2024-05-30 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 30 May 2024

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

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Privilege 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 The President of the Senate, the Attorney-General and I have signed a new memorandum of understanding regarding Australian Federal Police investigations where parliamentary privilege may be involved. The AFP have also issued a new national guideline which updates the procedures they follow for the collection and quarantining of material that could be subject to parliamentary privilege. The MOU and guidelines are designed to ensure that law enforcement investigations are conducted without improperly interfering with the functioning of parliament, its committees and its members. They also ensure that parliamentarians and their staff are given a proper opportunity to raise claims of parliamentary privilege in relation to material that is obtained through the exercise of investigative powers. The new MOU and guidelines replace the procedures agreed in 2021, and include new procedures related to the exercise of covert powers. These new procedures seek to ensure that covert powers are exercised in a manner which does not intrude on parliamentary privilege. In doing so, they strike a balance with the need to ensure that the AFP are not impeded unduly when they exercise their powers to conduct investigations covertly. Some of the key elements of the new process for covert powers include the following: firstly, the AFP will consult with the clerk in relation to the exercise of covert powers which may engage privilege. Secondly, the clerk will advise the AFP of any risks that the investigation may interfere improperly with parliamentary functions. The AFP and the clerk will seek to agree on the appropriate way to mitigate those risks. Finally, information obtained through the exercise of covert powers which is potentially protected by parliamentary privilege will be quarantined from investigators until a claim for privilege can be raised and determined. I would like to acknowledge the work of the President, the Attorney-General, the member for Hawke, Senator Brockman, the late senator Linda White and AFP deputy commissioner Ian McCartney in negotiating this new agreement. I present a copy of the MOU and the national guidelines. I can also indicate to members that the President and I will be writing to all parliamentarians immediately, providing copies of the documents, along with an explanation of the changes that have been made. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS HMAS Stirling 1 09:04 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Initial Priority Facilities and Infrastructure Works for the Submarine Rotational Force—West at HMAS Stirling, Western Australia. The government wishes to proceed urgently with the construction of new facilities and infrastructure at HMAS Stirling in Perth, Western Australia, which will provide the capability required to ensure that the United States and United Kingdom's nuclear-powered submarines can safely and securely establish a rotational presence in Western Australia from 2027. The works that the government is seeking to expedite are preliminary and include in-ground engineering services; working, training and living-in accommodation; an emergency response and control centre; and infrastructure and minor maritime works to support increased mooring requirements. I note that a proposal to proceed with a construction project without referral to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works is not common. The government very much supports the work of the Public Works Committee and has not taken this decision lightly. In this case, however, the government has decided, given the urgency of the project, that it is not feasible to refer the preliminary work to the Public Works Committee as a precursor to the commencement of works. However, noting the public importance of the nuclear-powered submarine capability, the government intends for the next stage of the works at HMAS Stirling to be referred to the Public Works Committee as soon as possible. These works will relate to the design and licensing of radiological waste management and upgrades to the submarine pier and electrical services to supply the nuclear-powered submarines when in port. Referral at this time will ensure that there is an opportunity for parliamentary and public scrutiny of the proposed works. This is in addition to the broad engagement already underway, including with the traditional owners; federal, state and local government representatives; and key interest groups, consistent with section 18.8B of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, which provides for public works to be commenced where the House of Representatives has resolved that, by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that it be carried out without being been referred to the committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 2

Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:07 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On 1 May 2028, Australia will end live sheep exports by sea. The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 will amend the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia from that date. The Australian government and the Australian people recognise that there are inherent risks in the export of live sheep by sea. Despite numerous reviews and subsequent reforms, the Australian public continues to hold concerns about sheep welfare. The bill will strengthen sheep welfare to better align Australian export law with community expectations. In 2023, 43,758 Australians signed a petition (petition EN5323) calling for the parliament to legislate an end date to phase out the export of live sheep by sea from Australia. The bill aligns with the recommendations of an independent panel appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to consult with stakeholders. The independent panel undertook extensive public consultations on how and when the phase-out could occur, including engagement with more than 2,000 people in person and considering over 4,100 submissions and survey responses. Legislating a firm end date is considered by the government as the best means for producers, businesses and markets to make business decisions with a level of certainty, and work within a clearly defined timeframe for the closure of the trade. A legislated future date provides— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The shadow minister at the table will just cease interjecting so I can hear the minister's second reading speech. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you for that consideration, Mr Speaker. A legislated future date provides clarity and certainty for all stakeholders and allows the market to determine when trade occurs during the transition period as producers move away from supplying the live sheep by sea trade. Other measures, such as reducing trade through quotas or expanding the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition, would add— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Mr Speaker, can I ask for some protection from the chair, given the behaviour of those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 I remind all members that during second reading speeches the parliament needs to hear what is being said. If members wish to contribute to the debate they'll have another opportunity to do so. This is not the time for continual interjections. Some interjections are allowed for, but not a continual conversation when the minister is delivering the second reading speech. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Other measures, such as reducing trade through quotas or expanding the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition, would add regulatory burden in comparison with a firm, legislated, future end date. This is the least trade restrictive approach for the phase-out period. The bill will instate an absolute prohibition on the export of sheep by sea on 1 May 2028. There will be no capacity for an exemption from this ban. The bill only applies to the export of live sheep by sea and will not restrict the export of live sheep by air nor the live export of cattle. The bill will also ensure that offences and civil penalties will apply to a failure to comply with the ban, consistent with existing offences and civil penalties for the export of permanently and temporarily prohibited goods under the act. These penalties are necessary to ensure that they will act as a sufficient deterrent for the conduct of exporting live sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028, particularly for corporations. The approach to provide for a transition period is based on extensive consultation and strikes the right balance. Some in the community want to see the trade stopped tomorrow. Others continue to push for the trade to continue. This is the right thing to do for sheep welfare outcomes, but the government recognises that it does need to be done in a way that allows for an orderly transition and cannot come at the expense of industry. We say this because live sheep exports by sea have already declined to just 10 per cent of what it was at the turn of the century, currently a market returning $77 million a year. It is expected that phasing out live sheep exports will see the sector adapt through more sheepmeat processing in Australia. Value-adding can increase farmgate returns. It keeps jobs in Australia. It boosts regional development. We all know Australians love their lamb, and now the rest of the world is catching on with demand for lamb and mutton products continuing to grow. Australia's lamb and mutton exports were worth $4.5 billion in 2022-23, and around $3.5 billion to domestic retail markets. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector. With certainty about an end date there is now time to consider and make decisions appropriate to circumstances. The government is providing assistance for those decisions with a $107 million transition support package announced in the budget. The bill will provide appropriate legislative authority for Commonwealth spending to implement complementary measures to assist sheep producers and the supply chain, increase processing capacity, enhance demand for sheep products in Australia and overseas and diversify agrifood markets in the Middle East. Additional programs may be implemented by the minister under legislative instruments. While those affected are making decisions on how to move away from the trade, there is regulatory stability during the phase out. Regulatory requirements for live sheep exports remain in place, and trade may continue without caps or quotas until 1 May 2028. This bill delivers on the Australian government's election commitment—taken to two elections now—to phase out live sheep exports by sea. Phasing out this trade marks a considerable step forward for sheep welfare, reflecting our nation's values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals. It has been done on the recommendations of an independent panel following extensive consultation. We have provisioned and the bill supports the government to deliver the $107 million transition support package. If those opposite choose to vote against that support package, that will be something that they will have to defend. Collectively these measures enable those affected by the phase-out to be well positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends in 2028. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Reference to Committee 3 09:15 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing committee on Agriculture for consideration and an advisory report at 8 October 2024. I move this under standing order 143. I believe that it's important, when a government is about to make such an important decision on the livelihoods of 3,000 Western Australians, that it shows them respect, not the contempt that it has shown these men and women who have lawfully gone about their business, in a lawful trade, with the best animal welfare standards in the world. They are having that ripped away from them, taken away, without proper consultation. Even the panel that the government put up was giving only 24 or 48 hours notice to farmers to turn up—and that was invited farmers, not all farmers. They were not public meetings where everyone could come and understand what was being put to them. But people were asked to turn up within 24 hours and told, 'Give up your farming practices for the day'—in the middle of sowing, in the middle of shearing—'to hear why we're doing this.' What contempt for a government to do that to its own people! So it's important that these men and women in Western Australia are heard about why their livelihoods are being ripped away from them all because of ideology. There is no scientific or economic reason why this trade should stop. In fact, what you are going to see by Australia shutting down the live sheep export industry is the senseless and horrific deaths of millions of sheep from around the world, from the markets that take up our place—countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, South Africa. They will be the ones that export sheep— Mr Wilkie C2T Mate, that's the drug dealers defence! Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 There is no moral value or compass that anyone that wants to go against this— Mr Wilkie C2T That's the drug dealers defence! Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 You are morally bankrupt! You are absolutely morally bankrupt to sit there and value the welfare of the sheep of Australia over that of those from another country. You are morally bankrupt! You are nothing but morally bankrupt! Mr McCormack 219646 He should withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. The minister will just pause for a second while I deal with this matter. The language used in the chamber is completely unacceptable. I only heard part of what was being said. I'm just going to invite the member for Clark to withdraw any unparliamentary statements that he made. Mr Wilkie C2T Mr Speaker, out of respect for you, I withdraw. Mr McCormack 219646 No. He should withdraw unreservedly. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Under Practice, that has been a provision and accepted. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 This is a hard truth that those who want to shut this industry down do not want to face up to—not only those opposite but those from Tasmania that have an ideological view and don't understand the agricultural production systems here and around the world. This a hard truth that Animals Australia and RSPCA aren't willing to admit. They aren't willing to face up to the facts. I challenge those opposite and I challenge RSPCA and Animals Australia today. Show the people of Australia photos and vision of a boat from Ethiopia or Sudan and compare it to one from Australia. Yes, there was a mistake, but the industry reformed itself. They had the courage of their conviction to make sure this industry has a social licence better than anyone in the world. In fact, we lead the world in our animal welfare standards. We don't measure the success of boats and shipments through mortality anymore. We're the only nation in the world that measures it through animal welfare standards. Before we put any sheep on that boat, we measure to the millimetre the length of wool and weight of that sheep. Each boat is given an individual score for how much air flow goes through it, and that determines the stocking density on those boats. However, those countries don't count how many they put on, because they get paid by how many survive at the other end. They work on mortality. Where is the moral virtue in that? Where is it? There isn't any. We have reformed this industry to be the best in the world, but we are cutting and running, and we will see the senseless and horrific deaths of millions of sheep from around the world. It will be on each one of those that support shutting down this live export industry. It will be on their conscience. It will be on them. Instead, we can stay and continue to ensure that we influence and lead the world with the best animal welfare standards in the world not just in the shipment but also in the processing of sheep in these countries. This is cultural. It's not just about giving these countries food security but about fresh meat and the way in which they want to process it. How arrogant are we that we can look down our noses and tell those Middle Eastern countries, 'No, you're not going to have live sheep, because we don't trust you'? We've worked with them, and we now have Australian standards in the processing of these sheep in the Middle East. I've been to an abattoir in Kuwait City purposely built because of the standards that we asked the Kuwaitis to have. We didn't impose it on them; they took it on because they saw it was the right thing to do. This abattoir has a viewing area for 2,000 people, complete with a playpen in the corner for the children. This is cultural. It's about how they want their food processed. They go to the pen, they put a tag on a sheep and they watch it being processed right through the chain. They pick the kids up out of the playpen and they go home. But those sheep are processed to our standards. When we're not there, those standards will no longer be needed. In these countries, as we've seen, there's actually been slippage in some of these processing sectors. We've had the power to go in and rectify that because we've had the courage to say, 'Unless you live up to the world-leading animal welfare standards that Australians want you won't get our sheep.' We have been able to make sure that the animal welfare standards in these countries now mirror ours. But, if we cut and run, that will be lost. There are those that want to shut this industry down because of an ideological view and a lack of understanding. They think, 'We might be able to send a few on a plane.' That just shows ignorance—to think we might send sheep on a plane to the Middle East for live export. The cost around that is just astronomical. It's just treating people with absolute contempt to say, 'We're shutting this down by sea, but we might be able to do it by air.' It's playing on the ignorance of those that live in capital cities that don't appreciate exactly what this industry is. For the government to not even have the courage of their own convictions and face Western Australian farmers and explain the science behind why they are shutting this industry down shows an absolute contempt for Western Australians, who do this better than anyone else. There was a mistake in the live cattle industry some years ago. They reformed it, and now we lead the world. So why aren't Western Australian farmers allowed the same opportunity? Why aren't they being given the same opportunity when they have reformed their industry to be the best in the world? This is about actually facing up to people. We've got a minister that wouldn't even go and sit in Katanning in front of 600 farmers and explain his decision. If you believe so passionately in this, why wouldn't you face up to them? Why wouldn't you support this motion to have a parliamentary inquiry to allow proper process and to allow the 3,000 people in Western Australia who will lose their livelihoods to be heard? 'No-one held back, no-one left behind' was the big statement by the Prime Minister—that is, unless you live in Western Australia. Where are all the Western Australian politicians supporting their industry? There are none on that side. Where are our senators? They all want to shut the industry down. It's folly to believe the simplistic notion that we can put them on a plane to send them over there. It is uneconomical. Anyone with any agricultural understanding knows that, but those opposite are devoid of that. But also to sit down and say, 'We'll process our way out of this,' is absolute folly, because it is a seasonal industry. When you have a seasonal industry, unfortunately, you can't keep an abattoir going for 365 days a year. The base cost to build an abattoir is $50 million. Then you have to be able to run it with staff. So you will bring staff in for—what?—eight or nine months of the year and then send them away? The economics go against it. Unfortunately, in Western Australia there is this little thing called the Nullarbor. Even if you didn't want to export it, you'd have to bring it back to the east coast and there are these things called transport costs. This is just folly. These are simplistic notions that this government is trying to use to cover over an ideological view that has no basis—no scientific basis or economic basis. If you are going to be honest with the Australian people, have the courage of your convictions. Explain the science. Tell me, as the Prime Minister could not do in question time last sitting when I asked, one country that has higher animal welfare standards in the export of live animals than Australia. There are none. We lead the world. Australians don't cut and run. We stay and get the job done. But this government is prepared to cut and run because of animal activists that believe, for some perverse reason, that they are going to save Australian sheep but don't care about the welfare and lives of millions of sheep from Ethiopia and Sudan. How can they honestly look at themselves and say this has any value whatsoever? This is all about a political fix in capital cities, playing on the ignorance of people who live in capital cities and don't understand production systems, don't understand food security in many of these countries and don't understand the culture of those trading partners that we respect. How can we honestly look them in the eye? In fact, the last time the government went over to tell them they were going to knock this down, the agriculture minister sent his department officials. He didn't have the courage to go to Qatar and Kuwait and eyeball the governments and show them respect. They are among our biggest trading partners. He didn't have the courage; he sent his department. I'll tell you how incompetent the minister is. He sent his department to the wrong agencies in Kuwait and Qatar. This shows another level of profound incompetence that actually is disrespectful to these nations—that you would go and tell a foreign government you are going to take away their food security but go to the wrong department to tell them. This government has shown no regard not only for Western Australian farmers but for our trading partners. These are trading partners who those opposite also believe we'll send all this processed meat to. Let me tell you: if we do not respect them with live sheep, they will not take our processed sheep. I can say that with some authority because I have actually met with the minister and the Prime Minister in Qatar. They made it very clear to me that, unless we send live sheep, we should not think we are going to send processed sheep. That is what they believe. We are not respecting their cultural beliefs. But they have had the courage to respect our animal welfare standards, and we have imported them to another country. We should be proud of the fact that Australia is leading the world and has led the world in imposing these standards that have been adopted around the world. But this government wants to cut and run and cut 3,000 livelihoods out of Western Australia. Who does that without going and actually eyeballing these people? This is more about the politics of the Animal Justice Party. The truth came out when the date was set when the Animal Justice Party stood up and said: 'This is the payback for us giving our preferences to the Labor Party. That was the deal that we cut before the 2022 election.' This was all about this government taking their preferences and getting into government at the expense of Western Australians. Where is the courage of Western Australian politicians? The only ones who have courage are sitting here behind me. They are the only ones that have the courage to stand up for the people that they represent, backing them for the standard that they have imposed here in Australia and around the world. We should be proud of what the men and women of Western Australia have done with the live export industry. We should be proud of the reforms that they have put in place and led themselves. In fact, they even imposed a northern summer ban on themselves. Now, because we are slowly but surely getting more science, we are closing that window. The science says that we can actually send these sheep further and deeper into the northern summer. That is the scientific basis we have predicated all our animal welfare standards on. Instead, what the government are doing is going to see the senseless and horrific deaths of millions of sheep. That is on the conscience of those who support this bill. Make no mistake. That vision will come out, and we'll make sure that, when you cut and run, that will be on the conscience of every one of those who want to shut down the Australian live sheep export industry. It will be on your conscience because you are the ones that are assigning the horrific death. There is a better way to do this. It has been proved that we do this better than anyone else in the world. The Prime Minister can't even name a country that does it better than us. This is all about ideology and politics, not about the practical reality. Those who sit opposite might just want to think one day. Get out from your city suburbs. Get out and understand. Sit with a Western Australian farmer, eyeball them and understand it. Get on a boat, go to the Middle East and see how our sheep are processed. Look at the vision that those who say we have done it so badly have propagated. That's what it will return to when Australia cuts and runs. Australia has never cut and run until now. That's what this government has lowered the Australian standard to. It's all about politics and ideology rather than standing up for Australia. I thought no-one was going be left behind and no-one was going be held back, but everyone in Western Australia is being held back because of the cowardice of this government. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 53517 The question before the House that we're dealing with at the moment is the motion moved by the Leader of the Nationals.    

The House divided. [09:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 55 AYES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. 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. 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. 82 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. 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) 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 7

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:41 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to present the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. This bill increases the transparency and accountability by government regarding decisions and policies relating to the defence of Australia. The Albanese government is committed to transparency and accountability. In a Westminster-style democracy such as ours, the parliament plays a crucial role in providing this by scrutinising and debating the decisions of the executive government and the implementation of them by departments and agencies. This scrutiny is important in ensuring the best decision-making, the most efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed parliament and, by extension, public. The Senate estimates process has provided useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence—particularly major capability projects—over the years, and it will continue to do so following the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. But in the challenging and complex strategic circumstances that we find ourselves in, it's necessary to ensure the parliament can also examine these projects and Australia's defence strategies in greater detail and in a classified setting, with the appropriate safeguards in place. This bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing a Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Defence, or the PJCD. The establishment of the PJCD implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into international armed-conflict decision-making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. The inquiry was initiated to deliver a commitment in the Australian Labor Party's national platform. The government acknowledges and thanks the chair and members of the inquiry—particularly the chair, the member for Bruce, for his important work on the inquiry and in helping bring the PJCD into existence. This is not the first time that a committee of the parliament has recommended the establishment of a statutory committee dedicated to Defence, but it is the first time a government has acted on one of those inquiry recommendations. The PJCD is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It will supersede and enhance the Defence-related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The PJCD will be able to receive and consider classified information in carrying out its oversight functions, ensuring it has the information it needs to conduct effective scrutiny of Defence and its portfolio agencies, and strengthening government decision-making on defence and strategic policy. Importantly, the bill establishes appropriate safeguards that balance the government's commitment to greater public accountability and transparency for Defence, and the necessary protection of information provided to the PJCD to ensure Australia's national security, and that of our international partners, is protected. In terms of the committee's functions, the committee will have oversight of the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and certain Defence portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial. The bill sets out the functions of the committee, including: considering publicly released documents dealing with Australian defence strategies, planning and contingencies, such as the biennial National Defence Strategy; scrutinising Australia's defence capability development, acquisitions and sustainment, including the Integrated Investment Program; examining and being appraised of war or warlike operations and ongoing conflicts, in the event of a decision by the executive to enter into armed conflict, and; monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations domestically and internationally. The committee can receive referrals on matters from ministers and either house of parliament. It can also inquire into any matter it might determine relevant to its oversight functions on its own initiative. In recognition of the significance of establishing a royal commission, the committee will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing on an ongoing basis the Australian government's response to the findings of any royal commission inquiries relating to Defence. To ensure the independent regulators in the Defence portfolio are able to fulfil their statutory functions, the committee will also consider the operations, resources, independence and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, and, once established, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. This is modelled on the relationship between the Australian National Audit Office and the statutory Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. The committee is not able to direct the regulators, nor review their activities or investigations, in carrying out this function. The new committee's functions will not extend to matters that fall within the purview of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within the Intelligence Services Act 2001. This includes oversight of the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation, which will continue to report to the PJCIS. The existing arrangements for Defence oversight by the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, including the examination of legislation and of the Defence budget through the Senate estimates process, will remain unchanged. Similarly, the establishment of the PJCD does not prohibit other committees, such as the statutory Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, from examining Defence matters as part of its functions. Instead the PJCD will complement these existing arrangements by scrutinising matters such as the Integrated Investment Program in a classified setting. In terms of the constitution of the committee, as with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint up to 13 members to the committee, comprised of no more than seven government and six non-government members from both houses of parliament. The arrangements for information handling are closely modelled on those that apply to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Committee proceedings will be conducted in a private and appropriately secure setting, unless the minister has authorised public hearings, with the exception of the committee's consideration of the annual reports of defence agencies. The committee will be able to request and receive classified information and briefings in order to perform its functions. For certain categories of protected information—for example, specific information about highly sensitive military capabilities, tactics, techniques or procedures—the minister would need to authorise the production of the information to the committee. The minister would also need to authorise any subsequent disclosure by the committee of that information, including in reports to the parliament. If necessary, to prevent a witness from disclosing operationally sensitive or other protected information, the minister can issue a certificate to prevent the provision of such evidence or documents. Given the protections in place to facilitate the provision of information to the committee, it is not intended that these powers be used as a routine matter of course. Rather, the intent is that they are used in rare circumstances to protect the most sensitive information and capabilities, of which disclosure to the committee would cause significant harm. This bill sets out a range of criminal offences intended to deter members of the committee, their staff, staff of the committee, and other persons who receive protected information in connection with the performance of the committee's functions, from disclosing or publishing information without specific authorisation from the relevant minister. There are also offences to ensure the protection of witnesses requested to give evidence or documents to the committee. The offences and penalties in the bill are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, ensuring the committee can obtain the information necessary to apply proper scrutiny and oversight to the Defence portfolio, while helping to ensure the protection of this information. Where relevant, the offences are consistent with principles set out in the Review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department in 2023, and the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This bill and the establishment of the PJCD represents an important step forward in parliamentary accountability and transparency for Defence, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 9 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 9 Report 9 09:52 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights's inquiry report into Australia's human rights framework. In March last year, the Attorney-General tasked our committee with reviewing the scope and effectiveness of Australia's 2010 human rights framework. This framework aimed to improve and promote human rights in Australia, but it was largely abandoned following the change of government. Much of the focus of our inquiry has been on whether, as part of revitalising Australia's women rights framework, Australia should enact a federal human rights act. The committee received 335 submissions and over 4,000 form and campaign letters. We held six public hearings, during which we heard evidence from a range of community groups, religious organisations, government bodies and experts. Submissions were overwhelmingly in favour of the introduction of a human rights act, with only four per cent opposed. The committee considers our current piecemeal approach is inadequate to properly protect and promote rights in Australia. We need human rights to be made real in everyday decision-making. Numerous royal commissions have shown us what happens when officials, both elected and unelected, fail to properly consider the effect of government actions on the rights of vulnerable people. That is why the committee has recommended the establishment of a statutory federal human rights act as part of a revitalised human rights framework. Australia is the only liberal democracy without a bill or charter—the only one. Victoria, Queensland and the ACT all have current existing human rights acts or charters. The committee does not agree that rights protection should sit within the Constitution, as is the case with a bill of rights. The committee's proposed statutory model respects parliamentary sovereignty and ensures our elected representatives can continue to make the laws that parliament deems necessary. But with a human rights act in place, the federal parliament would need to expressly consider rights when making laws. And the Commonwealth public authorities, including government departments, would need to consider rights when making decisions and act compatibly with those rights unless parliament specifically directs them otherwise. I reject the notion that a human rights act risks politicising the judiciary and opening the floodgates to litigation. Evidence from other jurisdictions with human rights acts, both within Australia and internationally, is that the floodgates have not opened. Under this proposed model, most complaints would be settled through conciliation. In the small number of cases that get to the courts, judges would need to consider the application of the law. This is something that our courts do every single day. Judges would not be able to strike down any laws on our books. The committee has attached to our report a draft human rights bill. This is not intended to dictate what a human rights act should look like if adopted, but it is intended to help promote understanding of the proposed model. In our extensive report, the committee has made 17 detailed recommendations to better protect human rights. Simply having a human rights act will not be enough to achieve human rights protection; we also need a greater understanding of human rights right across the community and, importantly, across the Public Service. I believe that one of the main benefits of a human rights act will be to drive a human rights culture within the Public Service so that those who serve us have a clear framework to consider and balance the rights and freedoms of everyday people when making decisions and developing laws and policies that affect us all. It is also important to note that a federal human rights act could have no direct impact on matters governed by the states or territories, such as policing, prisons, housing or child welfare. The hope is that, over time, progress would be made towards all states and territories joining Victoria, Queensland and the ACT in having their own human rights acts to ensure that all Australians receive the same human rights protections. I thank the Attorney-General for referring this important inquiry to us, and urge the government to give serious consideration to the evidence received by the committee and our detailed recommendations. I also want to acknowledge the substantial work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The commission's proposal for a statutory human rights act has been the foundation on which this committee's recommendation on this point has been built. They have provided momentum and effort, and guidance and expertise, and I thank all of the members of the commission for their work. I would also like to thank the hundreds of individuals, organisations and experts who generously gave of their time to contribute to this inquiry; it was the very best of Australian civil society. Australia is well served by our vibrant and tireless civil society activists, who give thought and dedication to the future of our democracy and our country. I would like to thank both deputy chairs who participated in this inquiry—firstly, the member for Bowman, who sits in this chamber, for the fantastic way in which he collaborated and worked with the committee and myself. I really do appreciate it. Obviously, we had some policy differences but, on the whole, it was an extremely consultative and collaborative process, and I thank him for his efforts. And I also acknowledge the member for Monash, who began this inquiry as the deputy chair as well. I want acknowledge my fellow committee members who were participants in this important inquiry, who gave effort, expertise and engagement in a way that was the very best of our parliamentary committee processes. I thank them all for their engagement on this. I would like to thank the committee secretariat. The Human Rights Committee is made up of some of the finest public servants in this building; they are all experts on human rights law, and they even make us look half competent! They have put an enormous amount of work into this inquiry. They have brought their years of expertise in this place, and I believe some of them may even be in the chamber right now. They are outstanding civil servants and they should be proud of this report as well. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication and commitment of our former committee colleague, the late Peta Murphy MP. Peta was a passionate advocate of the need for an Australian human rights act. She mentioned it in her first speech. Peta became a member of the committee to participate in this very inquiry, and her insightful and incisive questions during the public hearings helped shape the evidence that the committee received and helped shape a number of the committee's important recommendations. I'm saddened that she's not here today. I think she would have been proud of this report. I encourage the government and all members to consider the committee's report closely. It is time that Australia updated its human rights framework. We have a strong record of human rights protections, but there are gaps. There are improvements that need to be made. Australia, as a liberal democracy, is the only country that doesn't have a human rights act, and I think that should change. I commend the committee's inquiry into Australia's human rights framework and its report to this House. 10:01 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr PIKE 300120 I rise to speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into Australia's human rights framework and, specifically, on the dissenting report presented by the coalition members of the committee. At the heart of the majority report is the recommendation that the government pursue a human rights act based on the model put forward by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Coalition members reject this flawed proposal. We consider it both unnecessary and dangerous. As our former chief justice, Harry Gibbs, once noted: 'If society is tolerant and rational, it does not need a bill of rights. If it is not, no bill of rights will preserve it.' A human rights act or a bill of rights has been seriously proposed at least 10 times before in Australia's history. It was deliberately rejected by the framers of our Constitution and has been rejected by every government since 1901. Once again, the proponents of a human rights act, through their submissions to this inquiry, have failed to demonstrate that our current systems are not providing adequate protections for human rights or that their reform model would achieve preferable outcomes. Australia has an enviable human rights record and historically played a pivotal role in the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The AHRC's proposed act and the example bill presented in this report are a dangerous departure from those human rights agreements that Australia is treaty-bound to adhere to. It selectively and deliberately devalues internationally recognised protections for the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief. The AHRC proposed that the right to not be subjected to torture be reinterpreted in a new right to not be treated in a degrading way, as a tricky way of giving preference to non-discrimination protections over individual freedoms. It also invents a new, open-ended, single-limitation clause on all rights, rather than adopting the finely calibrated approach in the international covenant, which outlines the circumstances in which some rights may be limited and what rights can never be restricted. Coalition members fear that this departure from international jurisprudence would result in excessive restrictions being placed on the freedoms of religion and expression in Australia. A human rights act as proposed would weaken our parliamentary democracy and politicise our judiciary. Australia's democracy is robust, open and vigorous. This parliament is the best institution to defend human rights and to debate and determine the balance of competing rights through legislation. An act along the lines proposed by the Labor and Independent majority on the committee would insert abstract and vague concepts into our law that would require judicial interpretation. It would represent a surrender of this parliament's responsibility to defend human rights to an unelected and unaccountable judiciary. Coalition members consider the proposed act as a convenient way for parliamentarians to avoid making difficult decisions. It would entangle judges in controversies about contentious moral and political causes, and it would create American-style conflicts between the judiciary and the executive. An act of this nature would also make it harder for Australian governments to keep our citizens safe and our borders secure. We have seen this in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom government's attempts to deport foreign criminals have been thwarted by their human rights act. Camilo Soria unlawfully remained in the UK after the expiration of a student visa. UK courts determined that Soria had a pet cat and that therefore the deportation order breached his rights to a private and family life under their Human Rights Act. A similar judgement relied on a failed asylum seeker's local gym membership and participation in a five-a-side football team to determine that he had established a private life in the United Kingdom. We fear what a similar act would mean for the interpretation and implementation of the laws that we make in this place. One only has to look at the human rights acts enacted in Victoria, Queensland and here in the ACT to see how this is not a silver bullet. These acts have made little difference to human rights in these parts of Australia. These jurisdictions were amongst the worst offenders against human rights during the pandemic. A human rights act is clearly not a guarantee of achieving protection of human rights. The United States Bill of Rights did not prevent the practice of slavery. The French declaration of the rights of man did not prevent the bloodshed and summary justice of the Reign of Terror. The impressive rights espoused in the Constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the Great Purge or the gulags. Individual freedoms are protected extensively within the constitution of North Korea, yet the nation has no contemporary parallel with respect to the extent of its human rights abuses. Those proposing and supporting the adoption of a human rights act in Australia have the burden of proving both that our current systems are not providing adequate protection of human rights and that their reform model would achieve preferable outcomes. Contrary to the views of the government members of the committee, coalition members maintain that neither of these aspects have been demonstrated by any of the submissions made during the inquiry. