarely at meeting the cost-of-living challenges faced by Australian families today while at the same time preparing our country for the significant challenges of the future. The government's Future Made in Australia policy framework, which brings together the government's commitment to engage fully in the opportunities that the green energy transition presents, is a vision for the economic future of our country. It draws a clear line between the ambitious and realistic plans of this government and the lack of understanding and commitment demonstrated by the other parties in this parliament. The Albanese Labor government's Future Gas Strategy is a critical piece of our government's plan not just to decarbonise our economy but also to seize the opportunities presented to us and to become a global green energy superpower. It's a lofty vision for our country: to transform our industries and economy to ones that produces the green energy to power Australia, Asia and beyond—to provide generations of Australians with secure and meaningful careers in order for us to be a global leader in the race to net zero. And it is a race. Not since the development of the iron ore industry or the opening of the North West Shelf—industries that then became the engine of the Australian economy for so many decades—have we so needed the political leadership and vision that we now have with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the cabinet. This is what a Future Made in Australia looks like, and it is important that the Future Gas Strategy announced by Minister Madeleine King this month is understood in this context. In the context of our ambitious plans to seize and harness these green energy opportunities, we must maintain reliable power for our homes and for our industries. We are building a Future Made in Australia, where we travel to a net zero emissions future at a ferocious pace. It's never an option to do nothing when faced with a crisis, and it was never an option to do nothing in the face of climate emergency. Nor is it an option to throw up our hands and leave the hard work of managing this orderly transition to those who do not have our country's best interests at heart. There's going to be an election in about a year from now. Australians who understand that there's a climate emergency facing not just us but the whole world will have choices to make. They won't be able to support the coalition, whose party rooms are themselves divided on the very question of climate change so that they are unable to produce any coherent policy around either emissions or our energy future. And, if the voters drill down into the lazy criticisms by the Greens that the transitions need to be faster or into their simplistic slogans about no new energy, they'll soon find that the Greens' policies are just as unhelpful as those of the coalition. The Liberals and Nationals would have us fail to have an orderly transition by doing too little too late. The Greens would have us fail by doing everything so badly that it would fall in a heap. Minister Bowen describes it well when he says we have a realistic and ambitious set of goals and we have the policies needed to get us there. Government is about hard work. Through the net-zero ambition and its adoption across the globe, we can appreciate the urgency and necessity of this transition and how the Future Gas Strategy aligns with these goals. Net-zero emissions have become the central focus not just for the Albanese Labor government but for a great many developed economies around the world in the fight to reduce the prevalence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The Paris Agreement in 2015 emphasised that, in the goal of limiting global warming to below two degrees and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1½ degrees, net zero is a crucial metric for assessing mitigation efforts and holding parties accountable. The strategy creates a road map for the gas sector to innovate and reduce its carbon footprint. This is not just a lofty goal but a necessary step for Australia to take its place among the leaders in global environmental responsibility. For the first time ever, an Australian government has a strategy for gas. For the first time, we have a government who is willing to speak clearly to Australian people and to provide them with the data, the modelling and the information to understand both the role of gas in our current energy mix and the plan for winding its use down as new technologies such as green hydrogen take over. The strategy establishes the role gas will play in the transition to net zero by 2050 and the need to secure affordable gas for Australia as we move to a renewable grid and to confirm our commitment as a reliable trading partner. The coal is retiring. That is clear. We are well on our way to being able to reach our target of 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, a difficult and ambitious goal but a realistic goal. We are ticking off more renewable energy than ever before. Minister Plibersek recently approved a new solar farm and battery storage system in Queensland. It will generate enough energy to power 300,000 Queensland homes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 1.4 million tonnes per annum, the equivalent of taking 450,000 passenger cars off the road for a year. Since we came to office, there's been a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national energy market, and this has driven both total emissions and emissions intensity to all-time-record lows. We have signed off on 47 renewable energy projects, enough