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an act could have a negative impact on human rights. Coalition members share the concern of many submitters that the proposed act is unnecessary, dangerous and will erode the rights of Australians. The list of rights selected within the bill proposal presents an inconsistency with those protected under article 18 and article 7 of the ICCPR. It devalues internationally recognised protections for the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion and belief. Article 18 of the ICCPR mandates freedom of religion or belief. These rights are non-derogable—that is, they cannot be suspended even in a state of emergency. Article 18 does not appear in the AHRC's proposed human rights act. Instead, it is replaced by a new, redefined approach. Coalition members consider that this would represent a significant departure from the robust religious freedom protections outlined in article 18, particularly in relation to sections 3 and 4. Preference has clearly been given to non-discrimination protections over individual freedoms, despite these freedoms being regarded by the ICCPR as absolute. Many stakeholders submitted to the inquiry their concerns that this model does not have sufficient evidence on the ICCPR when it came to religious freedom. Given that Australia's protections for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion are already well regarded as insufficient, this proposed approach would be a significant backward step in protecting human rights within Australia. Coalition members are concerned that an act of this nature could be utilised as a trojan horse for social agendas that cannot be progressed successfully through the political process. Former Labor Attorney-General Robert McClelland noted in the 2010 Human Rights Framework: … human rights in Australia would not be served by an approach that is divisive or creates an atmosphere of uncertainty or suspicion in the community. I fear that the recommendations of the committee will result in this sort of divisive approach being pursued by the government. I encourage the Attorney-General to consider what next steps are truly in the national interests. Does the government wish to make meaningful, incremental and bipartisan improvements to Australia's Human Rights Framework or does the government wish to embrace the AHRC's bizarre reimagining of human rights, with key rights deleted and absolute rights not recognised as such? On behalf of the coalition members of the committee, I want to thank everyone who engaged with the committee's inquiry process, the committee secretariat for their tireless efforts in supporting our work, and the committee members, who sat through those hearings and debated the outcomes of this report. The coalition members' rejection of the human rights act proposal reflects a commitment to uphold Australia's proud tradition of human rights while safeguarding the primacy of this parliament and protecting the rights of all Australians. 10:10 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney by leave—As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and a proud proponent of human rights, I welcome the release of the committee's report recommending that Australia establish a national human rights act. Let's be clear. The evidence showed us that, by establishing a human rights act, we can re-lay the foundations for a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society and ensure all the rights of Australians are adequately protected. Despite Australia being party to seven core international human rights treaties, there is no way to challenge human rights violations under our current national law. To help people fight for the right to a healthy environment, their reproductive rights, education, adequate housing, Indigenous self-determination and many other rights, we need a national human rights act. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. State based human rights laws have been used to successfully protect a range of rights and have resulted in more accessibility to public transport, the extension of superannuation benefits to same-sex couples and public education for children seeking asylum. To be clear, none of those rights would have been granted if those state human rights acts were not in place. Many of the abuses and injustices of the past might have been avoided if our federal government had been forced to consider human rights before rolling out schemes like robodebt or in regulating industries like the aged-care sector. Numerous royal commissions have shown us what happens when we fail to properly consider the impact of government action on the rights of vulnerable people and allow human rights to become a political football rather than a fundamental truth. For too long, we have been layering bad law over the top of bad law rather than fixing our foundations with a fundamental human rights act. The result is an unnecessarily complex and piecemeal approach to protecting basic rights that sees this parliament deteriorate into a political debate every time we come up against a question of what is fair and equal treatment for all. The committee received overwhelming support for a human rights act, with the vast majority of submissions—in fact, 96 per cent—in favour. Let's be really clear. Despite what we just heard from the opposition, 96 per cent of the submissions to this committee were in favour of the establishment of a human rights act. We also know, thanks to the work of Amnesty International, that 75 per cent of Australians support the establishment of a human rights act. I also want to frame this up by saying that, in relation to the four per cent who expressed concern, the committee took on board all the evidence that was presented to us, including from religious organisations and organisations that fear the impact on their individual civil liberties, and we responded to those calls to amend what was the original draft of the human rights act to ensure we referenced all protections of all existing international treaties. Given this, I'm actually extremely disappointed this is not unanimous report, as I don't believe the evidence received by the committee, nor the actions and decisions of our committee, support that dissenting report. In contrast to the dissenting report's claims that the adoption of an overarching human rights act would fundamentally remove our right to be seen individually, the dissenting report leaves human rights in a position where they will continue to be a political football, remaining dependent on which party is in control of the government at any point in time. Australians have a right to be able to expect to move beyond this politicisation of human rights, and I believe that's what this committee saw as a way forward for our nation. We cannot let dissent distract us from doing what we know must be done to finally bring Australia in line with all other liberal democracies. We now need our government to step up and deliver the human rights protections everyone deserves. This is an exciting opportunity for Australia and one that we should grasp with gusto. The division is not amongst our community; it is between our political parties. I ask all in this House to set that political division down and focus on Australian citizenry. In closing, I want to thank the chair of the committee, the member for Macnamara, for his leadership of this committee. He has been there from the very beginning, advocating that we be given the opportunity to do this work. He has attended every hearing and listened deeply to every piece of testimony. He's navigated the contention at the committee level fairly and equitably, so I thank him. I also want to thank the deputy chairs, the member for Bowman and the member for Monash. I know you brought with you your passions and I believe that added to the debate we had at the committee level. I also particularly want to thank Senator Lidia Thorpe, who constantly challenged our committee to listen deeply and explore opportunities to go as far as we possibly could. I have to say I also greatly appreciated the input and the collegiality of the rest of the committee membership. I want to assure Australians that there was extraordinary experience on this committee. For me, as somebody who is new to this parliament, it was a privilege to be part of the conversation and the debate. We need to thank the committee secretariat, led by Anita Coles, who has been simply extraordinary. Finally, to the many individuals and organisations who provided submissions and testified in front of the committee, many of you have seen the potential for our nation to be better tomorrow than it is today through the introduction of a human rights act. Thank you. Thank you for that advocacy and for being the voice that calls us to be all we can be. This is but a small first step, but I believe it's a step forward and it has been made possible because of your commitment to shaping our democracy in a way that ensures all Australians truly are free and equal. I sincerely hope this 47th parliament lives up to the faith you have placed in us to take this forward. 10:16 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 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 13 10:16 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 14

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 14 10:17 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. It's been a long and winding road. We're two years into this lamentable government and we finally have this bill in front of the House today. It's an issue that the now minister flagged as a massive priority when he was shadow minister. Like with so much that this government has failed to do, we've seen nothing but hand-wringing from the government on the NDIS for the last two years. But it's good that, at the end of that long and winding road, we can be here today to talk about this bill. I move the amendment 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: (1) notes: (a) the NDIS is supporting the lives of more than 660,000 Australians; (b) the Coalition's strong record of support for the NDIS; (c) the former Labor Government grossly mismanaged the establishment of the scheme, including the federal/state responsibilities; (d) the former Coalition Government recognised the financial pressures facing the NDIS and was committed to working with state and territory governments to address those pressures to ensure the future of the scheme; (e) ahead of the 2022 election, Labor claimed the scheme was sustainable and ran a shameful scaremongering campaign that the NDIS was at risk and plans were to be cut; (f) following the election, the Government finally acknowledged the scheme is unsustainable after opposing the Coalition's attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing; (2) calls on the Government to: (a) release the modelling that underpins the NDIS Financial Stability Framework and the cost savings to be made by this legislation; and (b) provide a detailed outline of the inevitable cuts that participants should expect as a result of these changes". I won't go through this amendment in my remarks now. In essence, we've got a very peculiar situation here with this entire bill and, let's be frank, with the rhetoric from this government over the past two years. We know the NDIS has changed lives for the better, with more than 660,000 Australians and their families in some way, shape or form relying on what the scheme is doing. The coalition is very proud of our extremely strong track record in supporting the NDIS, essentially taking it from fewer than 50,000 participants to more than half a million participants in our time in government. We did the real hard work of taking what we inherited in its infancy, with many flaws, let's be frank, and turning it into a viable scheme for more than half a million Australians. We were committed and remain committed to fully funding this scheme. I remember in my time as Assistant Treasurer sitting there with the then Treasurer and never denying the requests from the NDIS minister for more support and more funding to ensure that this demand driven scheme was able to grow to where it grew too. We know and we inherited a scheme that was underinvested in by the Labor Party. It was a scheme that was established in the chaos of the Rudd-Gillard government, a scheme that had—even as the minister today would concede—agreements with states that were suboptimal from a federal funding perspective. Presumably these agreements were entered into by the then Labor government on the basis that they were much more keen to get a media release out than a viable scheme underway. Notwithstanding all that, the coalition worked hard to take the vision of proponents and actually turn it into some form of reality. In that time, however, the coalition did often make the point, and have made the point to this day, that the scheme has to be sustainable and that the scheme's very future for people with disabilities and their families will rely on the scheme remaining sustainable. We spoke about that in government, and we were absolutely criticised by the then opposition about talking about sustainability. In opposition, the now minister stood in the way, day after day, of coalition attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing. The now minister accused us in the coalition of 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre,' claiming the NDIS was 'tracking just as predicted' and that the coalition was 'hyping fictional cost blowouts'. While he was a shadow minister, he also said, 'You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering the scheme is unsustainable.' I'm here to tell you today that is a lie, another quote from the minister. He spent his time in opposition blocking every single attempt from the former coalition government to do some of the work that is now contained in this bill. He went to the election and said, 'None of that's necessary. The scheme is on track. It's tracking as predicted. There are no cost blowouts and there are no sustainability issues. It's just those terrible Liberals talking about it.' Then, the minute he got elected, the message changed overnight. All of a sudden, this scheme that was tracking just as predicted, according to this minister, was on an unsustainable footing and needed to be reined in. Now we find ourselves here today. Further, in the lead up to the election, the minister tried to argue that the former coalition government made cuts to the NDIS. We know you can't trust Labor when they talk about cuts. It's sort of in the bottom draw of every claim they try to make. Even though the coalition rescued the scheme by investing, at that time, $157.8 billion to support more than 550,000 Australians with a disability. So that's the great hypocrisy of it all. I think every advocate and every person in the disability sector knows that what shadow minister Shorten said before the election was entirely the opposite of what Minister Shorten has said since he's been in government. And now we find this bill—the culmination of his arguments that the scheme is not on a sustainable footing. You'd think in two years a minister who felt as though the scheme wasn't on a sustainable footing, that the scheme needed to be reined in and costs reduced, as he's argued consistently. I mean, give him credit. Since the election the minister has been very consistent. He's had one thing to say about the NDIS, which is that it's got to be reined in: spending's got to be reduced, and ultimately the only way to make it sustainable is to reduce the number of people who get access to the scheme and reduce the amount that people on the scheme are entitled to. He's been very consistent about that. But when you are the minister you have to do things. You actually have to make changes. You can't just diagnose problems forever. The minister's very good at diagnosing problems. He's failed to make the transition from opposition to government, where, once you get into government, your job is to not just diagnose problems but actually fix them. The minister talks a lot about abuse of the scheme. Well, abuse of the NDIS has got worse on his watch. Abuse by people with the ill intention of defrauding the scheme has gone into overdrive since this minister has been in the big chair. It's not something he spoke that much about before the election but it's gone into overdrive. We've learned through a number of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases what some claimants have been arguing for under this minister's framework. There are people who go to the AAT and claim that, under the NDIS, taxpayers should fund some of the following: botox treatments, Thermomixes, horseriding, a swimming pool, tai chi, sexual therapy and sex workers, and round-the-world trips. And it's all getting worse on this government's watch. In fact, through Senate estimates and a number of different forums, we've asked the minister to rule out the use of prostitutes under the NDIS. Under schemes such as the NDIS, Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for prostitutes. I don't know why it's so difficult for the minister to come out and say, 'Yes, we're going to ensure that doesn't happen, because, in the end, we are custodians of taxpayers' money.' Taxpayers unequivocally support the NDIS and are willing to support the tens of billions of dollars—$40 billion—that it costs to run the NDIS, provided that the money is used wisely. I'm not going to sit up here and cast moral judgement on people, but, if you want to use prostitutes, don't use taxpayers' money to pay for it. I hear the guffawing over there. I don't know why it's so difficult for the Labor Party to agree with that. Mr Perrett HVP That's at your hypocrisy, in saying you're not going to morally judge people. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Members opposite are more than welcome—there are plenty of opportunities for you—to speak in this debate, Member, and, when you do, I encourage you to get up and argue for why the NDIS and scheme plans should be used to fund prostitutes. I encourage you to do that, because we'll get the footage, clip it up and send it around the country, and we'll see what your constituents think about that. Maybe there are some who think that that's a very wise use of money. Mr Perrett HVP You guys are obsessed with sex. Go and see a therapist about the problem! Mr SUKKAR 242515 Maybe the member thinks it's a very wise use of money. On this side of the House we don't. I suspect that, unlike the member interjecting, many of his colleagues would be sitting there right now going: 'Mate, that's not the fight to pick.' But if that member wants to do so, I'm very happy for him to. We see a scheme that's now out of control. We've seen wait times double since this government came to power. The minister hand-picked the CEO of the NDIS. We remember the minister absolutely running down the former CEO of the NDIS—really unprincipled attacks on a good man. He's pulled in his own, hand-picked bureaucrat from the Andrews government bureaucracy—that glorious shining light on the hill the Andrews Labor government bureaucracy—who is now running the NDIS. Surprise, Surprise! Guess what's happened? Wait times have doubled. We now see the payment system overnight—I receive messages overnight from many individuals—under the scheme has dropped out again, so people won't be paid for 24 or 48 hours. The scheme and the agency is being run into the ground by this government, and they've been there for only two years. Boy, what could we have done in the last two years? It has taken them two years to get this bill before the House today, and may I say there's a long way for this bill to go. While we won't stand in the way of this bill in the House today, we will ultimately reserve judgement on this following the Senate committee inquiry, which is being conducted with the requirement that the Senate committee have an opportunity to examine all of the different issues with the bill, and that they have sufficient time to have each of the relevant stakeholders and agencies provide evidence—because the litany of concerns with this bill are very long. In some respects it looks like a rushed bill, but how on earth could a bill be rushed when you've had two years to do something? This was supposed to be a high priority of this government. We're two years in. Here are some of the concerns raised by stakeholders—not to mention them all, because I would take up my entire time if I did that. It's not clear from the bill what a participant can do if they don't agree with an outcome of a needs assessment. This particular stakeholder said: 'The NDIA decisions are notorious for being inconsistent and variable. There doesn't appear to be an avenue for review.' Wow! The second concern raised by stakeholders is: 'The new definition says the NDIS will only fund eight categories of supports. These are based on selected elements out of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, by leaving out other elements of that convention, the bill excludes some supports from NDIS funding. For example, the convention recognises the right to live where a person chooses and with who they choose, as well as rights to work in employment. However, this bill does not appear to include supports that would specifically facilitate a participant's economic participation.' The review recommendations contain a range of numerous contentious recommendations. The drafting of the bill lacked opportunity for consultation. This is what one stakeholder said: 'Our position and those we represent is that without examination and scrutiny of the full and complete proposed changes the bill would deliver a result in the future that looks akin to Frankenstein's monster. Participants, their families and providers would be scrambling to have fair and equitable access to the scheme and supports they need.' Another stakeholder said: 'What is and is not an NDIS support must not be so strict as to allow a participant to explain why it is reasonable and necessary for requested support to be funded.' The APTOS will be incorporated as an interim measure to determine what is and is not an NDIS support, yet it has been widely recognised that APTOS has failed. There are also no provisions around providers of last resort. Another stakeholder said: 'There's still a lot of work to do to develop a method for more consistently assessing and determining funding levels for housing and living supports. The approach to providing participants with funding incrementally must not be rigid. Participants should still get what they need when they need it, and not be punished for having exhausted their funding, particularly for very valid and reasonable reasons.' Another damning statement from stakeholders was: 'There has been a lack of a co-design approach to developing the bill. It's unclear who has been consulted in its development. Some disability representative organisations were apparently consulted. However, non-disclosure agreements were in place. The bill makes multiple references to co-design, yet the bill was not open for public consultation, which comes back to a lack of transparency, fairness, compassion and accountability.' Just to stay on that point for a moment, this Prime Minister came to office, saying: 'We are going to be an open, transparent and accountable government. We are going to let the light shine in.' There has been a worrying trend with this government—and it seems almost uniform—in their consultations, and that's the use of non-disclosure agreements. If they're genuinely consulting with the sector, but the sector can only find out or be consulted on the basis that it agrees—presumably by fear of prosecution by the government not to tell anybody about it—how on earth will that be genuine consultation? NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, have not been a feature of genuine consultation with the federal government, but they're an Albanese government feature. It will be written that NDAs became a feature of government consultation under a Labor government: 'You can consult with us. We'll tell you a little bit about it, provided you don't talk to anybody else, you don't consult your members, if you're a representative organisation, and you don't air or ventilate some of the questions.' That's not genuine co-design. They can call it co-design, but if they're hand-picking and selecting who they supposedly consult with, and those people are unable to share that information with counterparts, peers or even their own members—if they're a representative organisation—then that's not co-design and that's not consultation. That's a very worrying feature of this government. Let's be frank: you only get people to sign NDAs when you're trying to hide something. NDAs are not there if you're proud of the product that you're consulting on. NDAs are there if you're concerned, or if you want to hide something from the Australian public. There's a litany of issues with this bill. We've now had the minister concede that he was wrong before the election. Before the election—again, when he said that the NDIS, 'was tracking just as predicted,' and that the coalition was hyping up fictional cost blowouts—he was either genuinely ignorant of the truth, which is possible, or he deliberately deceived the entire disability sector, community and NDIS participants when he made those statements, knowing they were incorrect. In the end, I'll leave that for Australians to judge: was the minister ignorant of the issues with the scheme or was he deliberately deceiving the people he is now purportedly representing as minister? I like the minister, so I'm not going to answer that question. But I think it's fairly obvious, given his form, what the answer to that question is. I think, unlike him, that this coalition opposition is not going to use the more than 600,000 Australians with a disability and their families as some kind of political football or some kind of opportunity to embarrass the government. They are Australians who deserve honesty; they're Australians who are realistic and who understand the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme. They're the best people to turn to when you need answers as to what to do next, which is why it's so disappointing that this minister has ignored those people—that he has not consulted with them and has not engaged with them. It's as if this government and the minister have gone into the bunker and decided: 'We're going to reverse our position from before the election. We're going to do the opposite of what we said before the election, so let's put the flak jackets on, get into the bunker and just do this—not consult intelligently, fairly, openly and transparently with the people on whom these changes will most significantly impact.' In doing so, there's huge anxiety now, and I think that's a fundamental error that this minister has made. The suspicion and concern that are now faced by many participants and their families, I think, are a direct response not just to the mixed messages from saying one thing before an election and another thing afterward but also to the minister and the government's thought processes. One obvious example that is raised with me all the time is parents with children with ASD or developmental delay. Let's be frank. If someone is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in this country—often, if you're fortunate, it's been diagnosed early for a young child—their parents have nowhere to go other than the scheme. They've got nowhere to go other than the NDIS because this minister, when he signed the deals with the states or when he agreed the scheme with the states in its first iteration when he was a minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, had no forethought as to what the consequences would be. And guess what the consequences were. State governments completely withdrew all of their services. The framework of supports that was there for children with developmental delay or ASD was completely gone. He's got to wear that. The minister has to wear that. He can't say, 'I'm the architect of the scheme, but I was only the architect of the good bits, not the bad bits.' He wears that. Those parents of a child with ASD, developmental delay or a range of other disabilities have nowhere else to go than the NDIS, so, when the minister says, 'We're going to transition those children out of the NDIS and co-fund with the states supports for those participants under the scheme,' quite rightly the families and particularly the parents of those children say, 'Well, we want to know what you're promising us before you transition us out of the scheme, thank you very much, because we've seen what the promises from this minister mean before an election compared to after an election.' Before an election, there are no issues with the NDIS. It is tracking just as predicted. There are no cost blowouts. Post the election, that's all he talks about. The scheme's unsustainable and has to be reined in. So those families are understandably nervous and have anxiety. Again, I think that's exacerbated by the fact that so much of what's contained in this bill and the government's response to the Bonyhady review has been cloaked in secrecy and shrouded by non-disclosure agreements—a shameful feature of consultation by this government. To quickly touch on the bill: in the end, we're not opposing this bill in the House. There are some things in here we think are sensible changes—subject to the range and litany of concerns that we've raised that are yet to be appropriately addressed by the government, and they will have an opportunity between now and the Senate committee inquiry report and, ultimately, the Senate looking at this to try to address and alleviate a number of these concerns. We will happily engage with the government on those. But the bill before us today, which has taken two years to get its way here to this dispatch box, amends the NDIS Act in substance in the following ways. Firstly, it will require the NDIA to provide participants with a clear statement of the basis on which they enter the NDIS. The bill will also clarify and expand the NDIS rules relating to access provision, including the methods or criteria to be applied when making decisions about the disability and early intervention criteria and the matters which must or must not be taken into account. It will create a new 'reasonable and necessary' budget framework for the preparation of NDIS participants' plans, and participants will receive funding based on whether they access the scheme on the basis of impairments that meet the disability requirements, the early intervention requirements or both. It will also provide for the needs assessment process and the method for calculating the total amount of the participant's flexible funding and funding for stated supports for new framework plans to be specified in legislative instruments and NDIS rules. It will insert a new definition of 'NDIS supports', which will provide a clear definition for all participants' authorised supports that will be funded by the NDIS and those that won't. It inserts measures focused on protecting participants, including allowing the CEO to specify the total funding amount for reasonable and necessary supports together with the funding component amount under the plan for each support or class of support up to a specified amount. It clarifies the requirement that a NDIS participant who receives an amount or amounts for NDIS supports may only spend that money in accordance with the participant's plan, and enables the agency to change the plan management type as well as imposes shorter funding periods to safeguard the participants. It also inserts quality and safeguard amendments, enabling the imposition of conditions on approved quality auditors to not employ or engage a person against whom a banning order has been made. There's much in this bill that's, to some extent, I think, uncontroversial. There are sensible changes. But, again, the acceptance of those is not aided by the shambolic process undertaken by this government—the shambolic way in which the minister and the government have been engaging with their own predominantly state Labor counterparts, quite frankly. That has been a very messy and public display of disagreement that again heightens anxiety, and I think the headline-chasing grabs from the minister have not helped either. When he refers to plan managers, when he refers to many good and decent Australians as 'parasitic pen-pushers'—decent Australians, in most cases, trying to do their best for the people they serve—that sort of coarse language, talking down to your fellow Australians and denigrating them, is not a way to engender support for serious reform. We'll give the government an opportunity between now and the Senate committee inquiry report to demonstrate that they have heard some of these concerns, and we will make our final judgement at that time on whether we support the bill. For the purposes of the House, we will have many speakers on this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mrs McIntosh 281513 I second that and reserve my right to speak. 10:48 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On 26 September 1960 Fidel Castro spoke to the United Nations General Assembly for 269 minutes. World leaders normally speak to the UN for only 15 minutes. Cuba's leader spoke for 4½ hours. I wasn't there, but I thank the member for Deakin for letting the chamber relive that experience. What a wonderful contribution from him! Mr O'Connor 00AN3 It certainly wasn't Gettysburg! Mr PERRETT HVP It was not Gettysburg—definitely not, Minister! In a little over 10 years the National Disability Insurance Scheme has become a crucial Australian institution. It's a scheme we should all be very proud of—a world-leading scheme. I'm personally very proud of my involvement as a backbencher. I particularly thank the godmother of the NDIS, Jenny Macklin; I'm not sure if that makes the member for Maribyrnong the godfather, but I know he has made a significant contribution for a long time to the NDIS. Minister Shorten said of the NDIS: It fulfills a sense of collective responsibility … and is integral to our national identity … I wholeheartedly agree with the Hon. Bill Shorten on that topic. It reflects the core Australian values of looking out for each other and giving a helping hand to those who face more barriers in their daily lives than most Australians. Thanks to the NDIS, support for Australians with disability is now entrenched in both law and by our society, and I think it is becoming a part of our culture. We all love it. What do I mean when I use the word support? When we unpack it and use an NDIS lens, it means people with disability having choice and control over which services they access—a concept that the previous speaker finds abhorrent. It means that the participants can participate in their communities in the ways they choose. It means that children can access early intervention at a time that is crucial for their development. It means that disability supports are given a human value, not just a dollar value. Ultimately it makes Australian a more inclusive place, a kinder place. I would venture to say that it makes us even more Australian. Contrast this with life pre-NDIS for many people with disability. The services available were patchy across the country and access to them was effectively a game of postcode lottery that almost nobody won, particularly those in the regions. Depending on where you lived, you might have received some funding or access to services or you may have received very little and been very, very disadvantaged. Some received diddly squat. The reality of life for many people with disability at the time was one of isolation, loneliness and a constant struggle to access required supports. The 2009 Shut Out review, commissioned by former prime minister Rudd, shone a light on the daily experiences of those in the disability community. It described the barriers to education, employment, health care, housing, recreation, sport and to full participation in Australian society. And it led to the visionary decision to fundamentally change disability supports in this country for the better. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was first legislated in July 2013—which I seem to recall was a difficult time—and trial sites were established in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. From these early beginnings, the scheme has grown to supporting nearly 650,000 of our fellow Australians. The 10-year mark was an appropriate time to evaluate and assess the NDIS and the experiences of its participants. It was a Labor election commitment to commission an independent NDIS review and we got this underway in October 2022. The report was released in December last year and it had 26 key recommendations. The Albanese Labor government is now acting on the priority recommendations of this report. With this bill, we're committed to improving the experience of all Australians with disability and their families and carers regarding their interactions with the NDIS. It's important to note that with this bill, NDIS eligibility remains the same, NDIS plans are still set the same way and NDIS funding is still based on need. The legislation is not about reducing the number of people on the scheme. The overarching goal of these reforms is to return the NDIS to its original intent and to ensure we improve the experience of participants. That's why we're calling this bill 'Getting the NDIS Back on Track'. We're supporting this with $45 million to establish an NDIS evidence advisory committee which will provide better advice about what works for participants. We need to ensure that the NDIS is supporting the people it was designed to support—in other words, people with disability need to be put back right at the centre of the NDIS. That's why the NDIS review included deep engagement with the disability community over a 12-month period and consultation with around 10,000 Australians who testified to their lived experience. Their feedback taught us that people with disability have lost trust in the NDIS and that interactions with the agencies are often fraught. People with disability have expressed how frustrating it is to continue to have to prove that they are deaf or that they're a quadriplegic or that they have Down syndrome or that they're missing a leg. With these reforms, Labor is taking action to ensure the participant experience of the NDIS is better and that the culture is one of respect and trust and support and dignity. I stress that last word, dignity. One of the key investments we are making is $20 million to consult and design a new navigation service model for the disability community. The review indicated there are challenges for people with disability, their families and their carers in both navigating the system and accessing critical supports and services. We will collaborate with the disability sector to design a navigational model that is fit for purpose. I got some insights into that last week when I went to an NDIS forum in the electorate of Griffith with Minister Shorten. Listening to the participants, parents, carers and groups in this area is how we will ensure that we have a much better, fit-for-purpose system. It's also vital that we ensure the long-term sustainability of the NDIS so that future generations can access it and achieve life-changing outcomes. Cost projections show that the annual cost of the NDIS would grow from about $35 billion in 2022-23 to more than $50 billion in 2025-26 and exceed $90 billion a year within a decade. The Albanese Labor government is driving considered sustainable growth for the scheme, and that's why the National Cabinet has agreed to cap its growth rate at eight per cent from 2026. The reforms in this bill are centred around clarifying access to the NDIS, improving the use of participant budgets, and better early intervention pathways, which are actually the old 'a stitch in time saves nine'. They are also around ensuring quality and safety for participants. Both of those things are crucial, particularly the safety. The reforms are part of the necessary evolution of the scheme. Ultimately, over a period of time, the NDIS will become part of a larger ecosystem of disability supports. In our federation, this will be a unified ecosystem of supports comprising inclusive and accessible foundation supports and mainstream services. It is important to note that these changes are fundamentally aligned with the NDIS Act's existing principles. I know from speaking to participants in my electorate of Moreton that a real pressure point is plan usage. Participants want to be able to use their funding in the way that best suits them. That's what true agency is. It's not a term to be scared of. This legislation will remove itemised budgets, replacing them with flexible supports and stated supports. This reflects the preference to set the budget at a whole-of-person level rather than for individual support items. There will also be clear guidelines on what the funding can and cannot be used for. We're directing $5 million to do preliminary work to reform NDIS pricing arrangements. It's vital that NDIS participants get a fair deal, and we think it's also key that price-setting processes and decisions are more transparent. We know that when people hear the word 'NDIS' they add the wedding tax when it comes to providing basic services. We know that. There's a different price for a handrail when there's an NDIS payment rather than a Joe Public or Mary Public payment. Individual budgets will be developed based on a needs assessment arranged by the National Disability Insurance Agency. This assessment will take a person centred approach and will look at a person's needs holistically. It will result in the participant's reasonable and necessary budget. This approach means that planning decisions are consistent and equitable, not based on the number of reports a participant has or a participant's ability to advocate. We will work with the disability sector to ensure we get the assessment process right. The reforms will also clarify entry to the scheme. New participants will access the NDIS under the disability requirements, early intervention requirements or both. This will have a flow-on effect to how a participant's support needs are assessed and then their individual budget. Labor is determined to make the NDIS safer for participants by dealing proactively with fraud, waste and overcharging. Every NDIS dollar should go towards people with disability. I know that Minister Shorten is particularly focused on the fraud. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce that Labor established has already investigated more than 100 cases worth over $1 billion of NDIS funding. Surely we can all agree that it's a true criminal dog act to steal from the disability community. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission works alongside the NDIS to ensure providers protect participants from abuse, violence and neglect and operate legally and ethically. This bill will bolster the commission's powers when it comes to taking action on compliance. It will also enable the commission to work with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the NDIA to identify those who are charging more for equipment and services because of that NDIS funding package—as I call it, the wedding tax. As Chair of the Public Works Joint Committee, I sometimes think that there is a defence tax for military construction projects. We know that the vast majority of service and equipment providers work tirelessly, have the best interests of NDIS participants at heart and operate within the NDIS guidelines. It's not fair that their reputation is being undermined by the small minority who, up until now, have got away with unethical behaviour and price gouging. Such practices erode trust in the scheme amongst participants and hardworking Australian taxpayers. If left unchecked, they make the financial foundations of the scheme shaky. Over the next four years, the $160 million Data and Regulatory Transformation Program will ensure that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has the necessary technology and systems to collect and analyse data to better protect participants. This will also reduce the regulatory burden on NDIS service providers and provide enhanced cybersecurity. The Labor government assures participants and the disability sector that these considered and responsible reforms will take time to implement. They cannot take effect until the states and territories agree to the NDIS rules which outline the detailed operation of the scheme. We'll continue to consult with the disability community at every stage, hosting a $130 million co-design and consultation process as we work towards changing the NDIS rules. We intend to put the NDIS above the day-to-day political debate between political parties and between the federal, state and territory governments. People with disability are not political pawns, and getting the NDIS back on track is our priority. These reforms continue the Albanese Labor government's progress in working with the disability sector. There are more people with lived experience on the NDIS board than ever before, including my friend Kurt Fearnley, the chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency. I had the honour of working with Kurt on the Brisbane 2032 organising committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and he's quite the guiding force. Labor has focused on the 4½ thousand legacy appeal cases that were caught in long delays at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There is now a partnership between the NDIA and the First Peoples Disability Network to work together on a first national NDIS strategy and action plan. Going forward, as Minister Shorten said, there'll be a significant piece of work to collaborate with people with disability about the reforms, and we're seeking the lived experience of the disability community as we continue to strengthen the scheme together. We also want to work with families, carers, peak bodies, service providers, unions and the broader community. After all, we invested in this great scheme. It's a Labor scheme with Jenny Macklin's, Bill Shorten's and Julia Gillard's fingerprints all over it. I'm proud to support these reforms, as I know they will make NDIS participants' experiences of the scheme better. They will also make our world-leading NDIS sustainable, meaning that future generations of Australians with disability will be able to access reasonable, necessary and meaningful supports to lead lives of dignity, lives of choice, lives involving connection to community and lives of fulfilment. I commend the bill to the House. 11:03 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong The NDIS has transformed the lives of many people with disability around this country. When people with a disability have access to this scheme, they can enjoy independent and dignified lives. The scheme must stay. Our country depends on it. But the disability royal commission, the recent NDIS review and multiple reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, of which I am a proud member, have been very clear that the NDIS needs significant reform. Firstly we have to ensure choice and control, and access to the reasonable and necessary supports that Australia's NDIS recipients want and deserve. But with 660,000 Australians being NDIS participants and 400,000 working in the NDIS related jobs, and with the scheme projected to cost as much as $100 billion a year by 2030, we have to critically assess the size and cost of the scheme. It is vital that we do not sacrifice flexibility and choice in the process. Cost saving will benefit us all, but it does not need to punish the vulnerable. In the two months since this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, was first presented to the House, I've consulted widely with constituents, the health and disability community and legal experts. It's clear that there are many aspects of this legislation and its explanatory memorandum which require revision. In the previous iteration of the NDIS, far too much was left to operational guidelines. This leaves too much to as yet unwritten rules, which will be set out later as delegated legislation. That can be an issue with any bill, but it's particularly problematic with this one given the vulnerabilities and anxieties of the disability community. These concerns are understandable given their previous experience with such things as independent assessments, the frequent attacks on the scheme in the media and the recent pushback by states and territories regarding their involvement in the provision of foundational supports for the NDIA. This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, is the government's first response to the landmark review of 2023, which recommended transformative changes to the planning and funding processes of the NDIS. It also suggested that important policy positions in the scheme should be enacted in law rather than in the NDIS operational guidelines. This bill details how participants will enter the scheme and how their support needs will be assessed and funded. It enacts use of a needs assessment to determine a 'reasonable and necessary' budget, built at a whole-of-person level, for participants' packages, rather than a determination line by line for each support item, as was previously done. The bill gives power to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to develop a new legislative instrument, the NDIS rules, which will determine exactly what sorts of supports the NDIS will fund. It gives the minister the power to set decision-making processes about disability requirements and early intervention requirements and the power to prescribe those circumstances in which a participant's eligibility for the NDIS will be assessed and those circumstances in which it may be denied. But the government has not yet released drafts of these rules or determinations, and we don't know what they're going to include. Many of the practical impacts on participants will turn on the contents of those rules and determinations. For example, the EM to this bill assures stakeholders that the disability community will be consulted prior to the legislative instruments being enacted but doesn't say how the consultation will occur. We know there needs to be a process of detailed consultation and co-design that includes all the diverse members of the disability community. Ideally, the bill should require the minister to commit to open disclosure about the process of co-design for each instrument. We know that many of the new NDIS rules will be category A—they'll have to be agreed between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories—but it's not clear what the NDIS will fund federally and what will be provided by states and territories through so-called foundational supports. We have heard from the states and territories that details of those supports remain unclear and that many state based services have been lost in recent years, so there's real anxiety about the potential for a shortfall in service provision under these new arrangements. The bill doesn't make clear exactly who is going to undertake the needs assessments. In the past we've seen that planners and local area coordinators are often very inconsistent in their decision-making. Those assessors are going to have to be appropriately trained and qualified professionals with relevant disability expertise, and they will have to be independent of service providers. The community has expressed concerns that the proposed changes to eligibility and assessment processes could disproportionately impact people with psychosocial disability. It really needs assurance, as well, that all assessments and reassessments required by the NDIA will be fully funded by the scheme. The NDIS review and the parliamentary joint committee's inquiry into the capability and culture of the NDIA recommended that the NDIA assess people according to the totality of their disabilities, but, in its current form, this bill limits the needs assessment to impairments meeting either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements. We know that at least five prior decisions of the AAT have rejected this position. The bill also envisages the assessor linking each support need to a specific impairment, but this would, in many cases, result in the artificial exclusion of disability related needs, especially for those people who have coexisting physical and psychosocial impairments. All impairments requiring disability supports should be eligible for NDIS funding. It's particularly important that we don't disadvantage those persons who have high support needs such that they lose the ability to live independently in circumstances of their own determination. Once the needs assessment has identified support needs, a method will be applied to quantify the reasonable and necessary budget for flexible funding and/or stated supports. The proposed new framework plans will also specify staged release of participants' funding. This could limit flexibility of access to that funding, particularly given that many participants have complex episodic and degenerative disorders. There are also concerns regarding the possibility that the plans could be suspended should the participant exhaust their funds within the stated 12-month period. Such a suspension of care could be contrary to NDIS practice standards. The requirement that certain conditions be met before funds can be accessed or used could potentially include requirements such as providing services from specified providers. This means individuals may not be able to access non-registered providers, which will be a massive problem for some people, especially those in rural and regional centres, where there are thin or no markets, and flexibility of funding is absolutely crucial to accessing support. The bill does not currently provide for a draft plan to be provided to participants prior to its approval by the NDIS despite multiple previous reviews of the NDIS recommending that this be in place. Having an opportunity to review your draft plan and your budget will improve NDIA decision-making. It will provide an opportunity to correct oversights and errors and it will reduce the number of reviews or appeals of plans after they've taken effect. It's not negotiable that that should be in the legislation. While we have no information as to the proposed content of the delegated legislation, the EM does say that things like holidays, household appliances and whitegoods won't qualify as NDIS supports. That might seem reasonable on first glance, but the EM should not pre-emptively rule out categories of support. The pitfalls of such an approach have been demonstrated on numerous occasions at the AAT. For example, conditions which render individuals susceptible to heat stress which could result in medical complications requiring additional health treatment should be managed by the NDIS with provision of appropriate air conditioners. That's one example, but there are many. While the NDIS should not fund holidays, NDIS recipients have a right to have holidays, like all Australians, and they may require support when they have them. Respite care should also remain funded. Equally, the rules should not prevent participants from making innovative and efficient use of their flexible funding—for example, by pooling funds for group purchases of items like adapted vehicles. The bill establishes new powers for the CEO to request information from participants and other people. Those powers provide insufficient protections for participants. Failure to comply with requests in 90 days could give the CEO discretion to revoke participants' status. Participants failing to provide information regarding the formulation of their framework plan within 28 days could experience automatic consequences. We all know how long you can wait to see a doctor in this country. You can't punish people who can't come up with a medical opinion within 90 days unless the NDIS is prepared to accept responsibility for arranging those opinions. The magnitude of revocation of plans is potentially massive. Particularly for those people over 65 it could be disastrous. This part of the bill has to change. The proposed powers permit the CEO to request any information which is 'reasonably necessary'. This is not well defined. Production of such information could be burdensome, it could be expensive and it could be distressing for participants. There are also significant concerns within the disability community regarding the prospect of mandatory medical assessments, particularly if these are to be undertaken by a person other than the person's treating medical professional. Under some subsections of the bill, failure to comply with requests will automatically result in significant consequences. The consequences for such noncompliance have to be made discretionary to the CEO. The bill does not clearly explain if or how a participant can seek review if they do not agree with their needs assessment report. It does say that you can seek review of the statement of participant supports, which includes the budget, but it's not clear whether or not that review would allow challenge of the needs assessment or just the budget. If it's the latter, a budget based on an inappropriate needs assessment could not be suitably corrected on review. The bill provides for a replacement assessment, but it doesn't stipulate when one would be available or whether or not the participant would be able to request one. At a minimum, this bill should provide that a participant has the right to access a replacement assessment in relation to each NDIS plan developed for them, and the CEO should also have the discretion to arrange further assessments as appropriate. That decision by the CEO should be subjected to internal and external review. While the proposed 'reasonable and necessary' budget is designed to allow greater flexibility in how participants spend their funding, the bill also introduces new powers enabling the NDIA to constrain or supervise participant spending. There's a real risk that the proposed changes to plan variation, reassessment and review processes will diminish participants' rights and autonomy. There may be many reasons for why a participant hasn't been able to utilise the whole of their NDIS budget. The NDIS review suggested that there should be a more trust based approach to how participants use their budgets and that they should not be penalised for genuine mistakes or errors. The NDIA must prioritise building the capacity of participants to understand and to utilise the plans where necessary and to provide appropriate supports to facilitate this process. We need to work with NDIS participants, and not try to punish them. Restrictions on plan management should take effect only when a participant has demonstrated repeated and intentional failure to comply with necessary requirements. The initial NDIS rollout was criticised for its emphasis on meeting short-term targets and unrealistic deadlines. This meant the plan implementation was not always aligned with the original intentions for the scheme. An independent review of the NDIS in 2013 described it as being 'like a plane that took off before it had been fully built and is being completed while it's in the air'. It's vital that we not make the same mistake again. The Senate inquiry into this bill opened on 21 May 2024 and it won't report before 20 June. The many submissions to that inquiry have laid out very many cogent and detailed suggestions for improvement of the bill. All of those require and deserve due consideration. I continue to work with constituents, expert groups and the government on some of these amendments. In considering this bill, I returned again and again to the desires, the dreams and the disappoints expressed by disabled members of our community when they talk about the NDIS. I thought of them and I thought of their parents, their siblings and their friends, of what we owe them and how important this legislation is. We've waited years for these vital reforms. It's absolutely necessary that we get them right, and I commit to continuing to work with the government in that respect. 11:16 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins As most Australians know, a grassroots campaign was at the heart of the creation of the NDIS. People with disability, community organisations, advocates and governments worked hard to make disability reform a reality. They had lived too long in the shadows, segregated from participating in the fullness of our communities' offerings. The NDIS was legislated in 2013 by the Gillard Labor government with bipartisan support. It moved through trial and transition to full scheme rollout across Australia by 2020. Now, 10 years on, the NDIS supports nearly 650,000 adults and children and employs 325,000 Australians. Many participants are receiving supports for the first time. As of 31 March this year, there were 2,265 NDIS participants in Higgins—keenly interested, all of them, in the scheme's continuation, efficiency and sustainability. Locally, I have responded by establishing the Higgins NDIS network which holds events for my community. I was fortunate to have Professor Bruce Bonyhady, the architect of the NDIS, present at the first webinar. To my constituents who are NDIS participants it is inconceivable that we would ever return to the days before the NDIS, when support for those of us living with disability was patchy, leaving people feeling like second class citizens—hidden and forgotten. You have told me this. From Christie, 'The NDIS is the most important issue for me and my family.' Kate said, 'I really appreciated Professor Bonyhady sharing his knowledge, expertise, experience and wisdom with us. I an much reassured by his involvement in the reform. I also greatly appreciate his compassion. I do genuinely support the reform to restore equity and integrity.' But, as he also said, it must be done with people with disabilities and their families enabled to be highly involved in the process. The co-design is incredibly important and something we have committed to. Sarah said, 'Thank you for your ongoing dedication to ensuring the NDIS can meet the needs of participants now and into the future. I know how greatly you value the NDIS, but I also know that you have frustrations with processing delays and the sheer bureaucracy of it.' One constituents said, 'Suffering from debilitating depression, Hannah was accepted as an NDIS participant after an application period of seven months, but has still not had a planning meeting.' Another said: 'After a review in 2021, Dean is on a plan with funding in different buckets. He has had no luck in having the plan changed with his provider, and is consequently not using the services as entitled to. He is increasingly isolated and ill.' Kate is grateful for the NDIS, but summed it up as 'a very challenging system to interact with, and as the review showed, it is inherently traumatising'. Traumatising—that's not part of its mission. The NDIS is now as important to you and to all of us as Medicare, but your stories indicate that you have issues with how the scheme is being administered. There is also community concern at the mounting costs—projected to be $100 billion by 2030—reports of fraud, overservicing, the cost of add-ons known as 'the wedding tax', as well as, obviously, the scheme sustainability. The NDIS has become the only lifeboat in the ocean. I worry that participants, particularly children, are potentially spending excessive time at therapists rather than enjoying the full benefits of school with its attendant opportunities for education, socialisation and sport—therapy in the community. For these reasons, initiating a root-and-branch review of the NDIS was an election promise for this Labor government. The aims of the review were to restore trust and confidence in the NDIS and put you—the NDIS participants, families and carers—at the centre. The review looked at the NDIS design, how it works and how we can make sure it can continue. It considered how the NDIS can work better for people with permanent and significant disability—those whom the NDIS was designed to support. The review started in October 2022 and the report was released on 7 December last year, containing 26 recommendations and 139 actions. I won't go through all these recommendations; suffice to say that it's going to take time to enact these reforms and these changes, and we anticipate it will take approximately five years for that to occur. It recommended that change be carefully implemented over this five year timeframe. The review involved deep engagement with you—NDIS participants—and your communities. Some sitting opposite have derided the government's decision to spend time on a compressive review. I challenge them to listen to Bruce Bonyhady and read the actual report. They will be inspired by the depth, good sense and optimism of the review. Ten thousand of you spoke to the review, and individuals and organisations provided 4,000 submissions. You also supplied more than 2,000 hours of deeply personal stories of your experiences. The review team worked with a small group of people to test changes to the current planning and budget-setting processes. The review's panel view is that we can't fix the NDIS without fixing everything around it—the ecosystem, in other words. Recommendations go beyond the NDIS to create a new, connected system of support, including accessible and inclusive mainstream services and a new system of foundational supports as well as reforming the NDIS. Importantly, the review recommends that you—NDIS participants—be at the heart, the centre, of all reform, and that the disability community be consulted on the changes and the timelines for those changes. This is partly why I established the Higgins NDIS Network—to keep our community abreast of these reforms, ensuring that they have access to information rather than misinformation. The legislation creates the scaffolding needed to start the journey of making the NDIS stronger and better for all people. Firstly, the changes will enable better early intervention pathways for people living with psychosocial disability and children under the age of nine. New participants will enter the NDIS under disability requirements, the new early intervention requirements, or both. Secondly, the legislation will improve how participant budgets are set and provide clearer information on how they can be spent. Budgets would be set at a whole-of-person level rather than as individual line items. More flexibility and participant autonomy will be built in. Thirdly, the changes will bolster the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect participants from illegal and unethical conduct, which we know is rife. We are out to catch the crooks and we will get them. Some changes can happen quickly, but others will take time. The Albanese government is committed to working collaboratively with states and territories and the disability community to progress the required reforms. This is patient but important work. The states are key to providing foundational supports to ensure that the NDIS remains viable and is not regarded as the only option when support is required. This means taking a collaborative rather than a divisive and combative approach with the states. We need to work with them as partners. It was a Labor government that created the NDIS, and it will be a Labor government that gets it back on track. I commend this bill to the House. 11:25 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I've seen firsthand the life-changing effects that an NDIS package can have on constituents, particularly in my seat on the Mid North Coast—people like Connor Bryant from Sawtell, who I met up with recently, who had an issue with his NDIS package that was ultimately resolved. Connor had a workplace accident and is now wheelchair bound. The NDIS has completely changed his life. We know that individuals who have been provided with the right package delivered by the right service provider at the right time have had their quality of life improved immeasurably. It is a good program. It's a worthy and essential program that has to continue, but it needs to be continually assessed, adapted and made functional in order for it to exist in generations to come. The coalition has always recognised this, and it has been disappointing to see the NDIS used for political pointscoring in recent years and months. If ever there were a program that needed bipartisanship, this is it. Ironically, each accusation previously levelled at the coalition government has now essentially been agreed and confirmed by those opposite. Prior to the 2022 election, our government was accused of hyperbole, of whispering in the corridors that the scheme—as it currently stands—was unsustainable, of unnecessarily requesting reviews that were only delaying tactics and even of making cuts in the budget. The reality was, of course, that the coalition had invested a record $157.8 billion over four years to support over 550,000 Australians living with a disability. Now, Labor has come into government and assessed the current scheme parameters and its cost trajectory, which, I might add, at its current rate will be $125 billion by 2035 and will eclipse Medicare by almost four times. The Minister for the NDIS has agreed that the scheme is growing in its cost base too quickly and that significant reviews are in fact required. While it's frustrating to hear those murmurings of agreement to issues years after they were raised by the coalition, it is comforting that we now appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet and moving forward with addressing the plethora of issues plaguing this very worthy initiative as it currently stands. When I say a plethora, that is no exaggeration. The flaws in the system at times feel almost immeasurable. It is time to knuckle down and start plugging those leaks together in a bipartisan way and also to acknowledge the unintended knock-on effects that the scheme has created. In my electorate of Cowper, the NDIS has outranked every other issue at least two to one when it comes to the volume of commentary from my constituents. I hold mobile offices at least four times a month around my electorate in order to ensure that every township of Cowper gets the opportunity to come and chat with me in person without having to drive to my permanent offices in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. Without fail, at every mobile office I hold, conversations around the NDIS will consume at least half of the available time. Now, that's fairly extraordinary when you think about it. You can consider the raft of local and national issues on the table for discussion, from the cost of living to health care, local roads, telecommunications and everything in between, yet the NDIS takes up half the time. For a start, there are those coming to me who are currently covered by a package and are either asking for assistance to be reassessed or notifying me of the rampant overcharging they have experienced within their package—and I'll get back to overcharging in a moment. Currently, we are seeing that waiting times for reviews are regularly reported as taking six months or more. That is far too long. These are individuals and families that are desperately trying to access critical services during a cost-of-living crisis that have been unable to afford the care they desperately need for over half a year. We have to do better. I come back to the overcharging. There are reports of the charge for the installation of handrails and ramps costing three times more when claimed through the NDIS than when they're quoted privately. There are reports of charges of hundreds of dollars to take out a participant's bins once a week. I think that's a reflection on society. When I grew up, we took out our neighbour's bins. There is an example of a builder providing a $750 quote for a chairlift. It is just outrageous. It is rorting and it is fraud. Then there are those who come to me to report the fraudulent claims of active participants on the system. These are stories that I continue to listen to. I'm privileged enough to have been put on the NDIS review committee. I have travelled to remote locations with the member for Corangamite, who's doing a very good job, and Senator Urquhart. We went to the Northern Territory and to remote locations in Western Australia. These are the most vulnerable people—Indigenous people in remote and very remote locations where it's extremely difficult to get service providers. They're generally fly-in, fly-out service providers, and some of them are very good; some of them provide the services. But there was a waterfall of stories about service providers getting in contact with vulnerable people, offering them cash or fishing gear or laptops to change their service provider over to them and never being heard of again yet charging tens of thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands of dollars—from individuals' packages. This is exactly why we have to have a review into the NDIS. This is the ripping off of not the Australian government but the Australian taxpayer. These people are crooks and they should be locked up. Over the past 18 months I've held forums throughout the electorate covering a large spectrum of issues, from child care to health care, aged care and veterans' affairs, and in each of these forums one of the biggest issues has been the drain out of those industries' workforces and into the NDIS because they can charge more. This is exactly why we need to look at capping those services. Those services should not allow people to walk a participant around a shopping centre on a Sunday for $128 an hour. I have seen invoices where the service provider only provides services on a Saturday or a Sunday because they get double the rate, effectively. You can't blame a nurse or somebody working in aged care in a tough environment where you're physically and mentally challenged every single day and getting paid $35 an hour when you can go out and earn $60 an hour during the week to take somebody for a coffee in a shopping centre. This is not why we designed the system. I know that those on the other side of the floor have heard the same stories. The last speaker spoke of them. It's frustrating. It is really frustrating. Whilst I support this bill, I feel the need to outline some of the concerns we hold as the coalition with the bill in its current form and reserve my final position until the bill goes through the Senate inquiry. I know I've said this before, but there is a lack of clarity and detail in the bills put to this House by Labor, and this bill continues to concern me. For example, I don't believe the bill has made it clear what a participant can do if they don't agree with the outcome of the needs assessment. I know from the feedback of many in my electorate that NDIA decisions are often inconsistent and ultimately debatable, but this bill currently doesn't outline any avenue for review. On that avenue of thought, I need to question the consultation process on some of these changes. I have received impassioned pleas from representative organisations claiming that they have had no avenue to comment and have not been consulted. Due to the non-disclosure agreements in place, I haven't been able to effectively assess these claims either. I question why this bill was not open to public consultation. It's certainly not in the spirit of the transparency, fairness, compassion and accountability that the bill professes to maintain. The bill also states that the applied principles and tables of support will be incorporated as an interim measure to determine what is and what is not an NDIS support, yet it has been widely recognised that APTOS has failed in the past. There are also no provisions around providers of last resort. There's still a lot of work to do to develop a method for more consistent assessing and determining funding levels for housing and living supports, and I certainly don't feel that this bill effectively addresses that. I also feel it necessary to note that there has been no formal government response to the disability royal commission or the NDIS Review. The release of the bill at this point in time is surprising. It appears that its rushed delivery is to be in time for the release of the 2024-25 federal budget. In conclusion, I started by saying that we can all agree that there is much to be done, and the time for action was yesterday. We have to stop the waste and the fraud on the system and ensure that there is adequate funding and human resources to swiftly and appropriately support those in genuine need. The success of the proposed reforms will depend on creating a viable sector with quality providers—emphasis on 'quality providers'—and registered providers, and without properly assessing and implementing all elements required to achieve that, including addressing workforce shortages. The NDIS is an essential initiative that can and should continue to assist hundreds of thousands of Australians living with a disability to improve and maintain their quality of life now and for generations to come. I look forward to continuing to work with all sides of the floor towards that resolution. 11:39 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga In reflecting on this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, I think it is worth looking back on where we have come from. The NDIS is in fact the largest social reform since the introduction of Medicare. It has fundamentally shifted the way we support people with disability right across Australia. The NDIS has been transformational and indeed life-changing for more than 640,000 people with disability, including for the very many across our country who have, under the scheme, accessed support for the very first time. As I said, it has been life-changing for people with disability, and also for their families and for their carers—and that includes for people in my community. It is our responsibility, the responsibility of all of us in this place, to ensure the NDIS supports the best social and economic outcomes possible for people with disability now and, importantly, for future generations to come. Those of us here now are the custodians of what is this life-changing scheme. It is our responsibility to ensure the NDIS is effective, is sustainable and provides appropriate support to those who need it most both now and into the future—and that is, of course, what this bill is all about. It delivers on our government's commitment to participants, and their families and carers, to restore trust in the NDIS and to ensure its continued success now and for many years to come. At the last election our government said to people with disability and the disability community that we wanted to work alongside them to deliver essential reforms to make sure the NDIS was on track, to make the NDIS a priority and not penalise people with disability for wanting to live whole and fulfilling lives. We made a commitment to having more people with disability on the NDIS board—and, of course, we have appointed Australian Paralympic legend and disability advocate Kurt Fearnley AO as chairman. We made a commitment to conducting a thorough and independent review of the scheme from top to bottom, and that was completed at the end of last year. We have said that we will make sure money is going where it should, to supporting NDIS participants. Importantly, we've said we're committing to making the NDIS sustainable so that future generations have access to this life-changing scheme in the way participants today do. This bill is for people with disability and for the disability community. It reflects their ideas, their voices and their experiences. It is for the more than 4,000 NDIS participants who live in my electorate in Jagajaga. It's for the more than 640,000 participants right around Australia. It's for future generations who will rely on the NDIS to achieve their potential and to lead the life they choose. Importantly, it's for families, carers and supporters as well. Whenever I talk about the NDIS, I think about the introduction and rollout of the scheme in 2013 under the Gillard and Rudd governments. I have spoken in this place before about the privilege of working directly with the then minister responsible for the NDIS—my predecessor as the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin. In her valedictory speech Jenny rightly described the NDIS as the biggest social reform of our generation. She is enormously proud of it, as I know all of us on the Labor side are—Minister Shorten, former prime minister Gillard, the people who ushered the scheme into parliament and into our nation. The need was and remains great for this scheme. Again, I reflect on the needs we saw at the time—parents caring for children with disability with no end in sight worried about what would happen next as they aged, worried about who would take on that responsibility; people with disability waiting endlessly for support, and for supports that were not tailored to their need, on a waiting list for a package that didn't meet their unique needs and that often took far too long to come. Right across the country, there were stories of needs not being met, of people not being understood, of families leading really quite desperate lives. The NDIS has changed a lot of that. There is still more work to do, and that is what this bill does. Rightly, at that point people with disability, their carers and the people who work with them came together to demand better of the Australian government and of governments right across the country. As then prime minister Julia Gillard said when introducing the NDIS in 2013: The Scheme is ambitious, and necessarily so. Because more than 400,000 people are living with significant and permanent disabilities. Because carers are required to stretch the bonds of obligation and kinship past breaking point. Because the nation is being robbed of the human and economic potential of people living with disability and the contribution they can make to our shared future. Because while the promise of fairness and equality that lies at the core of our national ethos is denied to some Australians, we are all diminished. Those words applied then, and they apply now, and they apply to the work that comes next under this bill. This bill is important to getting the NDIS on track, restoring the intent of the scheme and delivering better outcomes for people with disability now and into the future. Like many who have already spoken on this bill and, I'm sure, many who will speak after me, as a local member—the member for Jagajaga—I hear from hundreds of participants in my local community, families, carers, workers and advocates, who all share their experiences of the NDIS with me. I am very grateful to all of those people in my community who share their personal stories and their honest feedback. I recognise that often that takes courage and care, and it is vital in shaping how we improve the NDIS. As I mentioned earlier, there are more than 4,000 NDIS participants in my community. Forty per cent of those people are aged between zero and 14. I'm aware that some of those participants can't advocate for themselves, so a parent, relative or friend often steps in to raise their voice on that person's behalf. And I'm very aware that the reforms we're pursuing with this bill must ensure that all of those people continue to have confidence and trust in the NDIS. Overwhelmingly, the people who contact me about the NDIS are appreciative and grateful for the support they receive. It does make a huge difference in people's day-to-day lives and in their ability to meet their hopes for the future. But we must also acknowledge that there are areas where the NDIS can do far better. People do struggle sometimes with their interactions with the agency. They struggle with confusion about what should and shouldn't be included in plans and they struggle with understanding what their future looks like under the scheme. So we cannot afford to be complacent. We need to use what we've learned and what we've heard to make the scheme better, to realise the promise and to make sure that the scheme endures. As the minister has said many times, the NDIS cannot be the only lifeboat in the ocean, and I echo some of the concerns from the member for Higgins in her speech earlier, around children, in particular, accessing support in appropriate ways and locations. The NDIS shouldn't push people into endless therapy if that's not the best support and if support can be provided in other locations where children actually are. Over the past two years, our government has been working with people with disability, their families and carers and the disability community more broadly to identify how we can strengthen and improve the NDIS. It's important to recognise that this bill is based on that work, on the recommendations of the independent NDIS review which was released at the end of last year. The bill restores the original intent of the NDIS and prioritises access, plans and budget setting, and quality and safety. It strengthens the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect NDIS participants from illegal and unethical conduct. The timing of this bill reflects the agreement our government made with states and territories last year, and it is important to note that this requires national reform. It will require all governments to be involved. The overriding principle behind these reforms is to put people back at the heart of the NDIS and ensure that every dollar in the scheme reaches the participants who need it. The bill will be supporting the creation of a distinct early intervention pathway for participants who can have their needs best met by an early intervention approach, such as children under the age of nine or those with psychosocial disability or progressive conditions. It will be improving participant budgets, making them flexible and providing more straightforward information on how the participant or their family can spend them. It will be improving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's ability to administer compliance and enforcement powers. As I said, the bill is very much informed by the work done by the expert panel last year. That review panel was led by co-chairs Professor Bruce Bonyhady AM and Ms Lisa Paul AO, PSM. They examined the NDIS's design, operations and sustainability, making 26 recommendations and releasing a very comprehensive report that reflected the serious care and time they took to talk to participants, people with disability, their families and carers and the broader disability sector. I think it is important to note the level of input that went into that report. The panel did travel to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. They heard directly from 10,000 Australians. They worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to a thousand people with disabilities and their families. They recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. In concluding their review, the panel said that they urged all governments to commit to creating a unified ecosystem of support for people with disability. This should comprise inclusive and accessible mainstream services, a thriving foundational support system for all people with disability and a reformed participant pathway within the NDIS for those needing individualised budgets. The panel also noted that it's in the interest of all Australians to secure the future sustainability of the NDIS. Our recommendations, if implemented as a package, will secure the future sustainability of the NDIS, as well as deliver better support for people with disabilities and a better experience for those in the NDIS. I very much endorse those sentiments and again note the level of work and consultation with people with disability that went into making them. I want to assure the NDIS participants and their families in my community that these changes are considered; they're ones that the government is undertaking in a measured way. We will continue to put people with disability at the heart of our reforms. We will continue to walk alongside the disability community in making sure that we make the NDIS the best possible scheme it can be—now and into the future. NDIS eligibility hasn't changed; plans are still set similarly and funding is, and will, remain based on need. This legislation is about ensuring the future of the NDIS, of a scheme that we, as a nation, should all be proud of. It is not about removing people from the scheme. I know of course that in these times of change there can be a lot of fear and, in some cases, misinformation out there, so I really want to give those reassurances to people in my community and right around the country about both the intent and the actions that this government will be taking. All of us on this side of the House are so proud of the NDIS; we are proud of the lives that it has changed and we are committed to seeing it realise its full potential. In fact, five years ago, as I made my first speech in this House, I said that we hadn't yet realised the potential of the NDIS. Making it work must involve an unswerving commitment on our part to listen to, and act upon, the stories and experiences of those who rely on it. I am really confident that that's the approach the government has taken in drafting this bill. I'm confident it's the approach the government will continue to take as it works to reform the NDIS, to make sure that it realises both that early promise and intent as well as its sustainability into the future—providing Australians with disability, their families, their carers and people who work with them the best possible options for their lives right now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House. 11:52 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina If only the name of this bill—the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024—was exactly what was going to happen, because, if there is any piece of legislation coming before this House, and if there's any aspect of society that needs to get back on track, it's the NDIS. In my first of, so far, five terms in this place, the Gillard government brought the NDIS to fruition. The difficulty was that there was no money attached to it and, when the coalition took over government in 2013, we had a lot of work to do. I supported the NDIS from the outset. I remember the former New South Wales Legislative Council member John Della Bosca, and one of his portfolios between 2008 and 2009 in the New South Wales Parliament was as Minister for Health and Medical Research. He ran the 'Every Australian Counts' campaign. I remember it, and the red T-shirts. He went around with a written quote bubble showing the words, 'Every Australian Counts' on it. I was happy to get a picture in one of those shirts with one of those placards. I can remember getting criticised at the time, because we hadn't agreed to every aspect of it—it was something new, put forward by Labor—but I thought I needed to do a couple of things about it. The first was to ring Kurrajong in Wagga Wagga in my electorate, which has been providing disability services for six decades. I rang Kurrajong and spoke to Cathie Smith to see what she thought of this approach, and Kurrajong was supportive. I thought, 'If Kurrajong is supportive, then I should be too,' As I said, it was something that was new. It was something that the Labor government was proposing and it does remain, I believe, a legacy of Julia Gillard, our first female prime minister. I have respect for former prime minister Gillard for a number of things, not least of which is this, but it is now mired in mess. There are more calls to my office in relation to the NDIS than for any other thing. In fact, you could add up every other call to my office, and they still wouldn't match the number of calls to my office that come in in relation to the NDIS. They are heartbreaking calls. They are fraught-with-despair calls. I asked my electorate officer who deals with most, if not all, of these matters, to give me some cases. While I won't and wouldn't publish the names, they are very pertinent to this debate. First is a vulnerable man who lodged his change of circumstance in November 2023. As at 11 April 2024, his claim had still not been finalised even though he was going to run out of money then. If he doesn't have support, there is a danger he will die. Another case is a woman with multiple sclerosis whose change of circumstance was lodged in February 2024. Her plan had run out of money and her support coordinator was paying for the supports. When the plan came through in late March, the plan was worth less than this woman's plan was two years ago. A reviewable decision has now been lodged. Another situation is a young 18-year-old man whose mother had to take him to the NDIS office within the Wagga Centrelink to prove he was nonverbal, even though he had been nonverbal for his whole life. There's a father who put his son's review of plan in November 2023 and was continually told it was being escalated but that nothing would happen until the plan had a thousand dollars left in it. In early May 2024, the plan was about to run out of money and dad has had a promotion at his work. But he will have to tell his boss he can't start, because he'll have to stay at home to care for his son. Yet another case is a man with MND, motor neurone disease. He lodged a plan, a review for assistive technologies, in November and December 2023. It wasn't finalised until the end of April 2024. And this is the kicker: this is the departmental wording at the end of a lot of emails in relation to the NDIS that recipients receive through my office: 'Please accept our apologies for the delay in resolving this matter for your office,' there's a line redacted there, 'and for any stress this may have caused. If the participant requires crisis support, the participant or their support should contact their local GP, hospital or mental health crisis team. Alternatively, they can contact Lifeline on 131114.' My electorate officer has worked with me for more than 20 years in various capacities, and she is one of the most diligent people I have ever met. She's a patient person, a caring person and an empathetic person. She said to the NDIS, 'If you dealt with these matters in a timely manner, our constituents would not be getting stressed out,' and she feels it. But it's more than her feeling it, because she can go home at the end of the day and concentrate on her family and do other things. The pain and suffering that those families are enduring are ongoing. They don't finish at five o'clock, turn the computer off and stop answering the phone. Their enormous grief and stress is 24/7. It's hard. I hear reports—and I note that other people who are speaking on this bill have also mentioned it—that the NDIS is taking up—in fact, like a big sponge—many of the workers who would otherwise be doing other work, perhaps in aged care, perhaps in child care. Goodness knows, we need more and more people in those two sectors! But why would you want to do the heavy lifting of a person who can't get out of bed and strain your back, when you could be getting paid three times as much—a lot of money per hour—as an NDIS carer, to take somebody to the pictures or tenpin bowling or to the gym? These are some of many circumstances that have been relayed to my office. This is such a shame because the NDIS is taking a lot of people out of other sectors, being a big drain. There are circumstances in which people are being paid NDIS who are, let me tell you, anecdotally, questionable. There are other people who just simply can't get the support. There are people who have Down syndrome and yet have to prove every year that they have this condition. It is just so difficult, so I say: if this legislation were to get the NDIS back on track, all well and good, but I doubt it very much. I received some very telling texts from a fellow by the name of Mark Pietsch this morning. Mark once lived in the Central Western New South Wales town of Forbes. He's now the New South Wales state director of Physical Disability Australia. He wrote several texts to me this morning that are very concerning. He said, 'I know people in the Central West already struggle to access reliable disability services, and this bill, as it sits, will leave families worse off, and passes the buck to non-existent services.' There's a bit of a rub there—'non-existent services'. I know when the NDIS was first starting out there were shysters, I would call them, out there trying to get part of the action with the NDIS. People who were not like Kurrajong in my electorate in Wagga Wagga and beyond, who were not people with years of experience, years of care, years of concern, years of compassion and years of professional experience. They were just coming into the NDIS thinking they could make a fast buck out of people and families who, quite frankly, were being dudded out of what they should have been receiving under this new system. Mr Pietsch continued, 'Bill Shorten knows that these changes'—these are his words not mine—'will make the NDIS more like aged care and will force families to relinquish care of their disabled brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, and force them into homes living with two others with a disability. Like me, no-one plans on or wishes to end up with a disability. They are living in a country where we still have the chance to live a meaningful life, have a family, work and have the same opportunities as others, which is something Aussies have come to be proud of. Studies undertaken by the NDIA, as a participant of the review, show that the public have a sense of ownership and want to protect the disability community.' He's right, because I know all Australians and all parliamentarians would want the best for those people who are, unfortunately, through no fault of their own, having to call on NDIS services. Mark continued, 'The problems we see with the NDIS today are tied to poor administration, inflated and inefficient systems and red tape that would call for an OT to write a $400 report for a $20 item, and fraud that is allowed to occur because the NDIA commission use surprising strategies that disregard quality services and encourage cowboys.' I called them shysters before, but there are, unfortunately, cowboys in this sector and in this system. Mark continued, 'More red tape is not the answer, especially for rural communities. We need common sense and bureaucrats who actually speak and engage with the system they wish to change.' He said, 'Later today we're expecting statements from a number of peak bodies highlighting concerns on the contents of the legislation.' That sentence from Mr Pietsch worries me, because I know that Labor, when they came to office in May 2022—and more's the pity they did—said that they would— Mr Conroy 249127 Shame! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Yes, shame! I could take that interjection, but we move on. I know he was being facetious. It was a shame, because we heard that we were going to see more transparency and more probity, but quite the opposite is the case. Labor should have consulted more widely and broadly for this particular legislation. They will claim they have. I doubt that. The text from Mr Pietsch continues that the most problematic is section 10, which is likely to be shot down by the human rights committee as it cherrypicks only some of the sections of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability. Mr Pietsch is right. He's got skin in the game. He knows that the NDIS as it stands is riddled with problems. It is draining people who would otherwise be engaged in other activities from those activities into this. It is a whirlpool of money that really needs to be addressed. I can remember the then New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, a Labor Premier, talking in the nineties about the fact that the health budget, if it were left to run as it was, was going to take up almost all of the state budget. He, as a former minister and then a premier, strove to do something about it. I pay tribute to him for doing just that. He was, in essence, a good premier. This is the same. We face a grave dilemma here with the NDIS: that it will, as a money whirlpool, suck so much out of the budget—and I appreciate that much of it is uncapped. We need to do a thorough investigation about where the money is being spent, why people who have lifelong conditions have to consistently and continually prove that they have those conditions and why there are such delays, I appreciate that in the budget we're getting 36,000 more public servants. No doubt most of them will be occupied on shiny seats here in Canberra. If we're going to have that many thousands more public servants, they need to be doing gainful activities, and that is perhaps on the NDIS switchboard and making sure we address some of these cases, making sure we go through them so that people such as those in the case examples that I read from my electorate office aren't happening more and more. We have to listen to people like Mark Pietsch, who knows what he's talking about. It's one of the main reasons he had to move from Forbes to Wollongong. It's forcing people with disabilities out of local communities into the cities to access services. This is not fair. This is not equity. This is not right in the Australia that we live in in 2024. The government has to, must and should do better. 12:07 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I am pleased to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024. The NDIS is another great Labor reform that has become embedded in the Australian consciousness, like Medicare. The Albanese government was elected on a promise to put people back at the centre of the scheme and get the NDIS back on track. We're determined to deliver on that and make sure it stays true to its purpose. The changes in the NDIS referred to in this bill will deliver for those who need it most and will contribute towards the NDIS once again being delivered in accordance with its original intent. In introducing this legislation, the government is keeping its promise to legislate in the first half of 2024 as agreed at the National Cabinet in December 2023. The bill will usher in a new era of NDIS reforms that ensure the scheme can continue to provide life-changing benefits and outcomes for future generations of Australians living with disability and will make sure every dollar given by the taxpayer to the scheme goes to the participants for whom the scheme was originally intended and designed. It will bolster the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect participants from illegal and unethical conduct. There wouldn't be a member in this House that wouldn't have had complaints in relation to those issues in their constituency office and taken them to the minister's office. This legislation follows the joint commissioned independent review of the NDIS, its final report and extensive consultation with states and territories at the Disability Reform Ministerial Council. The bill addresses priority recommendations from the review and represents the first tranche of amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to improve participant experience. The priority reforms for the government in this bill are focused on access, plans and budgetary settings, and quality and safety. There are around 7,000 NDIS participants in my electorate, and we have a healthy ecosystem of NDIS disability service providers in Ipswich and the surrounds. One of them is ALARA, which was formed in June 1991 to address the need for urgent respite care for people with disabilities and their families. It was actually renamed ALARA in 2000; initially it was not called that at all. It provides daily living, aged-care and disability support services, lifestyle support, accommodation support, respite and other activities as well as group and centre based activities, not just in my electorate in Ipswich and Somerset but also in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, in the Lockyer Valley, which used to be in my electorate. There are 250 dedicated staff and volunteers on top of that who provide great support. We have providers like Focal Community Services, which has about 200 staff and 600 clients and a proud history of caring for people living with disabilities in the Ipswich community. It started off as the Friends of Challinor Aid League. Tragically and shamefully, in those olden days, we called places like the Challinor Centre, where the USQ Ipswich campus is now, lunatic asylums. That was simply a disgrace in our history. People were put back in community with their families and of course provided with support, but not enough, and that's why the NDIS came into being. It was great to catch up with Focal CEO, Tanya Miller, and Chairperson, Zane Ali, last month to celebrate the organisation's 50th birthday—an amazing milestone. They've seen a lot of changes in the NDIS. You talk to Tanya, and she'll tell you that the NDIS has been the biggest change in disability services during Focal's and ALARA's many years of service to Ipswich and the surrounds. It's generally accepted that, before the NDIS, disability services in my home state of Queensland were not up to the same standard as in most other states. In fact, I remember having discussions on numerous occasions with the then Queensland Treasurer and member for Ipswich David Hamill about the need for improved services. Before him, of course, the former Liberal member for Ipswich Sir Llew Edwards took it as a great passion to work in areas of disability. They were two great Ipswich residents who worked very hard for the people of Ipswich and to care for people with disability in my local community and provide extra funding in their various capacities as treasurers. The introduction of the NDIS has been an absolute game changer, a step change for people with disability in my home state. It's truly a life-changing economic and social policy and a major structural reform. The reality is that the Labor government has taken it upon itself to make these changes. We saw headlines of the previous coalition government, term after term, whinging and whining and wailing about the growth in the NDIS but doing almost nothing about it. Like the Minister for the NDIS, I firmly believe the scheme is the best change politics could do in the 21st century. It's really important to change, and we're in this place to make change. Making change to the NDIS is really, really critical for its integrity, operation, efficiency and effectiveness in the future. Major structural changes and reform are absolutely critical, and I think this will be a legacy of this government. We can do better. We can always improve, and this is what this bill is about. It's about improving the NDIS for the local community. I want to stress to NDIS participants and their families in my electorate and to the local disability community more widely that reforms will not happen overnight. The review recommendations can take years to implement, and many will need to be co-designed with your participation, as they should be. This bill is just the next step on the journey, albeit a very important one. The Minister for the NDIS has certainly been out travelling Australia and talking to people with disability in the sector. This included a very successful NDIS forum I hosted with him at the Ipswich Jets League Club last year. It was a completely packed out room, attended by local NDIS clients, carers and providers, and disability advocates. A key piece of feedback from these consultations, including in my electorate, was that we need to build and improve services outside the NDIS. The NDIS can't be the only lifeboat in the ocean. It's not the only game in town. The Commonwealth is having important conversations with the states and territories about different levels of government working together to make a disability ecosystem that supports all Australians. Not everyone qualifies for the NDIS, and there are people living with some form of disability that need help. The National Cabinet agreed in December last year that states and territories play an important role in developing foundational supports outside the NDIS, and to contribute more to the NDIS from 1 July 2028. I call on states and territories, Labor and coalition, to do better and to do more. I understand that states have raised some concerns, and that's appropriate. In my home state of Queensland, the Minister for Seniors and Disability Services, Charis Mullen, has talked about the need to get the design of foundational supports right so people can continue to access the supports they need. I agree with Charis, but our intention here is to work with the states and territories. At the same time, the peak body for disability providers, National Disability Services, has warned the number of NDIS registered disability providers in Queensland are struggling with the cost of meeting NDIS quality and care standards and wages, which has resulted in some laying-off of staff, reducing services and closing all together. We saw that. I saw that in my electorate in Kilcoy where Anglicare got out of that provision of disability services. Fortunately, the local people living with disability and their families decided to avail themselves of the tremendous services of ALARA, who were providing services in the Brisbane Valley. They took up that group, play-based, lifestyle support in that area. There are organisations that are opting out, and we need great organisations like ALARA and Focal Community Services to pick up the slack. I thank them for what they do my local community, particularly up in the Brisbane Valley, where areas of geographic isolation make it even more challenging for people with disability. The NDIS pricing is currently being reviewed, and they have called for an immediate uplift in pricing for the sector to remain viable. I understand the Queensland government was concerned with some providers in regional areas providing complex care and potential NDIS funding shortfalls. In response to this, we have provided budgetary support: we've invested $5.3 million in the budget to undertake preliminary work on NDIS pricing reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment. Following this work, the government will consider an option for the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority—who have already been advising on pricing in hospitals and aged care—to provide advice on NDIS prices in response to recommendations from the independent review. Ultimately, we're going to work with stakeholders and ensure that people with disability have the best support. The NDIS, I think, is a bit like Medicare: it's an important, essential safety net for people living with disability, so they can trust this government to protect the scheme and get it back on track. This legislation is about boosting the NDIS watchdog's ability to take compliance action, building on the comprehensive reforms that we've already made to crackdown on fraud, and safeguarding the scheme for participants. I agree with the member for Riverina; there is a need to crackdown on frauds, shysters and crooks in the area, and we are doing that. We have seen too much under the previous coalition government just let go without actually cracking down, and that came through in that forum I referred to earlier. But there is a need for integrity in the process. This is taxpayers' money. People who are living with disability need to get support. We can't have crooks and gangs and other people associated with criminal elements rorting the system to the detriment of people living with disability and to the detriment of taxpayers. I applaud the member for Maribyrnong for that crackdown that is associated with this government's initiatives in relation to these areas. Following the introduction of the bill, the government initiated a co-design and consultation process with the disability community to make and update the rules and legislative instruments. In December 2023, as part of the initial response, the National Cabinet agreed that this legislation be instituted, and that's what we're doing today. At the core, it paves the way for improvements that put participants back at the heart of the NDIS, and that was the point of the scheme when we originally brought it in under a previous Labor government. The rules are about transforming the scheme and making sure that current and future participants and the perspectives of people living with disability are respected. I am pleased the budget backs in the reforms in the bill, with $468.7 million to better support people living with disability. These measures build on the $213.7 million that we announced earlier this year to fight fraud and co-design NDIS reforms for people living with disability. The budget will drive the implementation of key recommendations from the review, including reforms to the scheme in terms of transparency, participant support, sustainability and service delivery, to get the NDIS back on track. These investments will provide the architecture needed to bring people with disability and governments together to implement these reforms. A major goal of the government's reform is to manage the scheme's growth and put the scheme on a more sustainable financial footing. Our work in this area is seeing positive green shoots, with the reforms forecast to moderate the growth of the scheme to the tune of $14.4 billion over the forward estimates, offsetting an increase that would have occurred in the absence of government action. That's thanks to the legislative reforms we're undertaking and the efforts we're making through this bill and elsewhere. There are two practical changes that have helped realise 95 per cent of the projected $14.4 billion reduction. The first is that around two-thirds of these savings come from clamping down on intraplan inflation, which is when a participant's plan is spent sooner than the period for which was agreed, leading to a top-up. The remainder of the savings come from implementing the review's recommendation to change the way participant budgets are set. Instead of constructing a plan brick by brick, we'll look at a person's overall needs and give them a budget, which we expect will save money. I can assure participants in my community that the government remains totally and utterly committed to the NDIS and no-one's going to be kicked off the scheme. The eligibility hasn't changed. The plans are set the same way and the NDIS funding is still based on your needs. The scheme will remain demand-driven and continue to grow in line with the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework, which the National Cabinet agreed to in April last year. It will provide an annual growth target of up to eight per cent by 1 July 2026 and further moderation of growth as the scheme matures. Sustainable growth trajectory for the NDIS is critical for the long-term viability and integrity of the scheme, ensuring it will continue to provide life-changing outcomes for future generations of people with disability. The reality is that for much of the last 10 years under the coalition the NDIS was left to grow in a rapid, haphazard way with unchecked fraud and inadequate regulation and safeguards. That's why National Cabinet agreed to address the growing pressures on the scheme last year. The bill addresses the priority recommendations of the independent review to improve participant experience and return the NDIS to its original intent. The NDIS was founded on the notion that people living with disability should get a fair go; that they should have choice and control over the supports they receive so their life—an abundant, happy, contented life—can be lived to the full. In summary, that's what this legislation is all about: making sure the NDIS goes back to what was intended in 2013. After the damage that was done through the unregulated, haphazard, hopeless approach of the previous government, we're making sure this scheme goes back to what it originally was intended to do. 12:23 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, proposes the most significant changes to the NDIS since it started more than a decade ago. Quite understandably, the disability community and NDIS participants, along with families, carers and NDIS workers, are concerned about the changes proposed. I know from conversations within my own community that this feels like an utter betrayal from the Labor government. A Labor government that has just announced a budget that prioritises handouts to fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers and wealthy property investors in turn has ripped funding out of the NDIS. Fourteen point four billion dollars—that's how much the Labor government has chosen to remove from the NDIS. I think we need to be really clear about what this bill does. This bill threatens the future of the NDIS and the rights of disabled people. Labor had the gall to create it behind closed doors. It bullied representatives from the disability community to sign nondisclosure agreements. That's not genuine co-design. The previous speaker, the member for Blair, talked about co-design, but what has happened here is actually not that; it's a betrayal. Not only have the government ripped the funding out of the NDIS; they're going to make it harder for anyone to access the NDIS. If you're already on a plan, well, guess what? This bill forces every NDIS participant to transition from an old framework plan to a new plan over the next five years. What this means is that every current NDIS participant's future on the scheme is up for question. That is over 600,000 participants needing review. We already know that the NDIS cannot handle the current workload, even with its current funding. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a $14.4 billion funding shortfall and an increase in workload for staff means that people are going to fall through the cracks and suffer. It's so very clear that this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove support for people or just kick them off the NDIS altogether. They are going to restrict what supports are available through the scheme, they are going to remove provisions for individualising plans and they are going to try to standardise assessments. Disability is not standardised and should never be treated as such. When the Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS over a decade ago, there were great intentions. At the heart of the NDIS, it was meant to enable each individual disabled person to achieve their goals and aspirations, as the previous speaker, the member for Blair, laid out. But anyone who has tried to get on the NDIS or work with it knows how utterly frustrating it is. The NDIS is run on a bureaucracy-heavy business model, with endless hurdles and hoops for people to jump through. Just when you think you have cleared a hurdle or figured it out, they move the goalposts. This isn't me saying this; this is my constituents telling me about this. People are spending years of their lives crushed and exhausted by trying to navigate the NDIS. This bill's going to make it worse. That's a fact. I've heard from people in my electorate that they've been kicked out of supported living and are homeless because the NDIS failed to pay their rent in time. Parents have to take time off work because the NDIS refuses to offer any more support for their children. I work with people who have spent thousands of dollars and hours gathering supporting evidence of their condition just for the NDIS to tell them it's not enough. These funds and services are absolutely critical to keeping people well and, in many cases, keeping them alive and allowing them to have a meaningful life. The government is boasting a $9.6 billion surplus at the moment, but it's taken over $14 billion out of the NDIS. That is a funding black hole now. Essential services will now be completely wiped off the map. Yet Labor has $50 billion for weapons, $174.5 billion for property investors and another $50 billion for fossil fuel subsidies. This is our taxpayer money. All our taxpayer dollars are going to things that destroy, things that make things actually worse for Australians, and yet they cry poor when it comes to funding the very services that offer fundamental, life-saving programs to people. It's devastating to say this, but, on the evidence of the stories that my constituents have told me, the government just doesn't seem to care about these everyday Australians. What is also clear is that they haven't listened to a single story from NDIS participants, because, if they had, they wouldn't be summarily slashing $14 billion from this really important scheme. I am going to tell you some stories. Here are stories from my electorate. I want them to be on the record because, if these stories are heard by the government and they don't act on them, they have been ignored. Recently I was contacted by a support worker who was working for free because all of the other supports had left the NDIS participant, a person who needed round-the-clock care and had just run out of funds. The support worker had made a number of accelerated emergency action requests with absolutely no response—zilch. This participant, not through any fault of their own, had run out of funds because of a change in circumstance which, according to the service guarantee, had not been processed. Instead of the system flagging that this participant who needs round-the-clock care, as I said, would run out of funds, the NDIS simply let it lapse. For them, it's a number in the system. For this participant, it is quite literally their life. The NDIS is already failing people, and Labor has chosen to further gut it. I will tell you another story, one about a lovely gentleman from my electorate who unfortunately has been diagnosed with early onset dementia and is cared for by his wife. Finally she was able to go on respite leave to spend some time overseas with family. Despite submitting the funding request, it wasn't processed correctly. Again, this meant the participant was left without funds, meaning there was no money to pay for the respite accommodation. If my office had not intervened, he would have been dropped off at home without any support at all, completely alone. Finally, I will tell you another sad story I hear far too often—that is, of the sheer mental toll of waiting for approval, jumping through the hoops, being forced to make unnecessary appointments because of an unnecessary plan change. For many this toll is just too much to bear. A young person recently contacted my office from the hospital after they'd attempted to take their own life because of unbearable trauma caused by the outrageous wait times. They had attempted multiple times to access their supports, to access their funds, and the NDIS either did not deem it necessary to reply or outright refused. This bright, amazing young person has been beaten down by a system that was already broken and has now been gutted further, and it has broken them. The government are saying with this bill, with this budget, that they do not care about you even if you need the NDIS. They don't think you're capable of managing your own life or managing your own plan of funding. It's needlessly and indescribably cruel. Many people on the NDIS already knew the government didn't seem to care about them. This rubs salt in that painful wound. With this budget and the bill, Labor have sent a pretty clear message to disabled people: they do not care about you, about your goals, about your aspirations or about your own agency. That's not good enough for me, it's certainly not good enough for those who need the NDIS and it's not good enough for the Greens. We will not support this bill in its current form. 12:31 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite When you think of great Australian policies that have endured and enabled people to thrive, you think of the eight-hour day, you think of Medicare and now, I think it's safe to say, you also think of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS. Now in its 11th year, the NDIS is a scheme underpinned by principles of inclusion, wellbeing and self-determination for all people with disability. Our government recognises how vital the NDIS is. It was Labor which created the scheme, and it's Labor that is doing the hard work to get the scheme back on track. This is why I stand here today to support this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. This bill is about enhancing the NDIS and safeguarding its future so that it is here to support people with disability today, tomorrow and into perpetuity. To shape this new future for our disability community, the bill will establish an enabling architecture for future reform—reform to safeguard the original intent and integrity of the scheme. For the first time legislation will link the definition of 'NDIS supports' to rights under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Another reform relates to the provision of information gathering for eligibility reassessment, enabling the NDIA CEO to have the ability to request and receive information on whether participants meet the access criteria. This will not result in people having to re-prove their disability but will allow the CEO to determine a participant is receiving the most appropriate supports, and the process will take into account difficulties in assessing information. It should be noted that our government will work with the disability community on operating guidance to ensure the system works for people with disability. Another change involves plan management arrangements where there is a risk for the participant, including financial risk. I want to make it clear the agency has responsibilities here too and will be required to be consistent in its operation with the legislation and the rules. I also stress that consultation with the disability sector and, importantly, with people with disability is vital in developing the detail and implementation of the reforms—because who better to ask, 'How do we fix the NDIS?' than those who it is designed to serve? They know the shortcomings of the scheme better than anyone. They experience the scheme every day, and they should always be at the centre of any consultation relevant to the future of our NDIS. That is a key message from the NDIS review panel, and it's a message that our government takes seriously. It's why we're working hand in hand with the disability community to reform the scheme. While it is a scheme that is vital, we do understand that after 10 years of coalition neglect, the scheme requires work, and we are undertaking that work right now. I would like to thank the minister for the work he has done so far, and will continue to do to enhance the system. Many in my community have shared their views with me about the NDIS and the review, and have made submissions to it. It's a review that heard from thousands of people with disability; their families and carers; advocates and representative organisations; and providers and workers. They put their trust in the panel. They told their stories and outlined a fresh vision for a more inclusive Australia. On reading the review, I met with Professor Bruce Bonyhady, co-chair of the panel, to talk about the findings and our government's response to the recommendations. Bruce is an amazing person, and his passion is infectious. That afternoon, when I spoke to him, he reiterated a key theme of the review: listen to the call of the disability community. Ten years into the great Australian idea that is the NDIS, the moment has come to renew its promise, to learn from its first decade and to work together to deliver an NDIS that is fit for the future and part of a better Australia for all people with disability. After a decade of inaction, our government is determined to listen to these voices and to shape that better future which Bruce spoke about. I believe this bill will be a catalyst for that future. It's a bill that fulfils our government's promise for urgent reform—reform that our disability community can no longer wait for. With that urgency, I know many people with disability, their families, carers and support workers have questions about how the bill will work. They want to know how the reforms will close the page on heartbreaking stories that punctuate the history of the NDIS. I've encouraged many of these people to attend recent online information sessions. The stories I've heard have thoroughly reinforced the need for this reform. The committee heard a woman, Halo, in her mid-40s. Halo lives in a rural location, where waiting periods for services can take months or years. She said to me, 'The idea of going without specialist care for so long fills me with dread.' It's hard to imagine the pain and isolation she must feel, and that's why we're undertaking this reform. Living in a remote community is already hard enough, without feeling left behind by the scheme that's meant to be there to support you. Once again, after 10 years of neglect, we are undertaking significant reform. This bill is vital. It is also where the findings of the NDIS review and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability come into play, providing significant recommendations that are now under active consideration. These reforms will take thoughtful implementation, and I want to thank the minister once again for undertaking this significant process to enhance the NDIS. There needs to be a thoughtful, measured approach, with reforms undertaken step by step in line with our disability community, including providers and of course participants themselves—we do want them to play an important role in codesign. The budget has provided funding for these reforms: in better planning; in revising the pricing scheme; in improving the participant experience; in returning choice and control to the participant; and in undertaking ways to reduce and, hopefully, abolish the amount of fraud that's occurring in the system—that's important if we're going to sustain the system. In closing, it's time for the states and territories to play their role. It's time, after 10 years of coalition inaction, that we undertake this important reform so that the NDIS better serves and supports the disability community. And it's time to write a new chapter, one that delivers positive change for all people with disability. 12:39 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein If it had not been for the efforts of the minister and especially former prime minister Julia Gillard, there would be no National Disability Insurance Scheme. People with disabilities and their families would still be trying to work their way through an inadequate patchwork of state based assistance. Many previously just fell through the cracks. As the minister put it in his second reading speech, they were 'unseen and unheard, living in the shadows'. One of them was a teenager by the name of Sandy, who Ms Gillard made a point of meeting along with many other people with disabilities as her government set up the scheme. He thanked her for making the establishment of the NDIS a personal priority. The then Prime Minister told parliament in 2013, as she introduced the legislation to give the NDIS its financial underpinning: Sandy has big dreams for his future, like any teenager, but his future also has some big needs: mobility aids that cost tens of thousands of dollars, personal care to maintain his hygiene, physical therapy to maintain his muscles and his health. Ms Gillard promised Sandy and others with a disability that they would finally have security and dignity with the introduction of the disability care scheme. Over the past six years, the idea of a national disability insurance scheme has found a place in our nation's hearts. In March, we gave it a place in our nation's laws. Today we inscribe it in our nation's finances. And there's the rub. At that time, the Gillard government estimated the scheme would need just $8 billion a year in federal funding when fully operational in 2018-19. If only that had turned out to be the case. But, as the Government Actuary warned the previous government in 2021, the NDIS was on track to cost no less than $125 billion 10 years from now, in 2034. In this year's budget, the cost for 2024-25 alone is estimated at $44 billion. That's more than Medicare, at $31 billion; total spending on aged care, at $28 billion; and support for state and territory hospitals, at $27 billion. It is simply unsustainable. It's what happens when the best of intentions lead to a massive program being introduced in haste with open-ended demand and careless administration by previous governments, including inadequate action to stamp out abuse. There are questions of cost, fraud and eligibility that should have been sorted out over the past decade but we are now being called on to fix. There is also the question of trust. The minister is promising this legislation will be a downpayment in restoring the Gillard government's original vision for the NDIS. Importantly, that means maintaining the trust of participants in the scheme, their families, friends and loved ones. I've spoken to many members of the Goldstein community who do have a trust gap about the scheme. That is being further tested with so much uncertainty surrounding the details of this legislation. There is also the trust of the broader community. Lose that and public confidence and support for the scheme will disappear. It's no easy task, especially given the bad press the scheme has been receiving for months now—some of it justified, some not—obscuring the extent to which the NDIS has changed the lives of people living with disabilities. Getting financial sustainability of the NDIS in shape must be a priority but not at the expense of the rights and wellbeing of those members of the disabled community who have been doing nothing wrong. Here, for example, is Elly Desmarchelier, who wrote about her experience with the scheme in the Guardian: On a personal level, the NDIS has transformed my life. …   …   … In the three years before I had the NDIS, I was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) more than half a dozen times for things as common and preventative as a UTI. In the three years since being approved for the NDIS, I have not had a single ICU admission and that's because I have access to the allied health I need to keep me from getting so sick I need a breathing tube to live. Before the NDIS, I could not envisage a future where I wasn't reliant on my partner and parents to live—I needed their help for basic things such as showers and preparing meals. Now, with the NDIS, I have a team of people who I employ, and my partner and parents can go back to being my family, instead of carers. My story is not unique. People with disabilities, their friends, families and supporters campaigned for decades to deliver the NDIS. It continues to exist because thousands of people worked together to advocate and fight for this scheme during the most recent federal election. This is our scheme and, while it is imperfect, we believe in its original promise. So do I, but it needs fixing, especially the fraud, which appears to be at epidemic levels. In passing, it's worth noting that the government's overall approach to fraud and corruption is not helping. Kieran Pender from the Human Rights Law Centre points out that, because some charities do not have status under tax law, whistleblowers have no protection. This is yet another reminder that establishing a whistleblower protection authority, which was first suggested to this parliament in 1994 and part of Labor's election platform as recently as 2019, remains a priority and a missing link in fighting corruption and fraud. The minister in this case has been eager to stress that he is not talking about the majority of very good, dedicated service providers, but he's right when he says that it would be a betrayal of NDIS participants if he were to ignore the price gouging and unethical conduct of the small number who are having a lend of the scheme, as he put it. Two years ago, Michael Phelan, then head of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, estimated that no less than 20 per cent of disability funding in the NDIS was being abused by organised crime groups. Mr Phelan is now the Acting Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Since taking on that role, he reckons that criminal influence could be even worse than he originally thought. With an estimated price tag of $44 billion this financial year, that would mean that at least $8 billion worth of funding intended for people with disability is allegedly being abused by crime syndicates. Unless we bring that to an end and get the spiralling cost of the scheme in general under control, its very existence is at risk. There is reason for hope. As the Grattan Institute's disability program team puts it: NDIS 2.0 will be better than Mark 1. It could finally banish the existential threat of uncontained cost growth, introduce consistency in the amount of funding each person gets and what they can spend it on, and ensure that only the people that need it will stay on the scheme for life. The key to the scheme is to make sure that individual needs are recognised. While it's justifiable in the first instance to require periodic assessment, it's absurd to put a similar requirement on a person with a serious and chronic disability. The government promises this legislation will deal with that anomaly. If that is the case, that is as welcome as it is overdue. It causes immense pressure on families to have to constantly reprove that serious disability remains unchanged. But none of this means that we should be making decisions on this legislation without full and transparent debate and discussion. The wellbeing of the 600-plus thousand people who currently depend on the NDIS should not be dismissed in haste. The Senate inquiry into the legislation only opened six weeks ago and has to report by 20 June, a tight timeframe for such a complex piece of legislation in a very complex policy area. The many submissions make detailed suggestions for improvements to the bill, and they deserve proper consideration. In recent days, the government itself has produced some of its own amendments. The states insist that they're in no position at this point to meet their responsibilities in developing the foundational supports the Commonwealth is demanding—essentially less intensive services, notably autism and developmental delay in children, to be delivered through health services, early childhood education and schools rather than the NDIS. 'They would say that,' the government might say, but, unless the states can develop the necessary programs, the scheme risks falling over. As the states told the Senate inquiry, without careful design of this ecosystem, 'people with disability will end up in our hospitals or other settings that are unsuitable for their needs.' To date there has been no decision as to the specific services that will be provided as foundational supports or the client groups who should access them. At the moment, it's not clear what the difference in application pathway, assessment and supports will be for a child with autism who will be applying to the NDIS in 2025 versus a child with the same level of need who was applying in early 2024. States and territories expect this level of detail will be work through later this year, but it is not available now. Federal-state relations are littered with examples of cost shifting and arguments over who is responsible for what. The Commonwealth is suspicious that, over the past decade, the states have been pushing people onto the NDIS and decommissioning programs for which they should have maintained responsibility. The fact that currently no less than 12 per cent of boys aged between five and seven are NDIS participants would appear to give some weight to the Commonwealth's suspicion, and recent data suggests that the prospect of legislative change has encouraged families to rush to secure funding for children with autism and developmental delay. In the December quarter of last year, official data showed that 11 per cent more children had been signed up than had been assumed would be, totalling nearly 10,000, with average payments 19 per cent higher than anticipated. On the other hand, it's going to take time to work through complex arrangements with the states and, if the multiple jurisdictions are going to reach resolution, delegated legislative instruments are the only realistic pathway. The government insists that it has no intention of dumping people off the scheme, but it defies common sense to think that savings in the order of $14 billion can be achieved merely by reducing fraud and cost gouging. Stakeholders are very concerned that this legislation flips the underpinning principles of reasonable and necessary support and reduces choice and control for participants, eroding the principle that, once funding and support are received, participants should have maximum agency. They argue that, even with recent government amendments, section 10 overly empowers the minister to determine what is or is not an NDIS support. I don't doubt the good intentions of this minister, but that situation may leave the scheme wide open to erosion under a future minister or future administration. There's also the question of the 90-day timeframe for professional assessments of need. As my colleague, the member for Kooyong, has pointed out, and she should know, this simply 'does not reflect the reality of health care in this country' where waiting lists to see specialists can be months long. The minister seeks to assure us that no-one will suffer as a consequence. That's all very well, but once again we're being asked to take a very important element of the legislation on trust, and we're being asked to assume that it will also be the view of a future administration. In fact, the minister is asking us to take not just that but several elements in this legislation on trust, and I do worry whether good intentions are enough. It's arguable that good intentions a decade ago are why we're being asked to fix so many things at once in this legislation. Despite the reservations I've expressed, I am inclined to support this bill, but only subject to satisfactory amendments and greater clarity from the government. 12:53 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I think everyone in this place wants to make sure that all Australians can achieve their full potential, and that is what this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, tries to do. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. It's another step forward under the Labor government towards committing to make Australia a fairer and better place for all Australians and towards cementing the sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's a step forward to securing the longevity of the scheme. It's a step forward to ensuring a future where all Australians with disabilities are valued and included members of our community. This bill is a critical piece of legislation that will get the NDIS back on track. I acknowledge the minister for the work he has done to make this happen. When the Albanese government was elected in 2022, the NDIS was not working as it should. Don't get me wrong: it worked for some. But it did not work for many, and that was typical of the direction taken under the watch of the Liberal government. It meant that some people who needed support were missing out, and they were getting left behind. This Albanese Labor government wants to make sure that no-one is left behind. We committed to making and governing decisions to benefit all Australians, not just the privileged few. Those people who were overlooked by the NDIS under the Liberals were forgotten; they were not living to their full potential. They did not have access to the support and opportunities they needed to have the quality of life that they deserved. Our government made a commitment to that and to make a positive difference. Our goal is to make sure that the NDIS works more effectively and to fix the system. I'm proud to say that that's what we're doing. This legislation puts in place the measures that are needed to get the NDIS back on track to support the 660,000 Australians who access the NDIS to receive the services they need to live a fulfilling life—to be included and to make a positive contribution to our community. The bill provides a framework for the 400,000 people who work in the NDIS to fulfil their jobs effectively and consistently. These workers are the lifeblood of our community services. They do an amazing job and we need to make sure they have the systems in place to support and not hinder the important work that they do. We need to make sure that we reward them fairly and help them to feel supported. We must work together to make this happen so that the NDIS is achieving what it set out to do: to enable people with disability to gain independence, gain access to new skills and have greater work opportunities, or to volunteer in our community. It's about improving the quality of life for people with disability and also their health and wellbeing. The NDIS supports around 80,000 children across the country. The support from the NDIS for these children means they're able to access the support they need to develop and thrive. I'll take a moment to talk about a stunning example of this practice in my home in Swan. Dr Dayna Pool is a pioneering figure in the neurological rehabilitation space. She founded an organisation called the Healthy Strides Foundation. As a result of her revolutionary work, children who have been told they would never walk again are back on their feet. A notable success story is one of her clients, a young person called Palmer, who would normally take 2½ minutes to walk 10 metres. After six weeks of the program at the Healthy Strides Foundation, he was able to do his 10-metre journey in only 17 seconds. I think that is just amazing! Palmer is walking tall, confidently and proudly, and he is taking healthy strides towards a fulfilling life. Healthy Strides now employs 22 clinicians. It's serving 300 programs annually and has a six-month waitlist. Dayna is one of the many worthy nominees for Western Australian of the Year in the community category. As her nomination says, she has put WA firmly on the world stage for helping wheelchair-bound children walk. Dayna has a simple wish: for all kids to be accepted in their communities. This last statement from Dayna says everything about her. It's a wish that I share and embrace as a mother, and as a member of parliament, and that's why I stand behind this bill. Before the NDIS was set up, people with disabilities were not included; they were not accepted in our community. The minister recognised this in his second reading speech. He said that people with disabilities were treated like second-class citizens before the NDIS. The NDIS has made a difference, but unfortunately, under the previous government's ineptitude, the NDIS went off track, and we're at risk of that happening again. That's why we're getting it back on track. To create the NDIS was to make sure that anyone with a disability would be treated like a full citizen of this country. What we want to do is inspire hope and a brighter future, just like what Dayna Pool said, and has done with Healthy Strides in Swan. How will we do this? This bill will ease frustration by engaging NDIS providers and participants. It will do this by clarifying the process for reassessing participant status, allowing participants to transition to a new framework plan by providing new framework plans with a flexible budget. There will be a budget for specified supports. Old framework plans have a total funding amount. We're also working to stamp out fraud. The bill updates the conditions under which the NDIS will manage funds. It will also require participants to spend money solely on NDIS supports in line with their plans. It also exempts NDIS rules from sunsetting. The bill will also impose conditions on approved quality auditors to not employ or engage individuals with a banning order. It will also expand the delegation powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The changes that the legislation will put in place are based on meeting the goals of the government for the NDIS: firstly, to ensure the NDIS will provide a better experience for participants, with less frustration, less anxiety, less bureaucracy; secondly, to restore the scheme to meet its original purpose, to support people with disabilities; thirdly, to make sure that no-one gets overlooked or left behind; and, lastly, to make sure that there is a future for the NDIS, one that inspires hope and creates fulfilment. The government is committed to working together with the disability sector to implement these changes—collaboration and consultation, not a top-down approach but co-design. That's the difference between this government and the previous one—involving people in the development of policies that affect them rather than shutting them out. It won't be quick and it will take time to make sure that we implement changes that are fit for purpose and to ensure that people who are directly impacted by these decisions we are making in the government are involved in the rollout of the reforms. We will also involve the states and territories, because we understand that implementation at the front line is critical to ensuring a smooth transition under these reforms. I understand the critical importance of the reforms proposed by the bill, and I genuinely hope that those opposite understand it too. So I hope that, instead of saying no to building a better future for the NDIS, they say yes, and, instead of saying no to securing a future where people with disabilities can reach their full potential, they say yes, and, instead of saying no, they say yes to a future for people with disabilities, a future that is filled with opportunity and acceptance. How can you say no to that? I commend the bill to the House. 