to power three million homes, with around another 140 projects still be progressed down the pipeline. In the latest budget, the Treasurer laid down clear markers, indicating to industry that our government is keen to accelerate the commercial viability of green hydrogen and the downstream processing of critical minerals required for battery manufacturing. But that technology is not here yet. So, as we work to ensure the green energy and tech of tomorrow happen as quickly as possible, we do need the gas to continue keep the lights on and produce that energy required for manufacturing and industry. The reality is that gas plays a crucial role in Australia's energy mix, providing a reliable, affordable and flexible source of power generation. Unlike coal, gas plants can be effectively and efficiently turned off and on when demand exceeds the current capacity of renewables in the grid. The gas sector also employs around 20,000 people across the country, including in remote and regional communities. I know there are thousands of people in my electorate who are employed directly and indirectly by the gas industry, and the incessant demonisation of the sector places an unfair and undue stress on these workers and their families, including their kids. We know that a net-zero future means far less gas circulating through our system, and I have stated consistently that it is a future we are working towards. However, deriding the industry and calling for it to end today does no-one any good. That is why we have a plan and a strategy to provide certainty to working Australians in the short term and to provide them and their children with a vision of the jobs worth training for and aspiring towards in a green energy future. That's why we're introducing the Net Zero Economy Authority to ensure that communities in the regions don't get left behind in the transition but instead reap the rewards of the inevitable changes to come in an orderly and planned way. A Future Made in Australia is not just a slogan; it is a transformational policy that promises a brighter tomorrow for each of us. It's the type of visionary policy that you will see from only a Labor government. It is the type of future building policy that actually inspired me to run and stand for office, because it matters. It matters very much to many in my electorate of Hasluck, because Hasluck is representative of many parts of Australia. It's part peri-urban, part old, established riverside suburbs and part mortgage belt. It's an electorate with a good mix of industries and trades. The workers and families of Hasluck appreciate the certainty that the government's policies bring in relation to energy security and an orderly transition for change. The 14,000 technicians and trade workers appreciate it. The 7,000 machinery operators and drivers appreciate it, and the 3,000-odd FIFO workers in Hasluck appreciate it, but it's also the tens of thousands of workers across the country and their generations who will appreciate the vision that the Albanese Labor government has for this country. Gippsland Lakes 105 18:46 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight to contribute to this debate and focus my attention on the magnificent Gippsland Lakes. Although they are magnificent, they are also exposed to many impacts which I fear are degrading the system to a point where greater intervention is required by both state and federal governments. I often describe the Gippsland Lakes as the Great Barrier Reef of the south—such is its importance to my region. For context, the lakes are an impressive coastal lagoon system, but they are subjected to significant impacts from a vast catchment area. The importance of the lakes system cannot be overestimated to Gippsland. From a social perspective, there's recreational boating and fishing, and people are living alongside. Some of the most expensive properties in my electorate are waterfront homes on the Gippsland Lakes. Things like school camps have been established around the lakes system. Economically, there's direct and indirect employment through things like cruises and the hospitality sector. From a cultural perspective, there is a long history of the Gunaikurnai people, and there is an abundance of food associated with the Gippsland Lakes. It's a great source of food around the estuarine system. Environmentally, it's a dynamic system, and it has changed dramatically since European settlement. What was a system which was brackish-to-fresh water, intermittently opening to the ocean when a natural entrance would form, has become more of a system which is brackish-to-salt water because of the establishment of an artificial entrance in 1899. The artificial entrance was required at the time because the Gippsland Lakes were the highway to take products through Gippsland from Sale all the way to the coastline and move products from the Gippsland region. When you think about the Gippsland Lakes, there are very important towns established right on the lakes system—my own home town of Lakes Entrance, at the very commencement of the system, through to Metung, Paynesville and Loch Sport. The system is navigable all the way from Lakes Entrance to Sale even today. It is a series of lakes—Lake King, Lake Victoria, Lake Wellington, Lake Reeve—and it's the environmental future of the lakes and rivers in my region which causes me most concern as I stand here this evening. I think there's been an ongoing failure to properly measure, manage and take the practical action required to improve water quality and reduce the impacts of pests and ensure the lakes are passed on to future generations to enjoy. I want to stress from the outset that I acknowledge that management of the catchment and the Gippsland Lakes, as with most natural resource issues, is primarily a state responsibility, but there are some federal obligations here, which I'll get to later. What we do when we have a state like Victoria which is continuing to fail to meet its responsibilities in relation to such an important estuarine system? My concerns regarding the ecological condition of the Gippsland Lakes and catchment and the comparatively small annual investment from the Commonwealth and the state government into the system are exacerbated by the refusal to even properly measure and monitor things like water quality in the system. By way of background, I have repeatedly raised concerns on behalf of my constituents regarding the condition of the lakes and the lack of comprehensive water monitoring in the catchment. I've also raised concerns about the disjointed management structure of the entire system and the failure to undertake an independent audit since the last one was undertaken in 1998. A lot has changed since 1998. At that time, CSIRO was commissioned to take a very close look at the issues around water quality and nutrient run-off and their contribution to algal bloom, which had been a blight on the system at different times throughout the lakes' history. Rather than a crisis driven approach to the management of the Gippsland Lakes, the time to spend the money is now. Properly measuring, evaluating and taking action to improve the quality of the rivers and lakes should be done now, not when you have an algal bloom. The time for those sorts of decisions is now. We are just simply not taking the necessary action to properly monitor, measure and take the action required to enhance Gippsland Lakes for future generations. It disturbs me that, from my research, the Victorian government contributes less than $3 million per year of direct investment in protecting and enhancing Gippsland Lakes and its catchment while the Commonwealth provides some ad hoc grants through things like Landcare and Coastcare through various competitive grants streams. Contrast this with the estimated combined investment in the Great Barrier Reef of state and Commonwealth money of $150 million per year. I'm not begrudging the Great Barrier Reef its status as the Great Barrier Reef. I'm simply making a comparison that there is a lot of work going on on the Great Barrier Reef, in terms of catchment, run-off and issues associated with this natural icon—in the order of about $150 million per year—and the Gippsland Lakes is receiving somewhere in the order of $3 million per year. This is the largest inland waterway in Australia. It's of huge significance, not only to the environment but also to the local Gippsland economy through the tourism sector. The international importance of the lakes system is also something which should be reflected on when land managers are making decisions and when environment ministers are making their priorities known, because the Gippsland Lakes has international importance, particularly relating to migratory birds. The entire catchment retains great cultural significance for the Gunaikurnai people. This is a vast catchment, when you think about it. It stretches all the way to the industrial heartland of the Latrobe Valley. The Latrobe River flows through there into the Gippsland Lakes and the farming Macalister Irrigation District. The Thomson and Macalister rivers flow through there to the Gippsland Lakes. The Mitchell River flats is a major irrigated agricultural area; it flows through to the Gippsland Lakes. The Tambo River and the Nicholson River are less populated but still exposed to bushfire risk; they both flow into the Gippsland Lakes. What we saw in the 2019-20 bushfires was a huge sediment run-off event as a direct result of the catchment of the Nicholson and Tambo rivers being heavily impacted. At that time, we were able to secure a one-off $350,000 research project to investigate the impacts of bushfire events on the lakes and the Ramsar wetlands. That report drew attention to the current lack of monitoring and the testing of the lakes, which just reinforces my view that we should be undertaking an independent environmental audit of the lakes system. Go the whole hog! It hasn't been done for more than 25 years. Go the whole hog and take an independent look at the system. Find out what the impacts are in terms of nutrient run-off, and find out what's happening in terms of catchment areas. The Royal Society of Victoria conducted a roundtable titled Securing the Future of the Gippsland Lakes in May 2023. They made some very significant observations and commentary about the future of the lakes system, which I've taken up directly with the federal minister. Apart from noting that the system is the largest estuarine coastal lagoon system on the Australian continent, and apart from noting that it's one of the most important wetlands in terms of migratory birds, they also made the point that there are multiple upstream factors, which will affect the future of the Gippsland Lakes, that need to be closely monitored. The high nutrient loads, which can lead to toxic algal blooms, need to be monitored. While the scientists, independent of government and independent of politicians—they don't work in my office; they are certainly independent of my office—are saying, 'You need to do more research,' the Victorian government is steadfastly refusing to invest any more in the catchment or in the lakes themselves. While