13:02 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. This is a really huge budgetary item. It is a very large program. On the first occasion I ran to represent the people of Lyne, back at the 2010 election, the NDIS was just a discussion point, with the disability system run essentially by the states. But the deal was put together, where the states would contribute their current disability services budget to the Commonwealth, and it would all be bundled together. The Commonwealth would run the scheme, and people with a disability who were missing out or getting inadequate service under the state schemes would get a better deal out of it. It went through before I was elected in 2013, with bipartisan support. Everyone wants the scheme to survive and do well, but this bill and the sentiment behind it have a mismatch between what is spoken about and what the actual costs are. There are many people who are concerned about the increasing numbers of entrants that used to be covered by the Health portfolio now appearing in the NDIS portfolio costs. There has been a rapid exit from any disability care by many states, which were expected to remain and be involved in some broad general foundational supports, which the minister talked about after the last COAG meeting. In the last budgetary figures that I have here before me, the revenue that the NDIA receives will increase from $46 billion in 2024 to $59.3 billion by 2027-28. There have been subsequent other appropriations announced since this was printed, and that goes to the issue that everyone is talking about, which is the sustainability of the system. I served on the NDIS oversight committee in my first term of parliament and at that stage it was some $20 billion for the whole program, but people were still being enrolled. There are far more people coming onto the scheme than was planned. The idea that the states still bear some responsibility for normal developmental and foundational supports is very essential because the federal Commonwealth can't afford to keep this exponential increase in costs. In the budgetary statements, there was also the insurance agency itself with negative budgetary appropriations in 24-25, 25-26, 26-27 and 27-28. The sustainability issue requires much more tightening. What we've seen in my electorate is a pre-existing huge disability care network based around the beautiful city of Taree, because of very philanthropic minded organisations that were set up in the sixties and seventies. First disability education, then disability employment services and disability housing—all through philanthropy. The Machin family were at the forefront, and many other prominent citizens of the Manning Valley. A lot of people moved into that region because it was quite a stand-out. There were many places that didn't have those sorts of services and Valley Industries has grown exponentially with it. Across the country there are many existing similar philanthropic based organisations that seem to have been washed away with the change to the federal funding scheme. A lot of new entrants, who provide disability services, have taken all the easy physical disability services and left the philanthropic, long-term organisations dealing with all the difficult and challenging cases. With the increase in budgets, however, some of the more difficult and challenging high-cost people are having their packages shrunk. Yet there are very generous packages for those that have simpler and easier-to-provide services. The system will need a lot of financial reanalysis. The minister has spoken at length about getting it back on track, and everyone does want it to get back on track because if it keeps going at this rate it will become unsustainable and we'll have to go back to square one. I call on the government to start the conversations with the states and the NDIA to not just slow the rate of increase, which is planned and will hopefully save $14 billion from the expected increase, but to actually get a tighter control of the charges that are being charged by providers of care in the NDIS. A lot of my NDIS participants come to me and say, 'Before the NDIS, my catheters used to cost this or my wheelchair used to cost this, but now it takes me months to try and get something out of the NDIS to replace it, and the charges are double or more what I used to pay.' That's part of the reason why the costs are there. We're all familiar with the fraud committed by pop-up organisations that aren't doing what they're meant to do. All those things need to be addressed, but the fundamental thing is that a lot of the excesses for what is covered have been elaborated on by the shadow minister and by people on the other side of the House. We really need to pay much greater attention to things than just slowing the rate. We need states on board and we need to explain to people what's reasonable. This side of the House is concerned about the stories we've all heard in our own electorates about people getting enormous packages and having weekends in Sydney or going on holiday and taking their carer with them, paying huge amounts for luxuries. Their quality of life is going to improve, but it's the essential and necessary budget that's important—not the ideal situation where you can get sexual services. You can take people on long holidays and you can do all these things that weren't really the intent of the scheme. Those are the things that we need to control, and also the criteria which get people onto the scheme. In my experience, there are many people who seem eminently suitable for the NDIS to me but they spend thousands of dollars getting all their reports together and then they get knocked back. But other people seem to have a different assessor and get on. I think: 'How did you end up on a long-term package when you already had the disability support pension and you've already recovered from whatever the problem was? Yes, you have an impairment but you've got onto the scheme over this person.' I don't know what it is about the criteria, whether it's the assessors or the genuine natures of the reports that are assembled, but there are many issues in the NDIS that we need to get on top of. Otherwise, we will continue this exponential increase in costs, with the states totally absenting themselves from early childhood development, where there are some children who may be on the spectrum, or who may not be on the spectrum. All that needs to be addressed. If we don't actually state that, we'll never actually make the NDIS sustainable in the long term. 13:12 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce I rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the hardworking commitment of the minister and everyone involved in providing critical advice so that we can help to secure the future of the NDIS. The NDIS stands out as one of our nation's most significant social reforms in recent history. It aims to provide Australians living with disability the necessary support and resources to lead fulfilling lives. Its inception traces back to a culmination of advocacy, policy debate and recognition of the need for a more equitable and person-centred approach to disability support. As the minister stated in his speech, the Labor government in 2009 commissioned a report entitled Shut out to help the government move the analysis and debate about people with disability in Australia. He said that what was uncovered was intensely moving and profoundly shocking as it painted a picture of people with a disability being isolated and alone—their lives a constant struggle for resources and support. Further, an article written about this report at the time said, 'People were now finding themselves shut out—shut out from housing, employment, education, health care, recreation and sport; shut out of kindergartens, schools, shopping centres and community groups.' This is clearly unacceptable. The roots of the NDIS can be found in Australia's long history of disability policy and advocacy. Prior to the establishment of this scheme, disability services in Australia were fragmented and inconsistent across states and territories. Many individuals with disability faced significant barriers in assessing necessary supports, leading to disparities in outcomes and opportunities. The efforts to reform disability support were fuelled by the growing understanding of disability as a social issue requiring systemic change, rather than merely a medical or individual concern. Following extensive consultation and negotiation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 was passed by the Australian parliament, with bipartisan support. The act laid the groundwork for the NDIS, outlining its objectives, governance structure and funding arrangements. The NDIS officially commenced its rollout in 2013, starting with trial sites across various locations in Australia. These trials allowed for the testing of different aspects of the scheme, including eligibility criteria, planning processes and service delivery models. The insights gained from the trials informed the ongoing refinement and implementation of the NDIS on a national scale. Since its inception, the NDIS has progressively expanded its coverage, with around 660,000 participants currently. The scheme operates on the principle of individualised funding, whereby participants have greater control and choice over the supports and services they receive. As we are aware, central to the NDIS is the concept of choice and control, empowering participants to determine their goals and aspirations and make decisions about how they wish to achieve them. The person centred approach represents a change in thinking in disability support, moving away from one-size-fits-all towards greater flexibility and responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. People with disability should have the support they need to participate in our community. They deserve a fair go. While the NDIS has brought about significant improvements in the lives of many Australians with a disability, it has also faced challenges and criticisms, and, frankly, has not delivered on its original vision. Dealing with the NDIS should not be a battle, and you most certainly should not have to prove year after year that you still have a disability. As the minister stated, the Albanese Labor government promised to make the NDIS a priority and not penalise people with disability for wanting to live fulfilled lives; promised to put more people with disability on the NDIA Board and conduct a root-and-branch review of the scheme; promised to make the scheme sustainable so that future generations of Australians with disability would have an NDIS to access; promised to ensure that every dollar was going to people for whom it was intended—NDIS participants; and promised to restore trust in the scheme. It is encouraging that work has begun to ensure that we deliver on our promises, but, while our government has achieved a lot in a short period, there is more to do. The bill before the House amends the 2013 act to do the following things. It will require the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide participants with a clear statement of the basis on which they entered the NDIS, by meeting either the disability requirements, the early intervention requirements or both. It will clarify and expand the NDIS rules relating to access provisions. It will create the new reasonable and necessary budget framework for the preparation of NDIS participants' plans. It will provide for the needs assessment process and the method for calculating the total amount of the participant's flexible funding and funding for stated supports for new framework plans to be specified in legislative instruments and NDIS rules. These will be developed in consultation with people with disability, the disability community, health and allied health technical professionals and with all states and territories. It will insert a new definition of 'NDIS supports', which will provide a clear definition of the authorised supports that will be funded by the NDIS and those that will not. And it will insert measures focused on protecting participants. As the minister has indicated, this bill is only a first step in the process of reform outlined in the NDIS review panel report, and there remains an enormous amount of work to do, together, to implement the reforms. The Albanese government are committed to engaging and consulting with people with a disability, their families and carers, representative organisations, service providers, unions and the broader community to help us achieve the four goals as outlined: (1) that the NDIS provide a better experience for participants, (2) that the scheme be restored to its original intent to support people with significant and permanent disability, (3) that the scheme be equitable, and (4) that the scheme be sustainable. I have listened to my constituents living with disability and heard of their frustrations in dealing with the scheme. My constituents know their disability best, and the scheme needs to acknowledge this. That said, everyone will need to manage their NDIS budget, and we will be clear about what supports can and cannot be funded by the NDIS to help participants make informed choices. To provide reassurance, the minister, in his second reading speech, stated: If you have a significant and permanent disability which has quite an impact on your functioning, you will be covered by the NDIS. If you have a developmental delay which can be supported by a means of support other than an individual package, you will get what you need. I also reflect on the task ahead and some of the issues faced by people living with a disability. A local resident wrote to me recently about the disability sector often being overlooked and issues not being addressed. She raised the need for adequate toilet facilities, saying there are only a few changing places where there is a toilet that is suitable for those with severe mobility issues, and that these should be provided at every major shopping centre and all libraries so that people with a disability are not treated any differently. She raises concerns about the rights to an education and said her daughter is basically babysat at school, with no-one held accountable for inappropriate comments or mistakes, and that we should ensure that places are made available for suitable courses for people with intellectual disability. My constituent wants actions at the coalface so that people with disability can finally be proud of who they are and not feel marginalised, stating, 'My daughter has the right to become a valuable citizen in the local community and has the same rights to access all the social determinants of health as those who don't have an intellectual disability. There are often particular challenges living on the fringe of a metropolitan city, where services can be limited. Within my electorate of Pearce is an example: residents in Two Rocks and Yanchep living with disability come to mind, as I know that their choices are often not as comprehensive as those living elsewhere. I am, therefore, hoping that as the NDIS reforms progress, we are able to increase the number of providers who can offer high-quality support for my local residents living with a disability, especially where services are currently somewhat limited. It is clear from issues raised with me and from reports we have received that there are still many challenges ahead that cover many facets of living with a disability and of society as a whole. In terms of this bill, it is important for us to progress reforms, as the NDIS remains a beacon of hope for people with disability and their families. It embodies Australia's commitment to social inclusion, equality and dignity for all citizens. There is hope. Sally, a constituent with MS, recently wrote to me about her NDIS experience, saying that, while she found the application form a little intimidating, she went to an agency which made it simple, and was surprised at just how quickly she was approved, and was happy with the process. She said understanding the different categories on her plan was confusing; however, she felt she had much support with account management and more from her support coordinator and client liaison coordinator, which is pleasing to know. Sally said accepting support did not come easy for her, but she had come to realise that for her it had proven to be essential and relieved any concerns that she had. Sally advised that she was still assessing different categories and applying for aids within her home, and that her OT was amazing and extremely helpful. She recently secured hand rails for her shower and entry way through the NDIS, and says she could not explain just what a difference these small aids had made to her living. She gave thanks to the NDIS for making her life better now, knowing it would do so in the years ahead. The Albanese Labor government wants every Australian like Sally to live a life of independence and dignity, and I want all my constituents in Pearce with a disability to enjoy community life, being connected to others, having improved and knowing that they are safe and supported. For me, it is about basic human rights: no-one wants to feel excluded, shut out for everything that other Australians take for granted. As the scheme continues to evolve and mature, it holds the potential to transform not only the disability support system but also all attitudes and perceptions towards disability in Australian society, which is incredibly important. I commend the bill to the House. 13:23 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I rise to speak to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024. The Greens see that this bill threatens the future of the NDIS and the rights of disabled people in Australia. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was designed to help. Its goal was to provide funding to eligible people with disabilities to gain greater independence, to access new skills, to be more immersed in their communities and, ultimately, to improve quality of life. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, we have seen more and more delays, with participants ending up in some dire situations. Before delving into this bill, I would like to share the experiences of some of my constituents in the Brisbane community. One constituent recently reached out to my electorate office for support with her NDIS application. After sustaining a new permanent injury last year, this constituent lodged a change-of-circumstances review in January to flag that she would require significantly increased support, particularly with physiotherapy, podiatry, support worker hours, assistive technology, home modifications and other allied health services. At the same time, this constituent had already been experiencing mishandling from her plan manager, including having invoices not paid on time, making it seem like she had more funding than was actually available. Her increased support needs, the reported misconduct of her plan manager and the significant delay it took for the NDIA to assess the change-of-circumstances request meant that her plan ran out of funding earlier this month. This constituent followed all the correct and available methods of escalation but was left in a dire situation without any formal support. She has been unable to feed and shower herself since May. This is unacceptable. After multiple interventions from my office with the members and senators contact office, this constituent finally received a new plan, but of course it was not up to scratch. This new plan didn't consider any of the requests made in her change-of-circumstances review request and seems to be punishing her for reporting her plan manager's misconduct. The new plan also means she is unable to access her existing support team, so essentially she is still without any formal support. I'd like to detail some of the discrepancies in the outcome of her review request because we are seeing this time and time again. Firstly, the plan was moved to NDIA management. This constituent's existing support team, including her allied health supports, her psychologist and her support workers, are not NDIS registered. Switching her plan to NDIA management has meant she has no ability to access her existing support teams, depriving her of her choice and control. We've seen this with cases very often. Participants have no other option than a slow and costly process to establish new supports. Secondly, the new plan cuts back on supports she was previously funded for. Most notably, funding for assistive technology was slashed by more than half the previous amount. The new plan seems to deem this constituent's home unsuitable because of modifications required, failing to take into account the very obvious fact that, due to her disabilities, no home is going to be suitable without modifications. Critically, it also blatantly ignores that this constituent is a survivor of domestic violence and she needed to choose a safe location where her abusers were unlikely to access her. The new plan declined her assistive technology requests, which were supported by an occupational therapist, and home modification requests. Lastly, this new plan restricted my constituent's ability to travel as part of her work. This again runs counter to core pillars of the NDIS: choice, control and support to pursue goals and participation in the community and in employment. This change will prevent her being able to continue her work in an important nonprofit, another area that was clearly stated in her goals but seemingly ignored. Ultimately, this is just one of many stories my team have dealt with. What is especially concerning is the escalation in both the number of cases and their intensity, with wait times that seem to blow out further and further. While advocating for our constituents, my office and staff have encountered a number of other issues with the NDIS. Delays seem to be absolutely rampant. We have seen participants and their support networks applying for NDIS change of circumstances and other reviews with plenty of time to spare. This includes providing a plethora of evidence for their support needs and expensive reports from experts in their care, all timely and all in order. And yet many have had to wait so long for a response from the NDIS that their funding completely runs out, leaving them in the lurch. In many instances, this means they have to rely on either pro bono support from providers or on family, many with their own full-time jobs and their own responsibilities to manage, or ultimately be left completely alone, unable to feed, dress or shower themselves and maintain basic hygiene. Unfortunately, this often means these people are left in imminent danger of self-harm or causing harm to others due to heightened behaviours when unsupported. The NDIS have clearly not been taking a substantive view of all evidence supplied to them in reviews and initial applications into consideration. We have had planners say to our constituents, 'I had to google your diagnosis; I'd never heard of it,' and participants be told they're overspending, as if it is some sort of shopping spree. This is the experience of too many who have extensively evidenced their need for relevant support in their plans. The NDIS is so difficult to navigate, especially at the appeals and review stages. It is so difficult, in fact, that there are dedicated community— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sorry. The debate has to be interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and, if you wish to continue your comments when the debate is resumed, leave will be granted. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Petitions: Motor Neurone Disease 42 13:30 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to present petitions EN5968 and PN0603, online and paper petitions. The petitions have been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. The petitions read as follows— On average, each day in Australia two people die from MND and two people are diagnosed with MND. This is a relatively high prevalence compared to the rest of the world and yet, given that the numbers more or less cancel each other out, most people consider it to be a rare disease. While 10% of cases are familial, the remaining 90% of people have no idea how or why they got this disease. Because not many people know about it, they struggle to access the support they need and families are often at a loss as to how to best support their loved one. If MND became recognised as a notifiable disease, not only would more people know about it, but 1) those suffering from it would have better access to the support services they need;Petition and 2) more research could be done into how and why this disease affects so many. Therefore, it would not only make a difference at the individual and family level, it could potentially help us all to understand more about the disease and—hopefully!!—minimise the numbers of people who are being diagnosed and losing their lives to it on a daily basis. from 7,235 citizens (Petition No. EN5968) On average, each day in Australia two people die from MND and two people are diagnosed with MND. This is a relatively high prevalence compared to the rest of the world and yet, given that the numbers more or less cancel each other out, most people consider it to be a rare disease. While 10% of cases are familial, the remaining 90% of people have no idea how or why they got the disease. Because not many people know about it, people with MND struggle to access the support they need and their families are often at a loss as to how to best support their loved one. If MND became recognised as a notifiable disease, not only would more people know about it, but 1) those suffering from it would have better access to the support services they need; and 2) more research could be done into how and why this disease affects so many. Therefore, it would not only make a difference at the individual and family level, it could potentially help us all the understand more about the disease and—hopefully!!—minimise the numbers of people who are being diagnosed and losing their lives to it on a daily basis. Request: We therefore ask the House to make MND a notifiable disease. from 6,610 citizens (Petition No. PN0603) Petitions received. Mr HAWKE HWO The principal petitioner, Mr Warren Acott, is someone I want to speak about in a moment. These petitions have attracted signatures from many, many thousands of Australians asking the House to help make motor neurone disease a notifiable disease, which will allow for those who are suffering from motor neurone disease around Australia to better access the support services they need and enable critical research to get done so we can continue working towards understanding this insidious disease and why it affects so many. I want to spend a moment on Warren Acott, a fantastic Australian who came to Parliament House on the back of a lawnmower. He rode all the way from Melbourne. We all went out the front to meet him. Senator Carol Brown and I are the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease. Woz, as he's more commonly known in typical Australian vernacular, was welcomed by many thousands of people. He's a great Australian. He brought these petitions to this House's attention so we can get this notifiable disease issue resolved. I know, Belinda and Woz, you're watching. I just want to say thank you on behalf of everyone here and every Australian for doing this. It's a step in a journey. We're going to get this done, and we're going to get this disease tackled. Thank you, Woz. Mawson, Ms Kris 43 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham It is my absolute pleasure this afternoon to recognise one of the Illawarra's favourite teachers. Kris Mawson from Fairy Meadow Demonstration School was just in the building today with the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and me, completing her very last excursion to this beautiful building after a stellar 43-year teaching career. Kris is an outstanding teacher whose tireless dedication and strong influence have had a profound effect on everyone at Fairy Meadow Demonstration School for more than 30 years. She goes above and beyond to ignite curiosity and inspire greatness in every student who has the pleasure to be taught by her. Kris is not only the assistant principal but also mentors many teachers, organises school sporting events and camps, and takes students to participate in the choral festival for choir and also Southern Stars. Kris was also responsible for the demonstration program for student teachers at UOW, who attend the school and learn from their unique teaching methods. She has also lectured budding students at the university. Her colleague Jarret Napper has described Kris as one of those very special teachers who emerge only once in a lifetime. She has left an indelible mark on the lives of all who have had the privilege of working with and learning from her. Thank you, Kris, for all of your hard work, your passion and your tireless pursuit of excellence for students and teachers. Patch, Mr Luke 43 13:33 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to acknowledge and thank Luke Patch from my community, who recently cycled across Australia from Fremantle to Sydney, raising money for motor neurone disease research. Taking part in the Indian Pacific Wheel Race, Luke cycled close to 6,000 kilometres over 22 days. It placed him in third place out of 36 participants—an incredible effort. His desire to raise money for MND came about after noticing significant muscle loss in his hands, worrying his doctors that he may be experiencing early signs of MND. Luckily for Luke this was not the case and he has since recovered. However it was during that time that he learnt that there was no cure for MND, which sparked a passion in him to raise funding for more research to help work toward a cure. Luke said he pushed himself harder than he thought was possible, often riding with just three to four hours of sleep. Sadly, on his second-last day of racing, Luke found out that his father had passed away. This was a difficult time, but, through his endurance and dedication, he finished the journey. Luke's already planning his next ride, the Race Across America, a cycling race from the west coast to the east coast of America, and I wish him very well. Again, Luke, thank you very much for the effort you made and where you finished and the funds that you raised for motor neurone disease research. Wood, Mr Bill, AM 43 13:34 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak about Bill Wood AM, who sadly passed away on 19 May, and was laid to rest with a state funeral on Monday at St Paul's in Manuka. Whether as a teacher or a politician, Bill dedicated his life to serving others. After serving in the Queensland parliament, Bill was a founding member of the ACT assembly in 1989 and served there for 15 years. He served as a minister across a wide variety of portfolios including education and youth affairs, the environment, land and planning, and the arts. It was a great honour to know Bill and his wife, Bev. He was someone I always looked up to and I much appreciated his advice. As my colleagues have spoken of, he was a mentor to many. Just in passing this morning, a constituent said to me, 'The arts in the ACT would never be what they are if not for Bill.' My friend Margaret Watt worked for Bill, and said, 'He was a great person to work for and he attracted loyal and dedicated staffers and public servants with his strong and ethical approach to the many difficult portfolio decisions that he had to make, especially in the areas of housing and disability. We used to spend hours discussing these decisions and working with the directorate to ensure the best outcomes for the constituents who came to him.' I know that I and many others will miss Bill immensely as a dearly loved friend as well as a true Labor politician. He was a key figure in our ACT Labor and Canberra community and he will be much missed. My sincere condolences to Bev and their four children. Housing 44 13:36 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I'd like to take the opportunity to thank organisations in my Brisbane community offering urgent housing assistance and homelessness support services. Wesley Mission, 3rd Space and Valley Hearts are just some of the many organisations that assist thousands of people each year, with services such as providing food and essentials, mental health support, legal help and employment support. As valuable as these services are, the reality is that with the growing number of people facing homelessness in Brisbane, these organisations and their teams are being stretched to breaking point. It's the role of the government to actually come in and fix the root causes, not just tinker with some bandaid solutions here and there, and rely on staff and volunteers in this sector for everything else. The community knows the government's housing plan does not go anywhere near far enough. We know that as the cost of living continues to rise and rents and house prices continue to skyrocket, it's only going to get worse. The government must directly build public housing. They can't just keep relying on the goodwill of charities. They are being stretched thin and people will break. We must create an economic model that sees housing as an essential human right and not a commodity. That means the government directly and urgently building more homes so we can clear the growing waitlists and bring the private market under control. Davis Rafferty, Ms Felicity 44 13:37 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid To know Felicity Davis Rafferty was to know her fierce strength and compassion for others. Felicity passed away in April and she leaves a huge hole in the hearts of all those who knew her. I saw up close one part of Felicity—her involvement in the Labor Party. She was a warrior for social justice, determined to make an inequitable world more equitable. Felicity and her husband, Greg Davis, were a constant presence at every election, volunteering for the Labor Party. Their support for me is the reason I am here in federal parliament, and I am forever grateful. It was at her funeral where I witnessed how extraordinary Felicity's influence was in so many other aspects of life. The chapel was overflowing with hundreds and hundreds of people who were there to farewell her. Felicity was a leader in the higher education sector, respected and loved by all her colleagues at Victoria University. She was a community leader, volunteering at her kids' schools and all the community sporting groups they were involved with. But her greatest legacy, and what I think she would have been most proud of, are her children—truly remarkable people in their own right. She taught them to love and care for others. Vale, Felicity. Indi Electorate: Yarku Marnu 44 13:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi In Reconciliation Week, I wish to share with the chamber a new initiative that took place over the March long weekend in Greta South in my electorate of Indi. Yarku Marnu, which translates to children's camp, was a four-night reunification retreat for First Nations siblings who have been separated by the out-of-care home system. Bangerang elder Uncle Dozer Atkinson and his wife, Samantha, identified the need to bring siblings together after providing kinship care to a young boy unable to see his brother, who was placed with another family. When children are isolated from their family unit, they lose connection not only to their parents and siblings but to their Indigenous culture. The retreat brought 16 pairs of siblings and one group of three together from across Victoria, their ages ranging from three to 11 years old. The feedback echoed by all the children was that this was the best camp they'd ever been on. Seventeen adults donated their time to support the camp over the long weekend—nurses, child protection officers, child psychologists and First Nations elders. Uncle Dozer wished to thank and applaud the team at the 15 Mile Creek campus for donating their time, the camp facilities and all equipment—an important demonstration that acts of reconciliation can take many forms. May this program continue and grow for the benefit of First Nations kids in out-of-home care. Stokes, Ms Maree 45 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Today I rise to acknowledge a phenomenal community champion in my electorate of Robertson: Maree Stokes, who has been involved with the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, the ADFA, since 1997. Maree sadly lost her husband, Eddie, to mesothelioma at the age of 56. He contracted the disease whilst working as an apprentice, which exposed him to deadly dust particles. Eddie lost his battle with the disease in 2003. In 2005 Maree became a coordinator for the ADFA and has fought tirelessly for victims of asbestosis, their families and friends. For members who are not aware, the ADFA assists sufferers of asbestosis and their families and friends with support and guidance. In 2007 Maree was elected vice-president of the ADFA and has been elected vice-president every year up until 2023. Maree has been steadfast in her advocacy other the years for victims of asbestosis and a fierce campaigner to ensure fair compensation for the victims of the disease and their families. Maree was one of the first community leaders I met after I was preselected to run for the federal seat of Robertson. I can confidently say Maree is an incredible woman and passionate about supporting her community. I take this opportunity to commend Maree on her many years of service to the ADFA and assisting sufferers of asbestosis across Australia, and for all her work supporting and assisting our Central Coast family. Keep shining bright, Maree. We all thank you. Animal Welfare 45 13:42 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise today to speak on animal welfare. Two constituents of mine, Annie Bourke and Jodie Chynoweth, recently contacted me regarding animal welfare and protection. I'm sure many parliamentarians currently have animals or have had animals in the past. People recognise the contribution domestic animals provide such as unconditional love, joy and companionship in most cases. Research has shown a relationship with animals can help us positively in many ways, including lowering stress; reducing the risk of heart attack and strokes; reducing social isolation; supporting our psychological and physical wellbeing; and as assistance dogs or therapy animals providing significant aid for people with needs. I myself have animals; I've got a pet dog named Matilda, an Australian long-neck turtle, beef cattle and pet fish. Sentience says animals have consciousness and can experience and feel emotions like pleasure, pain and fear. Changing laws and personal attitudes to better protect animals both domestic and wild, with stronger enforceable penalties to deter acts of deliberate mistreatment, neglect and abuse, can make a real difference. I'm not against hunting; I believe that hunting for food can instil an awareness of life and death in those who are doing it, to make sure that animals, fish and birds have quick passings. Best place practice within abattoirs, ensuring workers within abattoirs make every effort to consider wellbeing, is important. Mahatma Gandhi once said, 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way animals are treated.' Housing 45 13:43 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt 'You get a house, and you get a house, and you get a house!' This is Labor's proposal under the National Housing Accord to build 1.2 million houses by 2029. We know the cost of housing is being felt by many Australians, and Labor is committed to addressing this issue. This year we are investing $6.2 billion into housing, bringing the government's total investment to over $32 billion. We are allocating $3.5 billion to clearing construction bottlenecks and funding essential infrastructures such as roads, parks and sewers. I know there is nothing attractive about building sewers, but this is crucial for developing new housing projects in areas like Clyde and Cranbourne West, where the infrastructure has been slow to catch up with new development. We are also paying to train 20,000 new construction workers to address a labour shortage and to ensure we have enough people to get the job done, because if, like Bob the Builder, we ask: can we fix it? Yes, we can! Live Animal Exports 45 13:45 Mr JOYCE e5d New England What has the coalition and Australia done to the Australian Labor Party? They just dislike us so much. If having to put up with swindle factories being cast over our land and solar factories and transmission lines littering our land and having these electric vehicle standards being forced on us and money for dams and roads being taken away were not enough, we now, with the live sheep trade, actually have them closing down our industries. Today, there's more chance of a sheep dying in a paddock than on a ship, yet they've closed the trade down, and we've got to understand that this is the forerunner of how they see it. Even the teal member for Curtin, Ms Chaney, was smart enough to realise that you don't start picking on Western Australia if you think you've got an election coming within 12 months. Western Australia is a very parochial place, and, when it comes to a federal election, if they you see you poking a stick in their eye, they're going to deal with you. This is a Western Australian trade, but it affects sheep prices across Australia. The payment for urban eastern staters going to Western Australia and closing down one of the fundamental industries that underpins the standard of living in regional areas is that they will deal with you at the next federal election. Veterans 46 13:46 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence On many an occasion I have taken the opportunity to stand up in this place in support of our veteran community, not only the 6,000-strong community in my electorate of Spence but the over-half-a-million veterans nationwide, some of whom are in the chamber presently. They, like me, would be aware that when the Albanese Labor government was elected the Department of Veterans' Affairs had around 42,000 claims languishing in its backlog, and that number only counts the claims that hadn't even been picked up by someone at the DVA to get the ball rolling. The Albanese Labor government takes seriously its duty to those Australians who have put on the uniform and served our country. I know this to be true, not just by its words but by its actions too. In the week since the Treasurer handed down our third budget, we have heard those opposite complain about reckless spending and the size of the Public Service. However, those opposite seem to have been rather quiet when it comes to discussing the additional $6.5 billion expected to be paid out in military compensation payments. What they see as a cost blowout, we see as a result of our government reducing the DVA claims backlog down to zero, a feat only possible through DVA receiving staffing and resourcing levels it hasn't seen in the past 30 years. Supporting our veterans isn't a part-time activity reserved for special occasions. I'm proud to be part of a government that always had our veterans' backs, and to them I say: thank you for your service. Labor Government 46 13:48 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Middle Australia is being let down by this government. This government is out of control and has lost the plot. They've lost the plot on the economy, they've lost the plot on housing and they've lost the plot on the borders. On the economy, yesterday we learnt that inflation is up, to 3.6 per cent. Today the RBA economist says it's clearly strong, despite what you said in the budget. When inflation is strong, interest rates will not come down and the average Australian will be crushed. While the economy is crashing, house prices certainly aren't. They have gone up 10 per cent in Sydney in the last year alone. The government has totally lost the plot on housing. While these house prices were skyrocketing, the government also lost control of immigration. Australia's population is now growing faster— Government members interjecting— Mr KENNEDY 267506 They're laughing, but I don't think this is a laughing matter. Australia's population is growing faster now than it has at any time since 1952. Australians can't find houses. I don't think this is funny. The members across the floor might think this is funny, but I certainly don't. Finally, they've lost complete control of our borders and security, something else I don't think is funny, and I don't think Middle Australia thinks it's funny either. We now have murderers and domestic violence perpetrators wandering around our streets because the government have been so focused on direction 99— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Time. Mr KENNEDY 267506 they've lost complete priority on— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Cook, sit down. I appreciate you're a new member to this House, but, when I say your time has expired, you are sitting down, and I am moving to the next call. That's the way 90 seconds works. Veterans 46 13:50 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Our budget puts people first—people like our veterans, people who were treated as a line item on a spreadsheet by the Liberals. I didn't think it was possible, but the party of robodebt have outdone themselves this time. 'Delay, deny and die,' was the catchcry from veterans, and cry they did, as their claims were kicked into the long grass. Processing times of over 400 days were the norm when we came to government. People lost hope. Many deteriorated. Some died. All suffered, and so did their loved ones. Why and how? The Liberals' ideological bent for small government, held like an article of faith, and their disdain for public servants, preferring consultants, had something to do with it. Plus, as revealed by one of their own, process was not improved because there was no political advantage. There is no descriptor for this violation of trust, this violation of leadership and this violation of our duty of care to people who defend this nation. How the remnants of that awful government sit in this chamber is beyond belief. Former Liberal cabinet members should resign, but not before a trip to the confessional, asking for absolution. Let history show that it took a humble, diligent Labor minister, Matt Keogh, to put aside politics for people, to hire more staff and to clear the backlog, slashing determination times from 440 days to 60 days, while kicking an additional $6.5 billion into this process. Never forget this violation and that those responsible— (Time expired) Beef Industry 47 13:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The beef industry was elevated to the global stage earlier this month. Rockhampton's premier event, Beef2024, showcased its world-class status, with nearly 120,000 attendees, boosting the region's tourism investment. Since my election, I have consistently supported Beef Australia, and I will continue to do so. I am very glad that the government came to the table, matching my $6 million commitment for Beef2024. I'd like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Nationals and many other politicians for visiting Beef2024. Over the week, $44 million worth of cattle were on site, and more than 1,600 head were sold at auction. Around 5,100 schoolchildren participated in learning about the beef industry, inspiring the next generation to understand the significance of the sector. The beef industry supports not only the livelihoods of countless farmers and their families but also hundreds of small businesses in Rockhampton and the surrounding regions. Unlike the current government, the coalition will always back small business and support investment in regional Queensland. Investment in showcases like Beef2024 will make certain that Capricornia continues to flourish and ensure Rockhampton remains the beef capital of Australia. Nuclear Energy 47 13:53 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean In exciting news, I can inform the House that future sites for nuclear reactors could possibly include any Australian town or suburb called Springfield. That includes Springfield, Queensland—sorry, Member for Blair; Springfield, New South Wales—sorry, Member for Robertson; Springfield, South Australia—sorry, Member for Boothby; Springfield, Tasmania—sorry, Member for Bass; and Springfield, Victoria—sorry, Member for McEwen. We know that Springfield in The Simpsons was a fiction, but we know that the opposition's nuclear policy is a complete fantasy. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, they haven't told us where these power plants would go, when they would be built, how they would build them, what they would cost or who would pay for them, and they certainly haven't gone into the communities that they propose to use as sites for their power plants and talked to them directly about it. While this government is committed to a Future Made in Australia, the opposition are committed to a future made in fiction. Berowra Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 47 13:54 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I'd like to acknowledge the sporting accomplishments of young people in my electorate, particularly recent recipients of Local Sporting Champions grants. It's even more special to recognise their achievements in an Olympic year, highlighting where their skills might one day take them. I've got full confidence we'll see some of these people participating in the Brisbane Olympics in 2032. I congratulate the following recipients of the grant: Isabelle Cruickshank and Sarah-Anne Koot for athletics; Jeremy Chen, Fay Huo, Jerry Lin and Tiffany Teoh for badminton; Bradley Dalton, Mitchell Howay, Benjamin Jones, Lachlan Jones, Spencer Kelly, Toby Kelman, Seyeon Kim, Isobel Lambert, Jordan Lowe, Kieran Mark and Kimi Soong for baseball; Holly Mitchell for basketball; Sy Jason for outrigger canoeing; Elyssa Bolger for cricket; Lillian Cormack and Lara Manuel for diving; Jasmine Cook and Angelina Thompson for equestrian; Logan Bubb, Lachlan Dorahy, Bradley Newman, Haley Newman and Elyssa Wehrle for touch football; Dmitry Tsyplakov for ice hockey; Amelia Bisoglio for netball; Savanna Sweeney and Shay Sweeney for orienteering; Edward Selig for skiing; Bodie Denton and William Scodellaro for soccer; Sophie Burnett, Maddi Durnell, Milla Durnell and Tayla Moore for softball; and Natalie Pettitt as a softball match official. The commitment of these local sporting champions, as well as that of their coaches and parents, really deserves our thanks, and I congratulate all of the winners. Budget 47 13:55 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Labor is the party of progressive and practical policies that deliver for all Australians. Our recent Labor budget has been welcomed in my electorate, bringing much-needed cost-of-living relief, including a $300 rebate on our energy bills. All 81,000 taxpayers in Moreton will receive a tax cut and, thanks to this side of the chamber, 17 in 20 will now receive a bigger tax cut in a month's time. Twenty-eight thousand Moreton constituents with a HECS debt will also directly benefit from education reforms. For the second consecutive year we have significantly increased the rate of Commonwealth rent assistance. But where do those opposite stand on these important issues? We know they voted against energy bill relief and then complained that energy bills were too high. Their leader said our tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer should be taken to an election. We're wiping $3 billion in HECS debt and fixing indexation, and the shadow education minister jumped on Sky News and said it doesn't matter because real wages aren't growing—not only is that manifestly untrue, but someone needs to tell the Senator that it was her party that deliberately kept wages low for a decade. Did the shadow education spokesperson miss that while she was sitting in the party room, helping to make that decision? We know the coalition under the member for Dixon is hardwired to block progressive policies; however, I didn't expect that the Greens political party would also do similar—more to come. (Time expired) Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 48 13:57 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer This Albanese Labor government has lost complete control of Australia's national security, and that sits squarely at the hands of the hapless, incompetent Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Those hands were quick to sign direction 99 but then did nothing to deport so many hard-core criminals. The Prime Minister's close, personal friendships continue to take priority over the safety of the Australian community, and that is totally unacceptable. If you listened to this weak Prime Minister, it's everyone else's fault: it's the AAT, it's the department, it's the High Court, it's everyone except the minister for immigration. This weak Prime Minister continues to treat the Australian people like they are mugs. He refuses to sack the minister for immigration because the truth is he has always relied on him politically. He has relied on him to vote against boat turnbacks at Labor conferences; to undermine the members for Maribyrnong and Sydney when they led Labor; and to do his leadership numbers in 2019. He has relied on him factionally and as a close, personal friend. Prime Minister, your loyalty to your factional mates cannot continue to outweigh your loyalty to this country. We know that if the Deputy Prime Minister were PM, Mr Albanese would be moved to the backbench. We know that if the Minister for the Environment and Water were PM, Mr Albanese would be moved to the backbench. We know that if the Treasurer were PM, Mr Albanese would be moved to the backbench, probably sitting next to a sacked industry minister. Prime Minister, how many Australians need to be bashed, stabbed, or attacked before you remove this hopeless minister? Budget 48 13:58 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong It has been 16 days since the Treasurer delivered the Albanese government's third budget. It was a budget that provided universal cost-of-living support through tax cuts and energy rebates to every taxpayer and every household. It was a budget that showed how serious we are about becoming a renewable energy superpower through billions of dollars to support green hydrogen and a future made in Australia. It was also a budget that delivered the fiscal responsibility that our economy needs right now. The budget's $9.3 billion projected surplus builds on last year's record $21.9 billion surplus. That's the first back-to-back surplus in nearly two decades. Because of our restraint, the budget will be $215 billion stronger over the next six years. That means that debt will be $152 billion lower than under the Liberals. Because of that, we'll save $80 billion in interest costs over the next decade. While the Leader of the Opposition and his acolytes shamefully blame migrants for every issue under the sun, we are getting on with the job of cleaning up the mess that the Liberals left us. Labor backs in renewable energy while the Liberals continue to push their nuclear fantasy. Labor strengthens Medicare because the Liberals cut it to the bone. Labor will continue to deliver a responsible budget while all they did was leave us with a trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt and a cheap slogan on a mug. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 48 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 48 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today. He's attending the Shangri-La Dialogue, which is the most significant regional defence and security conference that takes place in Singapore each year. The Minister for Defence Industry will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Visa Refusal or Cancellation 49 14:01 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the minister for immigration. Was the minister informed by the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister advised New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that he would weaken our immigration laws to allow criminals to stay in Australia? 14:01 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin It's a question that no-one can accept the premise of. I don't quite know what the shadow minister is wanting me to answer. What I can say is this: in putting in place a ministerial direction, I had regard to our national interests and common sense, including the protection of the Australian community, and that was the advice that I was given. Trade 49 14:02 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is trade important to economic growth? What impact has the Albanese government's engagement on trade had on Australian export industries? What opportunities are there in the future? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. 14:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and for welcoming me to his electorate just a week ago, looking at affordable housing there around the Westmead precinct. We are the 13th largest economy in the world, but to keep growing we need to focus on a future made in Australia, pursuing greater diversity in what we make and what we send to the world, making more things here and getting economic growth as a result. Tomorrow marks one year since the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement entered into force. In the first 10 months since the deal was implemented, Australian exports to the UK have reached $5 billion, a 100 per cent increase, including in things like sheep meat, which has expanded substantially, as well as wine and other produce as well. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 This government has also worked hard to stabilise our relationship with China. Our approach has been patient, calibrated and deliberate— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 without compromising any of our national interests, and it has paid dividends. Today I welcome the announcement that five of Australia's leading beef producers can resume their exports to China. This means jobs. This means economic growth. This means significant benefit for farmers, particularly in Queensland and in New South Wales— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 JBS Beef City in Purrawunda in Queensland, JBS Dinmore in Riverview, Kilcoy Pastoral Company in Kilcoy, Meramist in Caboolture and the Northern Co-operative Meat Company in Casino on the north coast of New South Wales. This follows the opening up of our exports of coal, cotton, copper ores, timber, barley and of course, more recently, wine. Of the $20 billion of trade impediments that were there with China, almost all of them now have been lifted. But we can do more across the board as well, including the deal that we have done, the largest ever defence export deal, of $1 billion for 100 Boxers that are made in Redbank in Queensland to be exported to Germany. We're growing our economy, creating secure jobs and boosting our industries. Future Made in Australia presents enormous opportunities for further growth in our exports, critical minerals, value-adding and advanced manufacturing, including in areas like green aluminium and green steel. If we get this right, we can secure a very prosperous future for Australia. Trade is an important part of it. We will continue to defend the national interest by advancing a future made here in Australia. (Time expired) Visa Refusal or Cancellation 49 14:05 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Direction 99 was created as a result of the Prime Minister's meeting with former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern in July 2022. Why did this weak and incompetent Prime Minister put his close and sycophantic relationship with Jacinda Ardern ahead of the safety of Australians? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. It is highly disorderly to be interjecting before the Prime Minister speaks. If anyone on my right interjects, they will leave the chamber. 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler All the anger is there in just one question. The anger and the abuse is all there. He has moved on from abusing journalists. The Leader of the Opposition did a tweet yesterday— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a question on a serious matter, where literally dozens of Australians have fallen victim to criminals— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. We are 28 seconds in. I am going to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW When there is a question that is so full of abuses against standing order 90 and reflections on members, it is completely unreasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to be so precious that he can't take any criticism in return. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister has been asked a question. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order. I'll just remind all members— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Alright. I was going to deal with the point of order, but instead I'll call the Prime Minister in continuation. Mr ALBANESE R36 In that tweet, the Leader of the Opposition said on the cancelled visas: The cancellation power was exercised within the limits of the Constitution. He said the quiet bit out loud. The reality is that, on this bloke's watch, 1,300 hardcore criminals were released from immigration detention centres—not because of a decision of the High Court but on his watch. They were released with no curfews, no ankle bracelets, no monitoring and no regard for community safety. They included 102 sex offenders, 64 of whom are child sex offenders, 40 domestic violence offenders and four murderers, alleged murderers or individuals convicted of accessory to murder, including a British man who was convicted in 2016 of being an accessory to the stabbing of an associate in a drug operation. He helped another man carry the victim's body to the boot of a car and dump it in a makeshift grave. Another British man was convicted of being an accessory to murder when a drug associate shot another man in what was described as a gangland execution. Section 501 has not changed. What we did change was the capacity of Kiwis to become Australian citizens, and I am pleased that 20,000 of them have taken it up. That is the difference that it's made. But on this bloke's watch, the AAT decided a 45-year-old New Zealand man convicted of three charges of an indecent act with a child under 16 should be allowed to stay—on this bloke's watch. The SPEAKER 53517 Prime Minister, we've already had a point of order on relevance. I don't want the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to take a point of order on relevance. She has the call. Ms Ley 00AMN I seek a ruling, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to talk about the opposition in his answer? The SPEAKER 53517 The time to do that would have been when the point of order was taken on relevance. As I explained to the House, 28 seconds in is not—in my judgement—the best time to take a point of order on relevance. Under the standing orders, one is allowed to be taken, so it's just a reminder to all members that if you want to take a point of order of relevance be careful when you pull that trigger. I remind the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 That, of course, was made in accordance with ministerial direction 79, which was issued when this guy was the senior minister and the member for Banks was the junior minister. There are many more, so if we want to go through we'll go through the whole lot one by one. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS United States of America: Delegation of Congress, Sim, Ms Ann, Catholic College Wodonga 51 14:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I would like to do some acknowledgements to guests in the House today. I'm very pleased to inform the House that present in the Speaker's visitors' gallery is a delegation of 16 members from the United States Congress, participating in the Aspen Institute Congressional program. I'm also pleased to advise the House that Ms Sim Ann, a Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development from the Singaporean government is joining us. And also, I'd like to acknowledge students and teachers from Catholic College Wodonga in the member for Indi's electorate. On behalf of the House, welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Senior Australians 51 14:12 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government providing more support in the safety net for pensioners, and are there any threats to this support being provided? 14:12 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Adelaide for his question and for his advocacy for seniors in his electorate. The Albanese government is proud to continue the strong Labor tradition of supporting older Australians. We know Australians, including our seniors, are under pressure and we are providing more cost-of-living relief. We are strengthening the safety net for pensioners by continuing the freeze on deeming rates for a further 12 months. This means part-pensioners may earn more on their investments without it affecting their payments, benefiting around 450,000 aged pensioners. Our government is also increasing the maximum rates of rent assistance by a further 10 per cent. This is our second consecutive increase and means that on 20 September the maximum rates of rent assistance will have increased by more than 40 per cent since our government was elected. This will assist 200,000 aged pension households. Our freeze on co-payments for PBS medications means that six million pensioners and other concession card holders will pay a maximum of $7.70 per script for the next five years. Our energy bill relief will provide every Australian household with a $300 rebate for their power bills. These measures are providing significant additional assistance to pensioners and are in addition to the indexation of the pension, which ensures pensions keep up with the cost of living. It was Labor, when last in government, who increased pensions and introduced the more generous indexation arrangements. I'm asked if there are any threats to pensioners and for more support for pensioners. Unfortunately, there is. It is those opposite. Those opposite have a record, when it comes to cutting support for pensioners. Despite promising no cuts to the pension, the former coalition government did exactly the opposite. The former coalition government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister, tightened the pension asset test, kicking thousands of older Australians off the pension and reducing pensions for many others. For older Australians, they axed the seniors supplement. And let's not forget that those opposite had a plan to lift the pension-qualifying age to 70 and remove the better-off indexation that we put in place. Now the member for Hume is leading the charge again to attack the pension. It's time for the member for Hume, and indeed all of those opposite, to come clean about their plans for the pension. We know the member for Hume has labelled indexation on the pension as 'unrestrained spending' which he will claw back. Labor will stand up for pensioners, unlike those opposite. Climate Change 51 14:15 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's media are reporting that you gave big corporations an ironclad guarantee that new environment laws would not include a climate trigger to stop more coal and gas mines. Prime Minister, did you give such a guarantee, when did you give it and why was it kept a secret from the Australian people? 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler No. Cost of Living 52 14:16 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government working to support our pensioners and low- and middle-income earners to ease cost-of-living pressures? What does it mean for the budget, and what has been the response? 14:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks to the wonderful member for Robertson for the way that he represents his community in this place. Cost-of-living relief in the budget is for everyone, in the form of tax cuts for taxpayers, energy bill relief for households and getting wages moving again for all Australian workers. But, as we are a Labor government, there is also a particular emphasis on the low-paid and people on pensions and payments. Two point nine million Australians earning less than $45,000 will get the tax cut they need and deserve, which would have been denied by those opposite. There are cheaper medicines, through our freezing the maximum cost of PBS medicines for five years for people with a concession card. We have frozen deeming rates for 876,000 people, including 450,000 age pensioners. And about 200,000 of the million people who will benefit from our increase to Commonwealth rent assistance are on the age pension as well. All of that means that the pension is up about $120 a fortnight since we came to office, JobSeeker is up about the same, rent assistance is up by about $81 a fortnight, and youth allowance is up by between $81 and $108 a fortnight. This is because of decisions that we've taken and funded in the budget, combined with the indexation of payments. Until the member for Hume became the shadow Treasurer, that indexation of payments was more or less a bipartisan thing. Then he started talking about $315 billion of overspending in the budget, which includes the indexation of pensions and payments. He calls that 'overspending'. It should send a shiver up the spine of every age pensioner in this country that he thinks indexing their pensions is overspending. And, if he thinks there is $315 billion too much spending in the budget, why won't he come clean on his $315 billion of cuts? Could it be because the last time they came into office they smashed Medicare and they came after people on pensions and payments and they brought in robodebt? It is easy to dismiss this shadow Treasurer because of his bumbling incompetence, his incoherence and his failure to explain even the most basic details in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, but it masks a much more dangerous— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer will pause. There is far, far too much noise on both my left— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume, when I'm trying to deal with a point of order, it is definitely not the time to interject. He knows that. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B Yes, Mr Speaker—standing order 90, reflections on members. You, commendably, have been working— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right, I want to hear this point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B You, commendably, have been working to increase standards in this House. The standing orders say that 'personal reflections on other members shall be considered highly disorderly'. In fact, the Leader of the House raised the very same standing order just a few moments ago. I ask that you direct the Treasurer to cease his repeated practice of undignified personal attacks. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! This is a serious issue. Order! Members on my right! This is a serious issue— Ms Plibersek 83M Very deadpan delivery. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for the Environment and Water is now warned. If she interjects again she'll be removed from the chamber. The Leader of the House on this serious issue? Mr Burke DYW On this serious issue, Mr Speaker. If the Manager of Opposition Business is seriously proposing that we want to set a standard where most of their questions are out of order then we can go there. But to be asking the questions that they've been asking today and then suddenly get precious, with a glass jaw, when anything comes back is absurd. The SPEAKER 53517 Before the Treasurer resumes, I just want to remind the House that it is highly disorderly to reflect on members. The Manager of Opposition Business makes a very good point. So if, moving forward, everyone can agree that in the questions we won't reflect on members and in the answers we won't reflect on members, we won't have this problem. The Treasurer can cease his critique and return to the question to make sure that we are getting an answer to the question that he was asked. He has the call. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House are supporting people on low and fixed incomes. We are providing cost-of-living relief to everyone at the same time as we clean up the mess that those opposite left in the budget. We've been turning Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses and we've been paying down Liberal debt. If they get their hands on the budget there will be more Liberal debt, there will be more waste, there'll be more rorts and there will be more attacks on Medicare and on pensioners, and on the lowest-paid Australians. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 53 14:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister implement direction 99 at the request of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern? 14:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the deputy leader for his question. What we do— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 It's her question! What we do is determine our own policy according with our own interests. That is what we have done. Indeed, the request publicly from New Zealand was to remove section 501. We did not do that. We've created a pathway for better citizenship— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher will cease interjecting or be warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 for New Zealand people who've been here to have that pathway to citizenship, and I'm pleased that, indeed, 20,000-plus Kiwis now call themselves Australian citizens as well. That's a good thing, so they can fully participate in society. But we're also making sure that we get these things right by abolishing the AAT, something that this week those opposite voted to defend. They voted to defend this system! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause and the Leader of the Opposition will be allowed to make his point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We took your advice on board. The question was very tight indeed, and I seek your direction as to whether the Prime Minister is relevant to the question that was asked of him. The SPEAKER 53517 Well, he did explain, in what I heard, a very clear answer to the question: it wasn't about that decision; it was another decision that was requested and that the government didn't do. So he is being directly relevant and answering the question. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 I can't control what the answer is going to be, I can only make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question. It's as long as he is remaining on topic and being directly relevant around the process that he was asked about, around the policy topic he was asked about. If he strays into other policy topics or other government policy, he will be called back into line, but I will listen carefully to make sure he is being directly relevant. He has addressed the core principle of the question. The Leader of the Opposition further on the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI To clarify your ruling, Mr Speaker: is it that the Prime Minister is in order? The SPEAKER 53517 My ruling is that he has answered the question and now he— Mr Dutton 00AKI If it assists the House, my question to you was: is it your ruling that the Prime Minister is relevant and within the standing orders? The SPEAKER 53517 He is within the standing orders, because he has answered the question and he's providing additional information to the topic of the question. The standing order is specific around being directly relevant. I don't know what he's going to say next, but I will listen extremely carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant. If he starts talking about another topic, he won't be allowed to do that. He has the call and I'll make sure he's relevant. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I directly answered the question and I'm directly— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mr ALBANESE R36 talking about the issue which the question went to, about people who have been released, including 1,300 under this former minister's watch—the now Leader of the Opposition—as a result of the AAT, including 102 sex offenders and 64 child sex offenders. Budget 54 14:26 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Albanese Labor government's recent budget provide cost-of-living relief to older Australians, including pensioners? And has there been any opposition to providing this relief? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Of course, cost-of-living relief has been the No. 1 priority of this government. We recognise the pressures that are being felt by older Australians, particularly those on the age pension. Of course, the inflation that we inherited was double what it is now—double what it is now. The pension of course is part of our social contract; the promise that we make to people who have built this country, to look after them in their retirement. That's why, in the recent budget, we guaranteed age pension indexation and strengthened assistance to pensioners. We maintained the freeze on deeming rates until 30 June 2025, helping some 450,000 age pensioners. We have frozen PBS medicine copayments for pensioners so that the most they will pay is $7.70 per script. We have increased the Medicare levy threshold so that low-income seniors will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy. We have given every Australian household, including pensioners, $300 in power bill relief and around 200,000 pensioners will receive an increase in their rent assistance following from last year's increase in rent assistance. And we're providing $2.2 billion to strengthen aged-care services. I am asked: is there any opposition to this? What are the barriers? The Leader of the Opposition has called this spending 'reckless' and 'useless'. The shadow Treasurer says that it's wasteful. They're promising tax breaks for people with hundreds of millions of dollars in super but they think helping pensioners is a waste of money—a waste of money! Never forget what they did the last time that they came into office: the 2014 budget tried to increase the pension age to 70 and tried to cut the pension indexation rate. Along with their energy supplement cut, that meant each pensioner would have lost $724. Those opposite like talking tough but, in the end, they always pick on people who are doing it tough. Those opposite want young Australians to raid their superannuation and make them more reliant on the pension in their old age, and then they want to raid the pension and make it harder for them to rely on it. That's their idea of balance: a trapdoor at both ends. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume and the member for Deakin will cease interjecting, or they'll be warned. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 54 14:29 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did you receive any advice that your direction 99 would result in more criminals having to stay in Australia? 14:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler That is a question appropriately given to the minister because it's not my direction. What we know, in addition, is that yesterday they ran out of puff. So, today, they're into conspiracy theories. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence on his point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, it's an obvious point of order on relevance. Is it your ruling that the Prime Minister is relevant to the question, the very tight question, that was asked of him? The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, Mr Speaker: the challenge is always there when a question's directed to the wrong minister that refers to a specific direction that has been signed off by a different minister. When someone chooses to answer something that is being directed to the wrong minister, it has always been the case that there is a broader view on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI On the point of order, the reason that the Leader of the House is speaking in error—I'm sure innocently, but, nonetheless, leading to the same outcome—is that the Prime Minister was the architect of direction 99. He did it as a commitment to Jacinda Ardern. He's put our country at risk. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. My ruling is that within the 20 seconds of answering the question I haven't heard much of what the Prime Minister has said. I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to make his remarks directly relevant. It was a tight question. I remind the Leader of the Opposition: relevance is the point to make. It is not about making additional statements. So, if the Prime Minister wants to redirect the question, he's entitled to do that under the practice and standing orders as well, but he simply can't go off onto other topics, and I'll make sure he's being relevant. I want to make sure what he says further is going to be directly relevant, but so far, within 20 seconds, he hasn't addressed the core part of the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 The premise of the question is wrong. As the former minister knows, because he issued these directions himself—directions that resulted in almost 1,300 hard-core criminals being released from immigration detention centres—these are extensive documents that come from ministers. Housing 55 14:32 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How is the Albanese Labor government helping older Australians with housing, including through the $32 billion Homes for Australia Plan? What could jeopardise future support? 14:32 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Fraser for that question. The member for Fraser's been a terrific supporter of our Homes for Australia Plan because he understands that too many Australians don't have a safe place to stay, including many older Australians who are doing it tough. Of course, we heard about the Homes for Australia Plan and the $6 billion in new housing initiatives that were in the last budget. These will directly help many Australians, including older Australians, who are currently waiting on our social housing waiting list. Our Homes for Australia Plan is now $32 billion in new housing initiatives—that's since we came to office. It includes, in the Homes for Australia Plan, $1.9 billion to boost Commonwealth rent assistance. As we heard from the Minister for Social Services, this is the first back-to-back increase in the Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. Maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance will now be 40 per cent higher than when we came to office in May 2022—direct assistance helping Australians that need it most. This back-to-back boost will help around one million Australians, and, as we've heard, around 200,000 of them are older Australians who are doing it tough. Our Homes for Australia Plan also includes our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We know what a difference this fund will make because we already know that people in the social homes that we have already built are making a real difference. It will impact older Australians, particularly women like Emma, whom I met in Melbourne recently. Emma told me that, after living in so many different places, she's now happy in her new social housing. She said, 'All I can do is say to everybody, anyone who sees any of this, is "thank you".' It's people like Tanya, who I met in Sydney. Tanya told me that being somewhere safe and beautiful brought her so much joy after years of insecure housing. But this is in jeopardy. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin is now warned. Ms COLLINS HWM But I'm concerned for people like Emma, Tanya and Glenda and Nanna Pam, who I talked about yesterday. I'm concerned because we've got the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, out there saying, 'Billions of unnecessary spending will be cut.' That includes things like the indexation to pensions and other payments. What I'm concerned about is: does it include the Housing Australia Future Fund, the fund that you voted against? The response to this fund has been huge, and we will be making announcements and we'll be getting houses underway later this year. It'll be on them. They're full of negativity. We're going to get on and build the homes that Australia needs. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 55 14:35 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Was direction 99 an initiative of the minister? 14:36 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Yes. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! Mr Burke DYW Compared to Mr Morrison making every ministerial order! The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the House! Social Media 55 14:36 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to hold social media platforms to account and shine a light on how they impact Australian society? 14:37 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for her question. Australians are rightly concerned about the harmful impacts of social media, particularly in relation to children, and it's a topic of live conversation around the country. Our top priority is keeping Australians safe, particularly vulnerable Australians and children. The Albanese government is determined to use all levers to address new and emerging online safety issues and to make digital platforms more transparent and accountable. One of these mechanisms is the Basic Online Safety Expectations, BOSE, determination, which is a key element of the Online Safety Act. The BOSE sets out the government's expectations for online services to keep Australians safe. It covers social media, messaging, gaming services and other apps and websites. In November last year I announced that the Albanese government would remake the BOSE determination in order to provide the eSafety Commissioner with a clear and up-to-date remit in exercising its transparency powers in relation to online services. Today I'm pleased to inform the House that, following consultation, the Basic Online Safety Expectations have been amended to help achieve just that. The updated expectations now include a requirement that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration in any services likely to be accessed by children. It also includes an expectation that user safety be incorporated in the design and operation of generative AI and that services proactively minimise its use to create harmful content. This complements the work being undertaken by the Attorney-General to ban the creation and nonconsensual distribution of deepfake pornography. While governments and regulators around the world are grappling with addressing the many harmful impacts of social media, one thing is clear: it is imperative that industry be more transparent and accountable. That's why the BOSE is so important. It enables the eSafety Commissioner and Australians to understand what these companies are doing and, importantly, not doing when it comes to helping stop harms. The eSafety Commissioner has already issued four non-periodic notices to more than 10 companies under the BOSE. Online safety is a collective responsibility between industry, regulators, government and civil society. It is clear that the platforms need to do more to help keep Australians safe, and the updated BOSE is a key element in holding them to account. Finally, I understand that many parents will feel overwhelmed when it comes to keeping their children safe online. There's a wealth of resources that are freely available at esafety.gov.au, and I encourage all members to share these with their communities. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 56 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Peris, Ms Nova, OAM 56 14:40 The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just acknowledge in the gallery today is former Olympic gold medallist and former senator for the Northern Territory Nova Peris OAM. Welcome to parliament. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Universities 56 14:40 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the Minister for Education: We have over 38,000 students in Fowler. Over 15 per cent attend universities and almost 22 per cent are in high school, hoping they'll head in the right direction. While changes to HECS indexation are welcome, what will the government do to stop the doubling of upfront costs for arts students studying subjects such as history, English, politics and health science? Many students come from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Why are arts students treated differently? 14:41 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Fowler for her question. The changes that we're making to HECS are big and important for students and graduates across the nation, including 22,000 people in the electorate of Fowler who'll benefit from the cuts to HECS indexation. All across the country, we're going to wipe more than $3 billion of HECS debt for more than three million Australians. If you're somebody with a HECS debt of, say, $26,000, which is the average across the nation, that means that once we pass legislation through this parliament—and I hope that it will get the support of all members of the House—that will cut your HECS debt by $1,200. If you've got a HECS debt of, say, $45,000, that will cut your HECS debt by about $2,000. So that's important. The paid prac that we're introducing through the accord is important too. If you're a teaching student, nursing student or social work student, this is financial support to help with the cost of living while you're studying. Doing a paid prac is an important thing that has never happened before in this country. It's never happened with the support of the Commonwealth government before. You asked about arts degrees. There are recommendations in the accord that talk about changes there. In the accord response in the budget, we have agreed to implement 29 of the 47 recommendations in full or in part. The accord itself is bigger than one budget. The reforms that we need to implement will need to be implemented over the next few decades. As I said, in the budget, we have bitten off a big chunk of it—29 of the 47 recommendations. In relation to the recommendations around job-ready graduates, we announced in the budget that we would establish an Australian Tertiary Education Commission to steer reform here, and that will include the setting of course fees. Cybersecurity 57 14:43 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect Australians from online harms? 14:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I'm sure she, like me, has had the experience of talking to parents, whether that be in our neighbourhoods, outside schools or on the side of sporting fields, discussing what issues they're really concerned about with their young ones growing up. I think every parent in this country has been concerned about the impact of social media and about what their son or daughter might be being exposed to online. That's why we need to work not just as governments but as a whole society to address this challenge to our way of life and the impact that it has particularly on developing minds. Mr Wallace 265967 Why wouldn't you agree to our age verification? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fisher has been exercised right throughout question time, and he'll now leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Fisher then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm surprised that this is controversial in this parliament. I would have thought we all have an interest in working on this. That's why we quadrupled funding for the eSafety Commissioner in last year's budget. We're reviewing the Online Safety Act to ensure they have the power needed to keep Australians safe; that includes classification reform to address the availability of very violent pornography. In addition to that, the government has established the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, chaired by the member for Jagajaga, with its interim report due in August. We support minimum-age limits on social media for account creation, and our budget has funded an age assurance trial. We need to ensure and explore which technologies are most effective in limiting kids' exposure to inappropriate material, including pornography, but also to social media. This is a challenge. It's not simple; you can't just close one door online if another one can be opened up somewhere else, including through international registrations. It is something we need to get right, which is why we allocated $6½ million in the budget. We know that existing age limits have not been adequately enforced or are too easy to get around. We are running counterinfluence campaigns online as well, so we can directly challenge misogynist and harmful views in the places where this content gets viewed. On the issue of domestic violence and safety for women and children: this is a major topic that will be considered again by National Cabinet when we meet in the third quarter. The government is committed to addressing online harms where they occur on social media platforms or anywhere else on the internet. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 57 14:46 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. At the Australia-New Zealand Leaders Meeting on 8 July 2022, did the Prime Minister commit to change the ministerial direction regarding the removal of New Zealand citizens? 14:47 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. The shadow minister, who I think held this portfolio at one stage, talks as if the premise of direction 99 is that it set an entirely new standard, when he knows that it did not. Direction 90 talked of a higher level of tolerance for criminals who have lived in the Australian community for most of their lives. Direction 79, signed by Minister Coleman in 2018— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Wannon, on a point of order? Mr Tehan 210911 It was a very direct question. It asked whether the Prime Minister gave a commitment at that leaders meeting to change the ministerial direction regarding the removal of New Zealanders. That is a very, very direct question. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the House, on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW To what was just raised: it's therefore clearly directly relevant to that, to look at the extent to which it was a change, given the previous directions that had been put in place. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is able to talk about the lead-up to that decision and arrangements, but he's going to have to be specific regarding the meeting and the decision itself. I'll just listen carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant to the member for Wannon. Mr ALBANESE R36 If the minister or the former minister or anyone who has been involved in any process at international level thinks that you sit down and you go through directions in ministerial guidelines, you are just wrong; you are just completely wrong. That is absurd. That is why the premise of this question is wrong. Directions 90, 79 and 65 all said that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance for people based on how long they had been in Australia. The premise of this dry gully that the opposition is going down is completely wrong, as evidenced by the number of people who were released into the community on this minister's watch—who is now the Leader of the Opposition—when he was the minister, because of decisions that were overturned by the AAT—full of their appointments that were made. Energy Prices 58 14:49 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping families and businesses with the cost of energy bills. What policies have the government rejected, and why? 14:50 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank him for his passion when it comes to action on climate change. The honourable member asked me about energy bill relief, and last year we implemented the coal and gas caps, as well as the rebates. We saw in the latest inflation figures what the ABS said about the impact of that government decision. They said that, excluding the rebates, electricity prices would have risen 13.9 per cent in the 12 months to April 2024. They are policies the opposition voted against. We would have seen increases of up to $992 more that every Australian, including pensioners, would have had to pay. This year we have the $300 rebates. No-one has to apply, there's no paperwork to fill out; it's applied automatically. The biggest impact on energy prices is what determines the cost of generation and the capital cost of generating electricity. What's also important is that these new forms of electricity can be deployed quickly. The honourable member asked me what policies we rejected, and last week we saw a report which underlines why we have rejected nuclear power for Australia—because it's very expensive and it takes a long time to deploy. As it happens, that report was delivered on the same day the shadow Treasurer was at the National Press Club. We wouldn't call it a triumph of an appearance—nevertheless, he was there. We're talking about billions of dollars of expenditure, and the shadow Treasurer was asked for a response to GenCost. The shadow Treasurer said, 'Lots of people bandy numbers around nuclear and other energy sources.' That was it. The shadow Treasurer, was asked for a response to the nation's premier scientific organisation, and all he could say was, 'Lots of people bandy numbers around.' To be fair to the member of Hume, he has previously expressed views more eloquently about nuclear power—when he was the energy minister. He was asked at one point why the government he was a member of didn't deploy nuclear power and he said, 'The economics of traditional nuclear power stations have not typically worked in recent years.' He has also said, 'The key is to get prices down,' and: 'Nuclear's not going to help me in that process. As you know, it's a long way off. I know that sector pretty well.' He said, on another occasion: Well, it's just long time frames. I know the industry pretty well and it will be a long time before we would realistically have nuclear on the ground as a solution for this problem. To be fair to the member for Hume, he wasn't the only energy minister in that government. There was another one who was secretly commissioned, and he said about nuclear: It is very costly to set it up in the first instance so I don't think we can be naive to just how difficult it is to get off the ground. The Australian people are entitled to ask: if it's such a good idea, why didn't they do it in their nine years in office? They had 22 energy policies and the only thing they didn't try was nuclear energy. (Time expired) Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 58 14:53 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Next week, on State of Origin game night, statistics show that women and children in New South Wales are almost 40 per cent more likely to experience domestic violence. Alcohol and gambling are known drivers of domestic violence and government violence prevention frameworks in Australia have been reluctant to tackle the multibillion-dollar alcohol and gambling industries. When will your government take greater steps to regulate these harmful industries to keep Australian women safe in this national crisis, and encourage greater prevention strategies from sporting codes like the NRL? 