the Commonwealth and the federal minister's office have been very polite in their responses to my correspondence, they've done absolutely nothing. There needs to be a recognition that coordinated management of the threats to estuarine health requires state and federal governments working in partnership with enthusiastic local volunteers to undertake the action that's required to improve and enhance the environment of a system like the Gippsland Lakes. All of the evidence points to a system which is under some stress and which is not being properly monitored. Given its social, economic, environmental and cultural importance, I'm urging the state and federal governments to have another look at my request for an independent audit. What we need in Gippsland is more boots and less suits. That's more boots on the ground undertaking practical environmental work—things like weed control, pest animal control and riparian vegetation replanting. Those are the sorts of activities that could lead to careers for young people in Gippsland. We are the custodians of a vast public land estate, but we are not receiving the resources to undertake the work that's required to enhance the region through practical environmental work. I stress again that the Gippsland Lakes are magnificent. I'm not suggesting for a second that we're at the point of a crisis right now. But how do we really know if we're not extensively monitoring what the trends are over a long period of time? How do we really know we're going to pass on the lakes in a better condition if we're not doing the independent environmental audit and the monitoring work? I say to those opposite and to the state Labor government: stop being the great pretenders of the environmental sector. You like to grandstand and commission reports, but you actually have to invest in the practical on-the-ground work in the regions to make sure we're doing the right thing by the environment for future generations to enjoy regions like the Gippsland Lakes. Climate Change 107 18:56 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong For too long, Australia has been caught in climate wars, hampered by a decade of negligence, political infighting and lack of genuine climate action. Over the last decade, the Liberals and Nationals repealed the carbon pricing scheme, cut funding to climate science and research, dismantled climate institutions, set weaker emissions reduction targets and, in short, didn't take this climate crisis seriously. The Liberals' climate wars stalled progress and left us vulnerable to the escalating threats of a warming planet and vulnerable to more severe and more regular weather events. Instead of decisive action, we witnessed years of unnecessary debate and division that hindered our ability to respond effectively to the urgent environmental challenges our country faces. Australians were sick of the opposition's climate denial and climate inaction, and they voted them out. They voted in a government to take action and work to end the climate wars and get on with the job of taking meaningful climate action. In two years, the Albanese Labor government has already passed the Climate Change Act 2022, enshrining our emissions reduction targets into law. We've updated our contributions under the Paris Agreement. We've invested billions in the electricity grid, community batteries, solar banks, renewable energy manufacturing and low-emissions technologies. That's just the beginning. This government is deeply committed to protecting our environment, to reducing emissions and to transitioning towards a sustainable renewable energy future. Our most recent budget builds on previous announcements to show that we see our transition away from fossil fuels as a necessity whilst also being an extraordinary economic opportunity. Our recent legislation and the 2024-25 budget have allocated $40 billion dedicated to achieving these goals. The government has introduced new vehicle emission standards to reduce pollution from one of the largest sources of emissions: transport. These standards, which are now law, will mean cleaner, more efficient vehicles for Aussie motorists. They will help reduce greenhouse gases and also improve air quality and public health and save motorists up to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. Our climate strategies include the Rewiring the Nation program, with a $20 billion investment to modernise our electricity grid and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for an energy system anchored in renewable energy. By upgrading our grid, we can better integrate renewable energy sources like wind and solar, ensuring reliable, sustainable and affordable power for all Australians. The Powering the Regions Fund, with a $1.9 billion investment, supports the decarbonisation of existing industries and the creation of new clean energy industries in regional areas. By focusing on the regions, we ensure widespread benefits of the clean energy transition, supporting jobs and economic growth in the regions as well—not just the cities. Recognising the strategic importance of critical minerals in our clean energy future, the government has also committed $6 billion to our Critical Minerals Facility. This initiative aims to grow our critical minerals production centre, ensuring stable supply of essential materials for technologies like batteries, electric vehicles and renewable energy systems. The $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program supports large-scale renewable hydrogen projects, offering a versatile and clean energy source that can decarbonise emissions-heavy sectors like transport industry and power generation. Then we have the National Reconstruction Fund, with a $15 billion investment aiming to diversify and transform Australian industries for a net zero economy. It will drive innovation, support new industries and ensure our economy remains competitive in a rapidly changing global landscape. Our government's investment in reducing emissions and becoming a renewable energy superpower is not just about meeting targets; it's about ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future for all Australians, just like those in my community of Bennelong. In Bennelong our community wanted a member and government who care about meaningful and urgent climate action. We recognise that national laws and policy are one way to help but that we also need to empower local communities to lead the way towards a sustainable future. Two weeks ago in Bennelong, we celebrated a significant milestone in our renewable energy journey with the launch of the North Epping community battery—one of 400 funded by the Albanese government. Funded by the government, the launch of this AusGrid and Hornsby council facility was attended by Minister Bowen, Marc England and the AusGrid team, Mayor Philip Ruddock OAM and Hornsby Shire councillors. Importantly, over 100 locals came to join us to learn how their new sustainable infrastructure would work and to ask questions. The launch of the North Epping community battery was a nice occasion for me personally. It's nice as a politician to be able to promise something and then deliver it. It was nice to deliver it alongside the people of North Epping who, I know, take climate change very seriously. Before I was elected in 2022, I promised to deliver this battery in North Epping, and it was at times a bumpy road to get there. Seeing the results and turning on the battery was a good achievement. I made a promise, I consulted with the community and I delivered a community battery for Bennelong. This battery has a capacity of 535 kilowatt hours and is one of the early successes of the federal government's Community Batteries for Household Solar program, and only the third delivered by AusGrid. It will enhance power quality and voltage in our area, making it easier for residents to install and utilise solar panels and feed excess solar energy back into that battery. Functioning as a shock absorber for our local grid, this battery stores surplus solar energy generated by homes during the day and releases it at night. This will help residents in North Epping reduce their dependence on energy transported from the grid and help ensure a steady power supply even when the sun isn't shining. Moreover the benefits of these batteries extend beyond their immediate community. By supporting intermittent renewable energy generation with storage this battery will contribute to a more resilient and flexible energy system nationwide, making the grid more stable and more efficient. The significance of this piece of infrastructure goes beyond its technical capabilities. It symbolises our community's dedication to collective action against climate change. Investing in renewable energy helps reduce carbon emissions and builds a more resilient and self-sustaining community. By storing excess solar power, we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we lower our energy costs and we better prepare our community for the future. I know that this battery will not only be highly utilised but will also benefit the Bennelong community, especially those in North Epping. When I say our community cares about the stuff, I'm not exaggerating. A week after we launched this battery the local community group Sustainable North Epping hosted their own electric vehicle showcase and sustainability fair. The festival featured an impressive display of 12 affordable and luxury electric vehicles from a range of renowned brands, highlighting the latest advancements in low-emissions transportation. Attendees had the opportunity to explore these vehicles up close, learn about their benefits, speak to the owners of these vehicles and chat about how they could make the switch to low-emissions vehicles themselves. The presence of the Australian Electric Vehicle Association and our good friends at Solar Citizens provided valuable insights and information, supporting the community to make more educated and sustainable living choices. One of the highlights of the day was the introduction of ZapCat, which is a new Parramatta based start-up with a mission to help Australians transition their homes to clean energy by electrifying everything. This festival was not just about education. It was also about community engagement and a bit of fun as well. Sustainable North Epping put on prizes, including a three-month e-bike subscription. There were free compost bins. Native plants were given away. And they encouraged residents to adopt more sustainable living practices in their daily lives. A second-hand toy store was there, and it enabled families to de-clutter and exchange toys. Adding to the atmosphere was the local start-up Pedal Powered Smoothies, offering delicious smoothies made using bicycle power. The Australian public have made it clear that they're sick of divisive politics on taking climate action. They're sick of arguing over scientific facts. They want a government that commits to taking action and following through. That's exactly why I'm in this parliament, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Bennelong. There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:07