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question and for the very constructive discussion I had with her and other crossbench members about this critical issue earlier today. Violence against women is indeed a national crisis, and I accept completely the startling statistics that the member raised with me earlier today about a spike that will occur when a major sporting event like the State of Origin game being held next Wednesday night is held, and that there is a link, we know, between excessive alcohol consumption and domestic violence—most tragically. The solutions to that, of course, are not simple. We don't have barriers in this country to people having a beer or a glass of wine. Therefore, we need to, I think, make sure that we put in place measures that do make a difference, recognising those facts that I accept that the member has put forward. Preventing violence against women is a priority of the government as part of our commitment to gender equity, which we regard as one of the things we want to be characterised by. We need to focus on prevention, but we also need to focus on perpetrators. I think the member's question goes to that and the responsibility of sporting codes as well. I say this from my experience: a range of the football codes do significant work out there in peer groups, promoting safety and good behaviour, essentially. There's nothing with having a beer. There is something wrong with excessive consumption leading to the violence that does, tragically, occur too much. We have recorded $3.4 billion since we came to office to support the national plan that began in 2022. We invested in the budget an additional $1 billion for housing and shelters for women and children escaping domestic violence. We have made major changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent sexual harassment. We've taken long-overdue action against sexual assault on campuses. We've started an ALRC review to strengthen justice responses to sexual violence. We had in the budget as well $925 million for a new leaving violence payment, which will, I believe, make a significant difference as well. There is more to do. This is something that the whole of society has to confront, and men in particular have to take responsibility for changing attitudes and changing culture, because it demeans everyone. It demeans women. It can lead, tragically, to death. It has an impact on children. We often see people who've experienced and witnessed violence against their mums tragically repeat it through generations. But it also harms men. It harms all of us when we don't have good relations that are respectful. They're something that bring joy to people regardless of their gender. It's something that should be taken for granted as something that's a benefit of a society like Australia. Unfortunately, it's not. I thank the member for her question. I thank her and others as well. I refer to the member for Curtin, who rang me over the weekend. We had a discussion about a dreadful violent incident in her electorate on the weekend. Tragically, every weekend, every week, every month and every year there is just too much of this. It is something that we in this House have a responsibility to address. State governments, who are the front line of community service delivery, have a responsibility to address it, but our whole society needs to be engaged with this as well. National Disability Insurance Scheme 59 14:58 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to protect participants by cracking down on fraud and rorts in the NDIS? 14:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for her question and for the work she does on the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. The government and, I think, most people in the parliament are very committed to the NDIS and its future and to it delivering outcomes for participants. Since we promised to focus on stamping fraud out of the NDIS, we've made some significant advances in identifying, stopping and deterring the fraud that has been happening for years in the scheme. In October 2022, we committed $126 million to establish the long-overdue Fraud Fusion Taskforce. It's a multiagency taskforce to better protect taxpayers and participants. Before we set up the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, there were 41 fraud investigations on hand and 13 before the courts. I'm pleased to advise the House that in the March quarter of this year there are now 548 fraud investigations underway and 59 individuals before the courts. Before we established the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, about $214 million in payments for about 5,000 participants was being evaluated. Now, several billion dollars in payments is being evaluated for tens of thousands of participants. For almost every single type of fraud that we're investigating now, we've discovered that this has been going on for years. For every provider fraud, we find historic claiming data for that provider or a similar group of providers going back for years. The normally avuncular member for Deakin made a chippy contribution in the debate where he said that most rorts started under Labor. Most rorts started— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG No, you were nice to me personally, thank you. But the problem is that the rorts have been rife for years. The NDIA did not have a system to see, deter or detect. We are making up for years of bad systems. I think the members of the parliament would be shocked by some of the examples. There was a longstanding vulnerability of identity management for participants and providers. Get this: under the previous government, they were literally paying non-existent ghosts payments in the scheme. The prepayment claims scrutiny was non-existent. It used to be, under the previous government, that they would look at 21 claims a day—21 out of tens of thousands. We now look at thousands. But get this: so bad was the system that if you made a claim between 5 pm and 6.30 pm—I kid you not—there was no scrutiny. You just got paid within the 24 hours. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The member for Deakin knows what's going to happen soon. He's on a warning. I would just like there to be one day where I don't have to remove him. The SPEAKER 53517 Not you, Member for New England—you're fine. If the member for Deakin wants to stay, he won't say anything else for the remainder of this answer and hopefully the remainder of all answers. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I know that everyone in this House wants to stamp out the rorts, but I have to say that it takes a Labor government to fix the NDIS. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 60 15:02 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Prime Minister. In a Home Affairs brief to the immigration minister dated 8 August 2022, it states: At the recent Australia New Zealand Leaders' meeting, the Prime Minister committed to a "common sense approach" to the removal of New Zealand citizens long-term resident in Australia. Is this brief accurate? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the House, the Minister for Home Affairs and members on my left and right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Let me get this right about the question. It's a question about a brief from one minister—not from my department but from another department—to a minister of which I wasn't a party to either. So it's not from me or to me, and I obviously haven't seen the brief. Mr Tehan 210911 A point of order— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is talking about the brief that you asked him about. You asked him about— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Wannon, you mightn't like the answer he's giving. I understand that. But, if he's referring directly to the brief that he was asked about in the question, by any definition that is being directly relevant. I don't know what he's about to say about the brief. I'm going to give you the call. Mr Tehan 210911 The question was: is the brief accurate? That was the question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That's the question, and, as I was explaining to the member for Wannon, the Prime Minister was talking about the brief just as you interrupted him. If he goes on to another subject or topic now, he's got to be directly relevant, but we won't be able to circle back and say, 'He's not answering the question,' because we've already taken the point of order, and you can only take one point of order. It was probably the wrong time to take the point of order, but he's entitled to do that at any time. The Prime Minister has got to remain directly relevant. He's talking about the brief. I'm going to listen carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant to the part of the question he was asked. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm asked about a brief that I haven't seen, that wasn't from me, that wasn't to me, so I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. The member for Bruce is also warned. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 What I do know is that the AAT did decide that a 45-year-old New Zealand man, convicted of three charges of an indecent act with a child under 16, should be allowed to stay in Australia. The decision was made in accordance with ministerial direction No. 79, which was issued by the Leader of the Opposition's junior minister, the member for Banks— Ms O'Neil 140590 He should resign then! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs! Mr ALBANESE R36 and which directed decision-makers to apply the principle that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct in relation to a noncitizen who had lived in Australia for most of their life. Early Childhood Education 61 15:06 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government providing cost-of-living relief for early childhood education and care workers, who play a critical role in supporting our youngest Australians? 15:06 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Aston for her question. I thoroughly enjoyed visiting Aston with the member for Aston some months ago. We got to visit an early childhood education centre and, importantly, we also spoke to some of the young people taking advantage of our fee-free TAFE to do an early childhood education and care certificate. This government's No. 1 priority is cost-of-living relief for every Australian through tax cuts, when they're at the doctors, through energy relief and, of course, through cheaper child care. We're listening to early childhood educators and workers and we're taking tangible actions to ease their cost-of-living pressures. For too long this sector was forgotten and neglected by those opposite. I'm proud to say that this government has made an historic commitment to contribute funding towards a wage increase for early childhood workers. It's a critical first step in delivering our ambition and our vision for a universal early childhood education and care system. We know that we can't do that without a strong and sustainable early learning workforce. This morning I visited Goodstart Garran with the lovely member for Canberra and I heard from early childhood educators and workers just how important this commitment is to them and what it means to them as educators and teachers. As Ros Baxter, the CEO of Goodstart Early Learning, said this morning, 'It's wonderful to have a government that is investing in this critical sector and our youngest children.' Early childhood educators and teachers have worked so hard and for so long in this critical sector. For them to know that they're finally getting the recognition that they deserve for the work that they do is, indeed, a watershed moment. On top of this, our tax cuts will bring further cost-of-living relief to early childhood educators. For an early childhood educator on $46,000 a year, that's an extra $829 in their pocket. An average early childhood teacher is getting a tax cut of $1,404. That's real money back in the pockets of people who do some of the most important work in our society, because they deserve more than just our gratitude. Those opposite had absolutely no plan for this sector. They had 10 years to do something, and they did nothing. In contrast, we're charting the course for an affordable, accessible and inclusive world-class early childhood education and care sector. While those opposite are here to yell across the aisle and say no to everything, we're getting things done. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will just sit down. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Albanese R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 61 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Question Time 61 15:10 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your advice in relation to standing order 100(d)(i), building on the point of order by the member for Kooyong yesterday. Over the last few months, a number of questions in question time have referenced the nationalities of alleged criminals. In many cases the nationality was not strictly necessary to make the question intelligible. As the daughter of a migrant, I am concerned that such references may lead to discrimination and targeting against different migrant communities and that it can undermine our social cohesion. For the clarity of the House, I would like your advice on whether it is out of order under standing order 100(d)(i) to mention the specific nationality—or, frankly, other characteristics, such as religion or sexuality—if those details are not strictly necessary to make the question intelligible. 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for Wentworth for the question. I was expecting something along this line as a result of yesterday's point of order. I just want to quote to all members page 547 of the Practice, which says: … only a small proportion of questions without notice are strictly in order and that to enforce the rules too rigidly would undermine Question Time. The question you have asked me calls upon me to make an instant decision as to whether a specific fact about a person's nationality or the other issues that you raised is strictly necessary to make the question intelligible. That's the standing order you're referring to. Whether it's a person's nationality, where they live, their gender or sexuality, these are descriptors that have frequently and historically been used, and they provide context in questions. So, following yesterday's point of order, I asked the department to research this issue. There are no known examples of questions being ruled out of order based on a person's nationality, for example, being used. I'm not prepared to make a blanket ruling regarding the exclusion of a person's nationality in questions, but I will continue to monitor questions closely and judge each question on its merits to respect each member. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 62 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 32 and 33 of 2023-2024 62 15:12 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 32 and 33 of 2023-2024 entitled Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership's administration of national standards and frameworks: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership and Compliance with corporate credit card requirements in the National Disability Insurance Agency: National Disability Insurance Agency. Documents made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Presentation 62 15:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 62 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 62

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024

Explanatory Memorandum 62 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present a replacement explanatory memorandum for the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Prime Minister 62 15:13 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received letters from the honourable Leader of the Opposition and from the honourable member for Solomon, proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, namely: The Prime Minister making Australians less safe and less secure. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's nice to win a vote in the chamber here, so thank you for that ruling, Mr Speaker. It's very generous and very apt, because this is an incredibly important point of business, this matter of public importance, for the chamber to contemplate. Our country has a very reasonable expectation, long-held, that the leader of our country, the Prime Minister, in his first responsibility must make sure that every decision goes to keeping Australians safe. It is a fundamental principle; it shouldn't need to be debated in this chamber. And it's telling that the Prime Minister has raced out of the chamber already. But we know that the direction 99 issue is one of the Prime Minister's own making. The Australian public watched the Prime Minister, in question time today, duck and weave but not answer the question. The fact is that what happened was that there were continuous representations from the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and from the High Commissioner from New Zealand at the time, who was making representations to me as minister, to the Prime Minister of the day, to my predecessors and to his predecessors, along these lines. We resisted and rejected the proposal by the New Zealand government, and for good reason because, if an Australian citizen in Germany today—even if that person had been born here and moved as an infant to Germany—was now a 35-year-old and committed some significant offence in Germany, the obligation, as it is on any origin country, is to take that person back as a matter of principle and a matter of international law. What has happened here is the Prime Minister has decided that he will listen to the special pleadings of the New Zealand Prime Minister and allow people who had been charged with committing serious criminal offences in our country to stay here in our country. It's not without consequence—and the Prime Minister is an educated person. If you allow these serious criminals to stay in our country are they likely to commit offences again? Of course they are. And that is exactly what's happened. So has the Prime Minister kept our country and our people safe? Opposition members: No. Mr DUTTON 00AKI No. Has he made our country less safe? Opposition members: Yes. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Absolutely, he has. There's no question of that. But the Prime Minister doesn't have the guts to stand up here and to admit that they've made a mistake. What he neglected to say today was that they're going to revoke, or at least significantly refine, direction 99. Why is that needed if there's no problem here? Why is he backflipping on the position that he took and that he agreed with Jacinda Ardern on? Why is that happening? As we know, because he has appointed somebody to the portfolio of immigration who doesn't believe in enforcing the rule of law, he knows that he has created an almighty mess. And putting the political points and the rest of the debate to one side, the most important point to remember here is that, behind every one of these cases—whether it's somebody who has committed a sexual offence against a young girl or against a child, whether it's a domestic violence incident or whether it's a serious drug importation—there is a human being and a victim behind each of these crimes. And in many cases there are multiple victims over a long period of time. We should stand as one to condemn the Prime Minister and Minister Giles for this catastrophic mistake. When he's been asked in media interviews to apologise, Minister Giles flatly refuses to apologise to those victims. And the fact is that we have seen mistake after mistake from this minister. The 153 criminals were released not because the High Court had directed the minister to do so. That is a complete and utter concoction. There was one case, NZYQ, where the High Court, because the minister hadn't given the appropriate evidence—quite surprisingly, from a minister who doesn't believe in this area of law—and he failed to answer the questions put by the High Court, the High Court did find in relation to indefinite detention on NZYQ. The minister used that case, that judgement, to extrapolate out to 152 other cases to release those people into the community. He came in here and he gave commitments that these people were going to be monitored—'They would be continuously monitored,' to quote his words directly. As it now turns out, as we know from that cohort, there are at least two murderers in the community without electronic monitoring. They didn't need to be in the community. We know that there are at least two murderers who are also exempt from curfews. How are you continuously monitoring somebody when they don't have an ankle bracelet, there is no curfew in place and there are no reporting conditions? What of the 39 sex offenders—part of the 153 that the minister released? We now know that 26 are no longer being electronically monitored and 27 also no longer have a curfew imposed. These people have committed additional offences against Australian citizens. These are people who should not be in our country. We have a great migration program in this country if it's properly managed. Mr Dreyfus HWG It wasn't under you! Mr DUTTON 00AKI We don't have a good migration program in this country if we have incompetent ministers. Mr Dreyfus HWG You left a mess! Mr DUTTON 00AKI Shouting from the Attorney-General—the input from the Attorney-General here, the first law officer, who stands up, talks over and shouts down women. That's what he does. That's exactly what he does, so I won't take any moral lecture from this man here, who can't control his own— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Turn the mic off, please. Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! If order doesn't come to the House, it's the end of the MPI, okay? It's your call. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Mascarenhas 298800 You should listen to the chair! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Swan, you are not helping right now. Members on my left, please! Okay. I will just sit and wait for a long, long time. Are we ready? Let's go. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The first law officer of this country is not fit to hold the office, for multiple reasons, not least of which is his abuse of the shadow Attorney-General this week. He is a man that was pulled back by his staff in that meeting, and he knows exactly what I'm talking about. He can express all the outrage that he wants. If he wants to come to the dispatch box now and deny the allegation, he should do so. Let Hansard record that the Attorney-General sat there in silence and refused to come to the dispatch box to deny an allegation, because he knows that it's true. When you have people with the morals and the character of this individual here, no wonder the migration program is in complete disarray. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please, I don't think we'll have personal attacks. Mr DUTTON 00AKI That's the reality of what we're doing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please, Leader of the Opposition, you should direct your comments through me, as the chair. I've had enough of this personal attacking, slinging across the chamber from all sides. I want you to dial this down now and proceed in a way that befits the Australian parliament. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Deputy Speaker, thank you for the call. I want to speak on behalf of those victims around the country who have fallen victim to these individuals released under direction 99. The reason that there is now an urgent review and a reversal of direction 99 is that the government has made a catastrophic mistake. To those victims, I say sorry. I really do, because, when you look at a circumstance where somebody has been sexually assaulted or where somebody has been murdered, those lives change forever, and the responsibility of this Prime Minister is to stand up to be strong, not weak; to stand up for what is right, not what is wrong; to stand up to make the decisions that are hard, not always easy. I want to say to those people that there is a better way to lead our country, but it's not under this Prime Minister. This government has let our country down. This Prime Minister made a decision because he was fanboying with the New Zealand Prime Minister at the time. He was completely and utterly besotted with Jacinda Arden and wanted to tell her what she wanted to hear. That's what happened here—nothing more, nothing less. For that, the Prime Minister should stand condemned. 15:24 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I've got to say that I'm really shocked at the behaviour we just saw in the chamber here from someone who pretends to want to be the Prime Minister of this country. I would like to ask all of us to just elevate the tone of this debate a little bit. The Leader of the Opposition speaks, on the one hand, about real people in the community who he cares about and then, on the other, comes in and attempts a personal character assassination of the person who sits next to me, one of the most qualified people who has ever served as Attorney-General of this country. It is unnecessary, it is unseemly and it disrespects every person who is in the gallery and every one of the people that we represent in this chamber. I would invite him to do better. We deserve better from the person who seeks to lead our country. Now, the debate today is ostensibly about community safety, and that's the debate that I want to participate in. That's the debate that the Prime Minister and our government want to participate in, because we will happily compare our record any day of the week with the safety record of the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that we have heard today and we've heard many times before the Leader of the Opposition coming and say very angry and very aggressive things about his feelings about crime and community safety, but there is a problem. The problem is that there is a vast chasm between what the Leader of the Opposition says he cares about and what he did when he had the power to make the Australian community safer. I don't want this to be a 'he said, she said' debate between two politicians. I want to turn to the views of three eminent Australians who have written extensive reports about the state of the Department of Home Affairs which utterly prove that there is a complete disconnect between what the Leader of the Opposition said and what he did as Minister for Home Affairs. The first I want to refer to is the Parkinson review, a landmark review into our immigration system, authored by Martin Parkinson, who was the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under a Liberal government. The opposition leader spoke of an 'almighty mess'. He doesn't need to use those words, because that is essentially what the Martin Parkinson review told us about the state of the migration system left to our government. He said this was a system 'not fit for the delivery of a better future for our country'. He called the system 'fundamentally broken' and, most importantly, he made it abundantly clear who it was that broke the system. He said that the system was broken because of almost 'a decade of wilful neglect'. Who ran this system for most of the time over the last decade? It was the Leader of the Opposition. Dr Parkinson told us that this it was going to require a 10-year rebuild to fix this system, and we have wasted no time. No matter what you may say about our government, one thing we are serious about getting on with is immigration reform, and we are undertaking masses of it to fix the mess left for us by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to talk about the Nixon review, authored by Christine Nixon, a highly respected former police commissioner in Victoria. Christine Nixon looked at integrity problems in our migration system and she found that those integrity problems were so rife that organised crime actually viewed problems in our migration system as a key benefit to them operating in Australia. If any report shows the Leader of the Opposition up to be the complete fraud that he is, it is the Nixon review, because the Leader of the Opposition spent the better part of a decade talking about what a tough guy he was on the borders and the Nixon review showed us that, while he was speaking those words in the parliament, in the cabinet room he was cutting funding to the immigration department, cutting funding into the home affairs department and degrading immigration compliance in particular. In fact, while he was minister, we saw in our parliament a halving of the number of people who were conducting immigration compliance activities. I want to tell you about one of the cases that Christine Nixon talked about in her review: the case of Binjun Xie, who was a convicted human trafficker. He was a Chinese triad leader who was known in the UK as 'The Hammer'. He walked into Australia while the Leader of the Opposition was running our migration system in 2014. He proceeded to set up organised crime rings in which women were trafficked into Australia and forced into prostitution. Can we agree that sexual slavery is one of the worst crimes known to humankind? The opposition leader oversaw the system that let this person into the country and allowed him to stay here while he had no basis to be here. I kicked him out and gave him a lifelong ban from ever returning to our country. I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition utter a word of contrition for the role that he played in allowing these crimes to flourish. He seems to want people on this side of the chamber to express contrition about everything that goes wrong when migrants commit crimes in this country, but we never hear anything from those on the other side of the chamber. I want to mention briefly the report done by Dennis Richardson—again, one of the most esteemed public servants ever to serve Australia. He did a report on home affairs contracting that showed that, while the Leader of the Opposition ran the home affairs department, hundreds of millions of dollars were taken from taxpayers all around our country and funnelled into companies which were likely committing bribery and trafficking in guns, drugs and human beans. All of this happened on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition. He paid no attention to it. Now let me turn to one of the issues that has been prominent this week, and that is the release of people from detention. The opposition has focused, really, on nothing else for the last six months, nothing other than 153 people who were released from detention by order of the High Court. There has been supposed endless outrage from those opposite on the way in which this been handled. This exposes what is one of the most profound hypocrisies that I have seen in my time in politics, and that is the willingness of those opposite to set standards for others that they do not anywhere near meet themselves. From the reaction of those opposite, you would have to believe that while they were in government not a single convicted criminal was released from immigration detention. Am I right? I mean, they've gone on about nothing else for six months, nothing other than 153 people. Yet what we have learned in the last two days is that, while the Leader of the Opposition was in charge of this system, 1,298 convicted criminals were released from immigration detention. Of those, 102 were sex offenders. Sixty-four of those were child sex offenders. There were 40 domestic violence offenders and four people who were either murderers, alleged murderers or accessories to murder. If the opposition leader alleges that releasing, by order of the High Court, 153 people from immigration detention made the community less safe, what did it mean when 1,298 convicted criminals were released on his watch? We've also heard some critiques of the monitoring system—the extensive monitoring system—that our government has set up. Within a number of weeks of the High Court decision we had created a preventive detention regime. We had put in place monitoring that had never existed before: curfews, ankle monitoring bracelets. Working with the Attorney-General we had put in place a $255 million investment in ensuring law enforcement could monitor these people. That was for 153 people that we released as a matter of law. So I have a question. There's been outrage this week from those opposite because some people in the NZYQ cohort are not wearing ankle monitoring bracelets. I would like to know: of the criminals and other dangerous individuals that were released on the Leader of the Opposition's watch, how many had ankle monitoring bracelets attached to their release? Obviously, it must have been all of them if there's outrage about some of the people in this cohort not having them. But, no, there were no people of that 1,298—not that I'm aware of, at least—that had any conditions at all attached to their release. Those opposite speak of community safety. The cold, hard truth, the fact of this matter, is that it took our government to set up a regime which monitored people who might have been a danger in this situation. Those opposite let 1,298 people out of detention, none of whom were subject to any monitoring, and somehow it is us who are making the community less safe! It doesn't make sense, it is total hypocrisy, and it needs to be called out for what it is. We have seen this week, in question time after question time, and indeed for the entirety of the six months since the NZYQ decision, a rolling drama of breathtaking hypocrisy from those opposite. But, of course, that is absolutely nothing new, because we have known about this hypocrisy, this vast chasm between who the opposition leader says he is and what he actually did, for some time. We know that the opposition leader has modelled himself as a tough guy on the border but, while minister, gutted funding for immigration compliance. He drove our migration system into a ditch and walked away. He oversaw an offshore processing system that funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars into guns and drug trafficking and human trafficking. Don't forget that while he was defence minister he oversaw projects that were a combined total of 97 years late on delivery. The Leader of the Opposition speaks of accountability. I think it's time we saw some from him. The truth is that if he went anywhere near the level of accountability he sets for our government he would have resigned from this parliament a long time ago. 15:34 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Before I address the MPI, I'll just give a little bit of advice to the government. Government members interjecting— Mr Dreyfus HWG We don't need your advice. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please! The member for Wannon has the call. Mr TEHAN 210911 If you spent far less time focusing on the Leader of the Opposition and more time on keeping the Australian community safe, we would not be in this unholy mess. Concentrate on doing your job. It's a really important job. It's your No. 1 priority. It's called 'keeping the Australian community safe' and you are failing at it. I hate these examples, but I think we just have to keep reminding the government of them so they will focus on their job. The latest report, which has come in this afternoon, is that owing to ministerial direction 99, a man who viciously attacked his pregnant partner in an attempt to kill his unborn child is the latest noncitizen to be spared under ministerial direction 99. We know that the government have admitted, by stealth, that they got this wrong, because— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, member for McEwen. It's really unhelpful. Mr TEHAN 210911 We know that the government have admitted by stealth that they got this wrong because they are going to change ministerial direction 99. No-one on that side can deny it, not even the Minister for Home Affairs, who is leaving the chamber. They are going to change ministerial direction 99. The question needs to be asked: why? Why are they going to change ministerial direction 99? We need to hear that explained, either by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, by the Prime Minister or by the Minister for Home Affairs. But what we are getting is everyone on the government side running as far away as possible from ministerial direction 99 and attempting to own it—even the Prime Minister. Here's a ministerial brief that is official, sensitive, legal privilege from the Department of Home Affairs. It went to the minister for immigration. In it, it says 'Key issues: at the recent Australia-New Zealand leaders meeting, the Prime Minister committed to a "commonsense" approach to the removal of New Zealand citizens long-term resident in Australia'. When we asked of the Prime Minister today whether he gave that commitment, whether that ministerial brief is accurate, the Prime Minister would not answer. He would not take responsibility for what he did at that leaders meeting. This will come back to haunt him, because there are other briefs and they will be found and they will come to light which will show that it was the Prime Minister who basically made the commitment that led to ministerial direction 99. The best thing the Prime Minister could do is come to this despatch box this afternoon and own it, because if you will not own the decisions that you make, if you will not take the responsibility for the decisions that you have undertaken then you are not fit to keep the Australian community safe, and that is your No. 1 priority as Prime Minister. It is a sad, sad day when the Prime Minister, today here in question time, seeks to hide from his own responsibility as Prime Minister to keep the Australian— (Time expired) 15:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm just going to give myself a moment to see what stage directions I need to give, whether the member for Wannon is going to leave stage left or stay and listen to my contribution. I note that the Leader of the Opposition began his contribution to the matter of public importance today—which I believe is a reference to this government keeping Australians safe—by giving us a commentary on the Prime Minister's steps as he left the chamber after question time. It then followed that the Leader of the Opposition immediately left the chamber as the Minister for Home Affairs took to the dispatch box to give her contribution on the matter of public importance raised by him. I watched him leave stage left. I just wonder how long the member for Wannon is going to stay to listen to my contribution about this government's diligent work, across two years, to keep Australians safe—across every portfolio of government. Side note: we know who the minister is in every portfolio of government, and there's only one of them in each. During question time today, I was not surprised to see a question being asked of the Prime Minister about a brief that was not written by the Prime Minister's department or to the Prime Minister's department. I was not surprised that those opposite were confused about that, because, let's face it, when their former Prime Minister was the Prime Minister he was also minister for other things—therefore, briefs may have been cross-referenced across five portfolios. Let's give some advice to the member for Wannon, who just spent 3½ minutes giving us some advice, about throwing stones in glass houses when it comes to safety. The Minister for Home Affairs went through the reports for the time of those opposite in government, in this specific area of immigration, and it's not a pretty sight. I have been wondering for some months why those opposite wanted to continue down this road of self-harm. It really is a wonder to me. I don't know how many directions have numbers. I don't know direction 99 from direction 79. A few of those opposite seem to understand ministerial directions, having left government so recently and having so many of them who were cabinet ministers still on those benches opposite. That's why I wonder—oh, there goes the member for Wannon, leaving stage left. He is a former cabinet minister who understands ministerial directions, one would think. He's now the shadow minister for immigration, so he understands a few things. I assume he's read the report from the Nixon review. I assume he has read that Christine Nixon said: Australia's visa system must be strengthened to resist organised crime syndicates, to ensure they don't prey upon Australia as an easy destination to conduct their exploitative and criminal business, and to protect those who are most vulnerable. What would've inspired Christine Nixon to write those words? The review found that this government inherited from those opposite a broken immigration system, where abuse of Australia's visa system ran rampant. Abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime were running rampant in the Australian immigration system. The former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, later the Minister for Home Affairs, who presided over that migration system that was used to facilitate some of the worst crimes in our society is now the Leader of the Opposition. And they pursue this argument around safety. As the Minister for Home Affairs said so clearly, 'They are obsessed with 150-something people released under High Court order—without an option for government but to obey that High Court order—while 1,300 criminals were released under their leader's watch.' 15:44 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff We're talking about weaknesses in the government, in this matter of public importance today. To me, the weakness seems to be management, and management comes from the top—from the boss. When we're talking about weaknesses in this Prime Minister, I think it starts with letting down the Australian people on the economy. That's the first weakness that we've seen on display. There are many other weaknesses, and I will get to the border security weaknesses and the 'failure to keep our community safe' weaknesses, but it is about weaknesses and management because, after two years of 'hard Labor', every single Australian has been impacted directly by their failure to manage our economy and their weakness in managing it. We've had 12 interest rate increases and Australians are now staring down the barrel of a 13th. Small and family businesses are shaking in their boots because the price of groceries is up by 11 per cent, housing by 14 per cent, rents by 13 per cent and electricity by 20 per cent. All of these are weaknesses in the ability of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to manage our economy and to help Australians. There's a very long shopping list of weaknesses for this government. When it comes to the biggest and the most expensive failure of this government—and weakness of this Prime Minister—it is the abject failure of this government to do everything it can to keep Australians safe. Criminals have been let out of detention because of blunder after blunder by the minister for immigration, the home affairs minister and the Prime Minister. The buck stops with them. This immigration minister and his boss should be let go. They shouldn't be able to keep their jobs after letting hundreds of criminals out. They don't actually know where they are. Only half of them are wearing ankle bracelets. They are putting Australians' lives at risk, and they have taken Australians lives. A serial rapist attacked 25 women and a child. Police said that there was some of the worst child abuse material in the world. A convicted rapist's drug fuelled attack drove his victim into a spiral of self-harm and homelessness. And now, just this afternoon, out there in our community, there are three more criminals spared by a direction 99 from this minister and from this weak Prime Minister. Two of them are child sex offenders who are out in our community, running around committing heinous crimes against Australians. This is life and death. These situations that the Prime Minister and his hapless minister for immigration have delivered to the Australian people have caused harm to Australians due to the incompetence and the chaos of this government, and Australians can see through that. No-one who is responsible for these statistics, these lives, these crimes should keep their jobs. Enough is enough. This weak Prime Minister has to grow a spine and sack these ministers. The first and primary responsibility of our government is to keep our community safe. Australians know we have a weak Prime Minister at the helm who will not stand up for the Australian community. We have a hapless immigration minister and a failing home affairs minister who have failed and have rained down terror upon the Australian community, with heinous criminals—hundreds of them—running around the streets, and they have no idea of where at least half of them are. Australians are sick and tired of this government. It's time that the Prime Minister stood up and, with regard to his ministers, made a stand and sacked both of them. It's a disgrace. Australians across our community are worried about their personal safety as they go about their daily business. As they go about dealing with their bills and all the rest of what they have to deal with, what are they thinking about in the back of their mind? They are thinking about their personal safety. They are thinking about those whom we are thinking about in the coalition: those who have lost their lives due to this failing immigration minister and this weak Prime Minister. 15:49 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I think that if there's one thing we can all agree on in this chamber it's that this matter raised today is a serious issue. Where we diverge is that I don't believe those opposite are treating the issue in a serious way, and I'll talk about that in three ways. Firstly, I want to talk about the tone of the debate those opposite have engendered not just today in the MPI but more broadly across successive question times and in the broader discussion going on in the community. In particular I think it's the nature of the inflammatory way in which they've raised a number of the issues, the highly personalised way in which they've raised a number of the issues. When it's a serious and complicated issue and you're genuinely trying to grapple with that issue, I don't believe anybody could imagine that the best way to do that would be the way in which the Leader of the Opposition engaged in the debate at the beginning of this MPI. That's the first point I want to raise. The second point—and this was touched on by the earlier two speakers on this side—is that, with a long-lasting and complex issue like migration, there are clearly long-lasting and systemic aspects to the issue. The second reason why I don't believe those opposite are engaging with this issue in a serious way is they continuously skirt the systemic nature of this issue. As the minister indicated, a number of reports on this issue—the Nixon report, the Richardson report, the Parkinson report—were all handed down by people respected across the political aisle, people who have contributed in our public service at the state and federal level over decades, who have indicated that the previous government failed on so many levels—whether it be the integrity of the system, whether it be the way in which the way the system is able to deal with organised crime, whether it be the way in which the system was underfunded year after year or the way in which the system didn't have the systems in place because of the way in which there was wilful neglect. Those systemic failures have created the context in which this government has inherited a system that is creaking under its own weight—a massive waiting list. It is impossible to discuss this system in any meaningful way unless one looks at it in that systemic way with the appropriate context. The third reason why I believe those opposite aren't treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves is that I believe there is a patent disingenuousness to the way in which they raise issues. They come here constantly demanding apologies when they themselves, in the policies they enacted when in government and presumably in the policies they still hold, did the same or worse. As speakers on this side have indicated, 1,300 people with a criminal record were released when the current Leader of the Opposition was the minister for this portfolio. There is no introspection, no indication that he has any inclination to apologise for any of those cases. They come in here and give details of individual case after individual case. If that was the approach one wanted to take, clearly the same could be done with those 1,300 cases. As the minister indicated, we have put in place a monitoring regime which has placed many of the people released in accordance with the High Court ruling under electronic monitoring and all of them under appropriate monitoring, as indicated in estimates, by our services. Those opposite had a system in place where nobody was under such monitoring, where no regime had been put in place. Yet they come in here and their hyperbole, their stunts, their political circus of a routine in this chamber is to constantly focus on the need for an apology when their own performance was clearly so much worse. They talk about the regime currently in place when they themselves voted for it, when it included a number of amendments that they themselves put—all of which were accepted. They come into this place with individual case after individual case under ministerial direction 99 when, quite clearly, under ministerial directions 90, 79 and 65 the very same criterion was in place. This is a serious issue but those opposite aren't treating it seriously. That's sad for this chamber and sad for the way in which this issue is being discussed more broadly. 15:54 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Labor's failures on community safety have reached an unacceptable level. The release of over 150 criminals into the community last year is a glaring example of this negligence. Among those released were child sex offenders and murderers—individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety. This situation arose because the government was unprepared for a High Court decision and did not have the necessary legislation ready to address the problem. The fallout from this lack of preparedness has been severe. At least 30 of these released criminals have subsequently been charged with new offences. This pattern of reoffending highlights the government's failure to protect the community's safety. Recent developments have brought to life further issues within the system, dozens of non-citizen criminals have had their visa cancellations overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This group includes some of the most dangerous offenders, such as child rapists, repeat domestic violence perpetrators and drug traffickers. The root of this problem lies in a government decision known as direction 99. This policy decision undermines efforts to maintain public safety. The implications of these decisions are profound and troubling. This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of current policies and this government's commitment to ensuring the safety of its citizens. The consequences of these actions are already being felt, with continued criminal activities and new offences been committed. In light of these issues, there is an urgent need for a thorough review and overhaul of the policies and practices that have led to these outcomes. This government has repeatedly demonstrated an alarming lack of accountability, choosing instead to shift blame onto others for its significant and dangerous errors. When 152 criminal noncitizens were irresponsibly released into the community, the government hastily pointed fingers at the High Court's decision. This blatant deflection of responsibility reveals a deep-seated unwillingness to acknowledge and address its critical role in this failure. By refusing to accept accountability, Labor has shown a disturbing disregard for the safety and wellbeing of Australian citizens. In another shocking incident, a grandmother was allegedly assaulted in her own home by a detainee that had been released by this very government. Instead of owning up to this mistake, the Prime Minister criticised his own government appointed panel, which had determined that the alleged perpetrator did not need to wear an ankle monitor. He further deflected the blame onto Commonwealth prosecutors for not opposing bail for the detainee earlier in the year. This persistent blame-shifting is not just a failure of leadership but a direct betrayal of the government's duty to protect its citizens. The government's pattern of evasion is further evidenced by its handling of a noncitizen charged with murder who was allowed to remain in the country due to ministerial direction. Instead of addressing the clear flaws in this directive, the Prime Minister disgracefully blamed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal judge for the decision. Similarly, when rapist noncitizens were permitted to stay in Australia under the same ministerial direction, the government shamelessly pointed fingers at the department, once again avoiding any direct responsibility for the policy. This repeated failure to take responsibility is not just negligent; it dangerously undermines the integrity of Australia's immigration and judicial system. Keeping Australians safe is the foremost responsibility of the government. When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Home Affairs, he embodied this commitment by cancelling more than 6,300 visas of dangerous noncitizen criminals. In stark contrast, Labor has demonstrated an alarming inability to make the necessary decisions to protect our communities. If Labor invested as much time in focusing on keeping Australians safe as they do in criticising the Leader of the Opposition, we wouldn't be in this current mess. Their misplaced priorities have contributed significantly to the ongoing safety issues faced by the community. The Australian people won't forget the real reason behind this debate. The minister for immigration signed direction 99 and then failed to follow through on its implementation. This gross negligence has had severe consequences, and those responsible for such an oversight should not retain their positions. The coalition agreed to intervene and fix the mess created by Labor, as we have consistently done in the past. We are committed to restoring trust and delivering the security and stability that every Australian deserves. 15:58 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Just what does it take for people to feel unsafe? The member for Dickson's dog whistling and lack of moral fibre makes people feel unsafe. Immigration? As the Prime Minister told the opposition leader yesterday in question time, we have deported over 4,200 individuals from immigration detention. This isn't because we are meaner than those opposite. It's because we understand that a well-run immigration system will mean fewer delays. No-one did more damage to Australia's migration system than Peter Dutton. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You need to use the member's title. Ms LAWRENCE 299150 We have had to address delays across the whole immigration system since coming to office, because the opposition had run the immigration system into the ground. Systems within government departments that simply aren't working anymore—whether that's Immigration, the DVA or Services Australia—don't make people feel safer. Let's talk more about the Leader of the Opposition's poor record on keeping Australia safe. He walked out on the apology. The member for Dickson could not bear to be in the same room as an historical apology was being given. Even a simple sorry was a step too far for the opposition leader. How safe do you think he made First Nations people feel? He claimed pregnant rape victims in Nauru were 'trying it on'. There is no context you can wrap around those words to make them okay—none. How safe do you think women felt after those vile, victim-blaming words? He accused a political opponent of using their disability as an excuse. The member for Dickson, worried about his re-election, said that Ali France was using her disability as an excuse for not moving into the electorate. How safe do you think that makes people with disability feel? When you accuse gangs of particular nationalities of violence, that sows the seeds not just of unrest but also of racism—yes, racism. When you slide onto Sky News and talk about refugees being illiterate and innumerate and how they will take Australian jobs, you may well get a nod and a smile from the host and firm up a vote or two, but, again, it doesn't make anyone feel safe. All of these examples define the opposition leader, the member for Dickson, and, by extension, the coalition he leads—and they don't make people feel safe. So what does make people feel safe? Good government. Let's talk about women's safety. Our investments in the recent budget bring the total funding for the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children to $3.4 billion. Let's talk about rebuilding trust in government. We came to office with trust in government shredded to pieces by this coalition—Morrison's multiple ministries, a stacked AAT, robodebt, the list goes on. We have created the national Anti-Corruption Commission. We have the new Administrative Review Tribunal about to commence. We have made sure that no future Australian Prime Minister will carry additional powers in secret. And we are responding to the recommendations of a number of reports that outlined the maladministration of the coalition across multiple portfolio areas. If you govern properly, trust will follow, but it is a fragile thing and must be continually maintained. Those opposite were never up to the task. Let's talk about cybersecurity. Scams are costing Australians billions of dollars every year. Scammers particularly target and prey upon the elderly. We have a Minister for Cyber Security in cabinet, and recent data shows that our actions since coming to office are already starting to make it harder for scammers to steal from Australians. We have also quadrupled funding for the eSafety Commissioner to help keep our children safe from online harm. This is how you make people feel safe. Addressing climate change makes people feel safe. Getting proactive about emergency management makes people feel safe. That is what the Albanese government is doing. It's what the opposition never did. It is not rocket science, just good government. The essential quality of good government is that it should have sound and intelligible principles, that it should pursue great national and social objectives with resoluteness, that it should be able to meet the storms that arise from time to time with a proper sense of navigation, that it should have cohesion in its own ranks and a strong sense of mutual loyalty. That was Robert Menzies in 1961. It's something the coalition might want to revisit. 16:03 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest At this moment, I want to focus on the No. 1 job of the Prime Minister and the government, in actually keeping Australians safe. After all, they are in government right now. When you talk to people out in the community, do they feel less safe and less secure? In the current circumstances, unfortunately, the answer is yes. It has been a dreadful, dangerous and damaging debacle that we've seen here. Unfortunately, the Australian people now know that the Prime Minister has been weak on this particular issue. Labor is actually in government, and must take responsibility for the actions that they have chosen to take. We've seen a litany of terrible examples of the dreadful and very personal effects on Australians' lives. The tragic consequences have been laid bare in this House. We know that last year the government made a decision to release 153 criminals into the community, and they included sex offenders, child sex offenders, domestic violence perpetrators, drug traffickers and murderers. We do know that the Prime Minister then clearly put the then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern above the safety and security of Australians by insisting on that direction 99, where those ties were given primary consideration by the AAT. No-one can deny that this has caused considerable harm; that is irrefutable. It caused harm and it was a decision of this Labor government and the Prime Minister. These violent and obscene crimes, particularly those relating to young girls, by noncitizens whose visa cancellations were reversed as a result of this decision, should give every member in this House pause. Each one of those has a personal story behind them. We have seen so many of these serious offenders released. We saw a particular person who has been charged with the stabbing murder of a 22-year-old. Added to this is case after case of violent criminals, with appalling convictions, who have been allowed to stay in Australia by this government. That is irrefutable. On top of this, we now know that at least two murderers are in the community without electronic monitoring; two murderers are exempt from curfews; 26 sex offenders, including child sex offenders, are no longer electronically monitored; and 27 sex offenders, including child sex offenders, no longer have a curfew. I would be surprised if every single member of this chamber is not concerned about those people and what they may or may not do to people in our communities. Each one of us has a community of people that could be affected by this. That's not constant monitoring by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Again, this is a weak Prime Minister who has put Australians at enormous risk. He should have acted well before this today. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration knew the risks of section 99; they were warned. I cannot get over the 14-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather when her mother was giving birth. What has that young girl got to live with from here on? What effect is that having on that little family? Of course, we have seen some really seriously traumatising attacks. We had a lovely lady in Western Australia, Nanette Simons, who was bashed so badly that her face should be one that sticks in the minds of everyone in this place when we're discussing this issue—the human face of that poor woman, who did not deserve the treatment that she got. This is where we need the Prime Minister and government to actually have the courage and the strength to apologise to that woman. I know the Prime Minister came to WA—he was there at the time. I'm sure that Nanette Simons would have really appreciated a quiet call or a drop-in by the Prime Minister, where he actually said, 'It's a decision we made; we made the wrong decision and I apologise for what has happened to you.' 16:09 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I fully reject the statement put before the House today. The thing that I'd like to think we can agree about in this place is the truth that this government wants to put the safety of our citizens at the heart of our policies. I'm an engineer by trade and you'd think I'd know a little bit about safety. When we look at safety, we look at different aspects of it: physical safety, mental safety, financial safety and psychological safety. One of the things we're seeing in Australia at the moment is women being the targets and victims of horrific violence in our community, and it's deeply saddening and distressing. Women losing their lives to violence is something that I've spoken about before. It affects me and, I'd like to think, it affects all of us. That's why we need to keep on talking about it: because it is a national issue, and we need to do more, not less. It has to stop. That's why this year, the small part I got to play was about launching a national inquiry into one of the forms of domestic violence: financial abuse. Eighty-five per cent of women who experience physical and domestic violence have also experienced financial abuse. I did this because I listen to people in my community: women who were exhausted—exhausted victims or survivors of violence, exhausted from hearing from their friends and families who were victims of abuse and violence. Ending violence against women and children is my responsibility, our responsibility, everyone's responsibility. We need to do this together, and everyone needs to play a part. The Albanese government is looking for new ways to make women feel safe from the macro level right down to the grassroots through tangible fixes that have lingered under a neglectful coalition. I'll give you an example. Just the other day, the Minister for Sport, the member for Lilley, announced funding for new lighting at local sporting grounds in my electorate. This new lighting will improve safety for local sporting reserves and increase training and competition areas for female sports. It will help improve safety for women and girls. This is just one more thing that the Labor government is doing that the Liberal government failed to do. These issues were highlighted back in 2020 by the City of South Perth. It said that females felt unsafe to participate in sport and recreation due to poor lighting conditions, but what did the Liberals do? Nothing. Fortunately, safety and women's safety are at the forefront of this government's mind. We know that it's a national issue. We want women to feel safe, we want them to be safe and we want them to be heard, whether they're playing sport or doing another activity that they love. We as parliamentarians can voice the experience of vulnerable people in our community. This is how we create change and create safer places for women. Doing nothing is not acceptable. Now is the right time to take action. Funding in the budget handed down by the Albanese government brings our government's total investment to $3.4 billion for women's safety. This is what we're doing. Whether it's sporting grounds, parliamentary inquiries or a national budget that is investing in women's safety, this is what action looks like. This is what will make Australia safe. I know the Albanese government continues to look at the diversity of our public but also the diversity in the parliament to make sure that we make better policies, and that's something we didn't see in the previous parliaments. We continue to do this, and I think we can make a real difference, but that diversity isn't just about gender; it's also about cultural backgrounds. The words that we say in this place make a significant impact, and we need to remember the impact that they have on different communities. Sometimes I think that we forget that one in three Australians are born overseas or have one parent born overseas. It's a pretty extraordinary number. One of the things that I sometimes see in this place is a term called 'othering', where we treat another group as an other and we create division. This could be a place that's unifying and continues to make Australia a better place, or we could have really divisive arguments that incite hate, division and fear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 71 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 71

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 71 16:14 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The NDIS is so difficult to navigate, especially at the appeals and review stages—so difficult, in fact, that there are dedicated community advocacy groups that have been set up to assist. Because these groups are so underfunded and the demand is so high, many people with disability and their families are being left alone to navigate this complex bureaucracy. They're essentially having to beg for choice and control and for their medical evidence to be taken into account. It is exhausting for individuals with disability and their carers and relatives, who are already dealing with the challenges of daily life with disability. In so many instances, the NDIS is providing no updates to my constituents and no accountability for the turnaround time, especially in change-of-circumstance applications. My team should not have to ring up the minister's office or MASCO because a case has dragged on for so long that it has become an urgent and imminent welfare threat. This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, proposes the most significant changes to the NDIS since it started more than a decade ago. Understandably, the disability community and NDIS participants, along with families, carers and NDIS workers, are concerned about the changes being proposed. Let's discuss this bill in the context of Labor's latest budget—a budget where the government has chosen to prioritise giving handouts to fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers and countless other megacorporations, and, at the same time, has chosen to gut money from NDIS participants to the tune of $14.4 billion. We have a government carrying on about the budget surplus while slashing funds from Australians with disability. It is absolutely shameful. This bill is Labor's thinly-veiled foundation for future NDIS cuts. The NDIS is already struggling, with my constituents genuinely fearful of how much worse waiting times can get and funding cuts will blow out. This bill was created behind closed doors, with representatives of the disability community forced to sign nondisclosure agreements. The government is so concerned about its terrible plans for the NDIS becoming public that it made people, under fear of prosecution, sign nondisclosure agreements. How is this genuine co-design? This bill intends to transition every NDIS participant from an old framework plan to a new framework plan over the next five years. The supports that are working so well for people, whether that's support to be active community members, go to work, help in their homes—so much more would be put back in the hands of agency staff. Essentially, this means each and every NDIS participant's future on the scheme is in question. This bill will make it easier for bureaucrats to prevent people from accessing the NDIS. It will also make it easier for bureaucrats to remove people from the scheme entirely. This bill is set to prescribe specifics of what you can and can't get from the NDIS, which is in and of itself an incredibly significant change from the original intention of the NDIS. The NDIS is supposed to be a scheme that enables each individual disabled person to achieve their goals. But here we have Labor trying to return us to the days of disabled people's lives being dictated by out-of-touch politicians. This bill will see a restriction of support available through the scheme. It will limit the ability to have NDIS plans that are based on individual needs, and it will replace 'reasonable and necessary' with a new single definition of 'NDIS supports'—supports that meet a narrow, new definition. This bill attempts to set up a way of pushing people off the NDIS into supports it suggests will be provided by states and territories. The reality, however, is there is no possible way the states and territories can provide those supports in time, especially not in a way that is nationally consistent and that will guarantee no disabled person becomes worse off under Labor's NDIS plan. Removing people from the scheme to services that don't yet exist is outrageously poor planning with obviously harmful consequences. One of the most concerning aspects of this bill is the precedent it sets for future cuts and changes. This bill will enable the agency to make significant changes to the scheme in the future without community consultation. The Greens acknowledge the second reading amendment from Mr Sukkar and support the call to release the modelling that underpins the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework and to provide a detailed outline of the inevitable cuts participants should expect as a result of these changes. I, along with my colleagues in the Senate, have been calling on the government to release this framework for matter of months, but the Labor government has been unwilling to provide transparency to this parliament or to the Australian people. Despite the Greens' support for the release of these documents, we are not able to support the overall amendment. The Greens will actively participate in the inquiry into this bill and we will be bringing forward significant amendments to this legislation. But, as the bill stands, the Greens will not support Labor choosing to cut support to disabled people. 16:20 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson The National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that as a member of the Labor government I am particularly proud of. It's interesting to note that this concept of an insurance scheme for people with disability in our country was first mooted in the 1970s when Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister. But, like all prime ministers, he had to make choices and he decided that he would put his efforts at that time into Medibank and then what we now know as Medicare. It was actually modelled on a system from New Zealand. Decades later, an independent submission was made to the government by a group called the Disability Investment Group. That reported on the state of disability support in Australia. It deemed that disability was being treated as an economic issue and not a social one and people with disability were seen merely as numbers pumped into a spreadsheet. It was really a substandard way for anyone, quite frankly, to be treated in a modern, liberal, wealthy democracy. We know that, thanks to the work of our predecessors, Medicare has been, on balance, a huge success in our country when we step back and take a look at the health care broadly of our nation. Like with any big system there are always improvements to be made. But we know that, if you are in dire need of medical help, you can go to a hospital and receive the assistance that you need and you don't need to be able to pay for it. You can rely on your Medicare card. That is a good thing. The original concept for the NDIS was a similar idea in that it would be not just another government program but a seismic shift in the way Australians with a disability live in our country. It wasn't just about supports and services. I remember this so clearly having worked in radio at the time when all of this was being discussed very broadly and very passionately across the community. I remember interviewing people and taking many, many calls on talkback radio about this. The premise of this was that, for the first time in the history of our modern nation, people with disabilities would be given choice and control over their lives and the government would have a sophisticated system of offering that choice and control. I still get goosebumps describing that because I remember thinking, 'This is a seminal moment in the history of our nation.' I was particularly interested at that time in listening to the now minister who is responsible for it, Bill Shorten, and the then member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, talking about this and saying how important it was and what a difference it would make to our country. It took the efforts of former prime minister Julia Gillard to make this a reality. Labor gave birth to this incredible baby that was the NDIS; however, sadly, we weren't in a position to care for it in its early years. Another government came along and made choices about that system. I think some of those choices weren't the best choices. However, the NDIS did prevail. Now we have found ourselves a number of years—over a decade—down the track, and we are now looking at a system that has made incredible changes to people's lives. Again, with all large-scale government changes, platforms and seismic shifts in the nation, there's often work that needs to be done after it's been in operation for a number of years. We have seen that there have been disappointments with the NDIS—absolutely categorically. I think anyone who was being honest about that would say that that is true. However, the benefit, on balance, far outweighs the difficulties. Notwithstanding that, this system does need to have an eye to the future. It needs to be able to be sustainable so that we can continue to provide that all-important insurance for people with disabilities to have choice and control over their lives. In listening to the minister today I felt really interested in and very supportive of the notion that we are providing more funding. He described it as a 'fraud fusion team' who are really looking to make sure there is not fraudulent behaviour in the NDIS. I think that's incredibly important. You do hear stories of outlandish behaviour and people charging princely sums for supports, and that, quite frankly, is not on. I am again proud to be part of a government that is calling this out and not only doing so but also putting in place the laws and the detection systems to say: 'No. We're not having fraud in this system. We're going to have a well-run, well-organised, self-sustaining NDIS.' That's really the nub of the entire issue. It is about continuing on with this seismic shift in Australian life for people with disabilities. Whilst I in absolutely no way can really understand what it would be like to have a life with a disability, I have had an injury in recent months which forced me to be in a wheelchair for some time and then on an e-scooter. Let me say that even just that tiny glimpse into not being able to potentially move around as freely opened my eyes and, more importantly, my heart and my head about people with disabilities in Australia and moving around, the supports and the ease of life. It is difficult. Therefore, the more choice and control we can give to people, the more sophisticated we can make the system, the more robust we can make the system, the better. That's why I do think it is important that we look very seriously at this legislation that is now being put forward. One of the things that I think is very interesting about this is the concept that every participant is able to live an independent life, fully embraced also by their community, and a scheme that is centred around the individual, unlike previous schemes in the past where people were either treated poorly or just cast aside. This scheme is certainly not like that. The other concept that I think is very important is providing early intervention and lifelong support. That's the difference in the new and modern NDIS. Some of the kinds of disabilities that impact participants, including autism spectrum disorder, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries and cerebral palsy, are incredibly challenging, but people who live and participate very actively in our communities have a right to do so and have a right to be afforded that choice and control. It is a lifelong journey for them, and every day poses new challenges. However, with the support of the NDIS, many of these challenges can be replaced with opportunities. I think that's something that we need to really think about as well in relation to people with disability. It's not just about centring their lives on that disability; it's actually about the contribution that their lives make and the thoughts and dreams and aspirations that they have for their lives and the contribution that that makes to our country as a whole. I think that's a very valuable one and often one that really can't be put into dollars and cents, but I'm very proud to say that we're part of a government who recognises those people as people who are complete and make a very wonderful contribution to our society. In my electorate of Paterson, there are 7,352 NDIS participants who receive support from the NDIS. My office works diligently with many people. We have a number of stories of people who have contacted our office, and we have a good number of wonderful success stories as well. I just want to say that I am in support completely of the NDIS. I am in support of making it a robust and lengthy institution in this nation. It does need to be well funded. It does need to be closely and properly scrutinised. The departments that are responsible for it do need to have enough staff to do that properly, and I really do look forward to it lasting for many decades to come and being the absolute choice and control vehicle for many people in Australian society, none more so than the people of Patterson. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Housing 74 16:30 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith When tackling the domestic violence crisis, one of the crucial elements is tackling the housing crisis. One of the problems right now in Australia is that far too many women are having to choose between violent homes and homelessness. We know that, in the last year alone, 36,000 people experiencing family and domestic violence requested long-term housing and that all of them were denied because, at both a federal and a state level, there is chronic underfunding of public housing and homelessness services. We know the top three reasons cited by women seeking support from homelessness services are family and domestic violence, 45 per cent; financial insecurity, 39 per cent; and rental increases or eviction, 36 per cent. That basically means that, far too often, serious housing and income insecurity falls on women who are in dangerous relationships or relationships they know they need to leave, but often they have to choose between homelessness for them and their kids and staying in that relationship. There is actually a relatively easy fix for that: a vast and enormous investment in public housing. That should not be the case in a country as wealthy as Australia, where we've just seen a federal budget from which property investors will get $175 billion in tax handouts over the next four years. In a wealthy country like this there are literally tens of thousands of women going to homelessness services, saying, 'I would like a long-term home,' and being turned away. Not only that, the entire system is overwhelmed because of the skyrocketing rental increases we are seeing, and women are often on the front line of those increases. What happens is that even women who aren't in violent relationships cop massive rent increases and are then pushed into homelessness, and we know that when you are homeless you are 13 times more likely to experience violence. To give you one example of the tough choices that our housing system forces people to make, I have a story from Rachel, and I will quote her at length. She has been homeless three times since leaving a violent relationship. She was forced to make a tough choice of homelessness for herself and her kids when she was fleeing that violent relationship. She says: 'Everyone has a story. I have been homeless three times—facing homelessness again in four weeks; always facing a housing crisis—due to escaping domestic violence 13 years ago. I have lived in the northern beaches community since I was 19 years old. That was 27 years ago. In my 27 years of renting, starting at $100 per week, then $330, then $550 to $750 to $830 to $930 per week, now, in four weeks time, I am facing homelessness for the fourth time in my life. Rents have now doubled since COVID, and in my area a one-bedroom is $500 a night. It's $880 a week for a granny flat and $1,700 for a home that's not been renovated since the 1960s. 'I lie awake every night, sometimes at 5 am, stressing about putting a roof over my children's heads. Every politician talks about the housing crisis and the housing situation, but four years later nothing has been done. I've been fighting homelessness for 13 years and there have been no changes to the renting situation. I'll be homeless in 25 days and no-one cares. I'm tired of moving. I just want a home.' The most awful part of it is that there are solutions here. Finland effectively eliminated homelessness by pursuing a very simple model. It's called the Housing First model. The notion is that if we build enough public housing—which they did—and then move everyone into a good home and then give them access to mental health support, social care and an income that's above the poverty line, we'll be able to eliminate homelessness. And they did. But the crucial element of it is that women who are in violent relationships or relationships they need to leave know that on day one they can move into a good-quality home with the rent capped at a proportion of their income, they can have access to a social worker, they can have access to a good school for their kids and they can have access to the mental health support they need. Are we really suggesting that Australia, a country far wealthier than most of the Scandinavian countries that already do this, is not capable of pulling off something like this? Ultimately, this comes down to choices. And I think it's high time now that this government starts making choices in favour of those people ahead of the property investors that will get the most money out of this budget when it comes to housing Rotary Club of Granville 75 16:34 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta I rise to speak about the Rotary Club of Granville and its invaluable contribution to our community. The Rotary Club of Granville embodies the spirit of service and community betterment. For decades it's been a beacon of hope, a catalyst for positive change and a source of unwavering support for individuals and families in need. Its commitment to the Rotary motto 'Service above Self' is not just a slogan but a way of life embraced by each member. Right now the unemployment rate in the Cumberland LGA is around three per cent higher than the national average. In fact, unemployment—and youth unemployment in particular—is one of the most pressing challenges faced by residents in my local community. Recognising the urgency of this issue, the Rotary Club of Granville took proactive steps to help their local community by introducing their Crack Your First Job training program. I recently visited Granville Rotary to attend their flagship Crack Your First Job program, which was held in collaboration with Sewa Australia, a not-for-profit organisation that works to empower everyday Australians. Crack Your First Job aims to help people find their dream job, stand out from the crowd and jump into a fulfilling career. This program joins a growing list of initiatives by Granville Rotary to better our local community, including their digital literacy program for seniors, their women's health forum, an International Women's Day awards ceremony to recognise local women, the Rotary Youth Leadership training program and their regular barbecues to help fundraise for local not-for-profit organisations. At the heart of this organisation lies a profound commitment to inclusivity and diversity. No less than nine nationalities are represented among the club's membership. This diversity reflects their core value that everybody, regardless of background or circumstance, deserves an equal opportunity to thrive. The Rotary Club of Granville is a catalyst for meaningful connections and friendships. In particular, I want to acknowledge the outgoing club president, Sanjeev Goyal, the incoming club president, Stephen McKee, the secretary Shanthini Donald. I also want to acknowledge Rotarian and district governor, Renga Rajan. For years, Renga has been an active member of our local community. By day he's a procurement specialist, but outside of work you'd most likely find him running a 10 k charity marathon or donating at his local blood bank. Through his tireless charity work and relentless optimism, Renga has not only entrenched but endeared himself to the local community in Parramatta as an inspiring leader. This club and our local community have been beneficiaries of his selflessness and we thank him for his contributions. Cook Electorate: By-election 76 16:38 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook I'm immensely appreciative of the trust placed in me by the people of Cook and many local Liberal Party members and local community leaders. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention some of those individuals and those community organisations. Firstly, the president of our federal electoral conference and the campaign manager Scott Briggs, who was immense during that by-election, from making DL flyers, being at 6 am train stations to providing strategy, Scott was amazing. I'm very indebted to Scott. Next, Lou De Domenico, the military precision which she ran the campaign and polling day was incredible and I learnt a lot and she was ably supported by her husband, Justin De Domenico, incredible. Pre-poll, Cooper Gannon was amazing and he's going to have a bright future in the party. Thank you very much, Cooper. I also would like to call out Daniel Padman, who was at more train stations almost than I was, I think. Thank you, Daniel. Also Cooper's partner, Freya Leach, who did a fantastic job turning up all the time. Speaking of pre-poll, Jenny Bullen from Reid was incredible every day there. I remember one day, Jenny, you being there in sideways rain with a poncho on, drenched, but somehow you managed to keep all the how to votes dry. Also Lina Stuto and all the Reid volunteers. There was an enormous amount there at pre-poll. Thank you very much. I thank the local campaign committee. Dallas and Wade McInerney and the entire McInerney supported me through my journey throughout the Liberal Party, and I'm extremely grateful to them. Thank you Marie, Simone and Rene Licta for welcoming me into your home and your hearts. What you have done, , the immense help you have given me, has been amazing. Robert Assaf has also helped me on my entire journey through the party. Robert, I'm extremely grateful for your support. Marie Ficara: I don't think there's a priest or religious leader in the community of the electorate of Cook who you do not know. All the work you do there, not only with the party but more broadly in the community, is an inspiration to me and many others. If anyone doesn't know Marie, they know Dunstan Desouza. Dunstan, you were phenomenal, and I am grateful for your friendship. Dorette and Nick Varvaris: you were fantastic. I am very indebted to you and the support you continue to provide me. Thank you. Dan Nicholls, Di McInerney, Mel Gibbons and Kent Johns were fantastic. Thanks to Matt Daniel; to the Mavropoulos family, who have the best seafood in the shire; to Noel and Nancy Gibson for turning up at prepoll all the time; and to John Harrison for turning up all the time, and his wife, Tina, as well. Isabella Kristo and Rebecca Pun: I'm very grateful for your support. I give my thanks to the entire Mumford family. I'd also to take this moment to recognise Lynne's recent passing and how tragic that was. Daniel Rindfleish and Angus Ellisdon-Morris were also fantastic. Thank you very much for your support. Turning to community leaders, Ian and Michelle Good provided endorsements and friendship. You're great people. What you do all through the community but particularly in surf lifesaving is phenomenal. The Kerr family, led by Peter Kerr and Cecelia Falson, do amazing work in the Sutherland shire and were great friends and guides to me. I'd also like to take this moment to acknowledge Carmelo Pesce, the mayor. We had a tough-fought preselection, and Carmelo was a class act after that. He got in behind me and helped me in the by-election, and I'm extremely grateful for his friendship and his class. There are three other people, in particular, that I can't say enough about. Jenny Ware, in particular, turned up all the time. I'm very grateful. Mark Speakman, you did too, and Elenie Pettinos. You all handed out with me, turned up, provided endorsements. Thank you! I acknowledge former member Lorna Stone, Mark Coure, Dave Coleman and Daniel Cacaj. I'd also like to acknowledge Greg Allam and Greg Story. Thanks to the local shire councillors: from Sutherland, Carol Provan, Hassan Awada, Louise Sullivan, Harios Strangas, Marcelle Elzerman, Leanne Farmer, Kent Johns and Stephen Nikolovski; from Georges River Council, Mayor Sam Elmir, Sam Stratikopoulos, Nick Smerdely, Ben Wang, Christina Jamieson, Lou Konjarski, Peter Mahoney, Elise Borg, Natalie Mort and Nancy Liu. Other volunteers were Kyriakos Panayi, Glenn Gorrick, Rob and Sue Garnett, Jean Harrow, Jordan Gibbons, Madgi Mona, Monica Mikhail, Barrie Childs, Neno Kevic and family. Thanks, too, to the East Hills folk: Wendy Lindsay—you are incredible!—Richard Noonan, Ruth Le Bas, Ed and Anita Bourke, Alistair Birch, Charbel Abouraad, Chris Christofordia, Joel Johnson, Nartarsha Terrerio, Alex Dore and Hugo Robinson. Those last three were fantastic. I acknowledge all the Bennelong volunteers: Scott Yung, Nat Smith, Michael Brereton and the entire North Epping branch. I love you all. You were fantastic. Doug Sun, Michael Pont, Andrew Brown, Rosemary Elliott and Matt Garth: thank you very much. Smith, Mr Ian 77 16:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence This afternoon, in the final minutes remaining in this sitting week, I stand to honour the career of a great mate, a great man and a great trade unionist. I speak of the retiring National President and South Australian and Northern Territory Branch Secretary of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, Ian Smith, or 'Smithy' as he's affectionately known. I first met Smithy a little over eight years ago on the grass out the front of this building here. I was part of the Aussie jobs assembly fighting to save our coastal shipping. Smithy was with the TWU, trying to fight off the abolition of the safe rates tribunal. Little did I know that this chance encounter would be the start of a great friendship and that he and the union would become such a huge part of my life. Those who know Ian know he wears his heart on his sleeve. He's proud to be TWU, proud to be union and even prouder to have led the branch for the last seven years. Ian started out as a pick-up delivery driver at TNT in 1994, where he eagerly joined the TWU, starting a journey that would span 30 years as he went from truck driver to state secretary of the union. His is a story of opportunity, strength and resilience and a story of the fight for a fair go. It wasn't long after joining the union that Ian put his hand up for an opportunity to be endorsed by his peers and become the yard delegate, representing the workers—his colleagues—and fighting for a better deal. You see, Smithy has a way with words and, quite frankly, he doesn't mind telling the boss what he thinks when he sees a dodgy deal. It was this mindset, no doubt, that ensured his inclusion on the first national negotiating team to deliver an industry-first national enterprise agreement with TNT in the early 2000s. It was during these negotiations that Ian's talent for standing up for the fair go and ensuring transport workers' voices were heard got him noticed by then state secretary and now late senator Alex Gallacher. Alex saw what many others did: Ian didn't know how to accept 'no' for an answer. On that basis, he was certain Ian would make a fine recruitment official to help grow the branch—and a fine recruitment official he was, delivering on the expected targets year on year, fine-tuning his skills and becoming a powerful advocate for workers he was charged to represent. When Alex joined the parliament in the other place, Ian was elevated to assistant branch secretary before becoming branch secretary in 2017. With a young team around him—me included—he guided the branch through a period of uncertainty, doing so with an assured confidence from the experience he brought to the role over many years of hard work and a determination towards developing the membership and delivering strong delegates to the workplace to ensure the union was member-led. This drive led Ian to deliver on his vision of the Alex Gallacher Training Centre, a place for delegates to sharpen their skills and better represent workers, delivering better outcomes both in enterprise agreements and, just as importantly, with better safety on the job. This is what good leaders do: they build up those around them without fear of being bettered. Why? Because, ultimately, the union is bigger than any one person. Ian also led the union in delivering the most reformative changes to the public transport bus drivers agreement in the last two decades in South Australia. The agreement saw drivers of the single largest employer receiving the single biggest increases to driver wages in decades, reinstating penalty rates and overtime and, more importantly, delivering a better work/life balance to a sector suffering from burnout and retention issues. He was part of the national decision for the TWU to take on Qantas' illegal sacking of 1,700 ground staff, a decision that would ultimately be proved to be the right one by the High Court—our very own Makybe Diva moment! I could go on for hours about the contribution that Ian has made to our union and the movement over his 30 years of service, but I want to close on a final note. To a man who so dearly loves his wife, Sue, and daughter, Maddie, I thank them for allowing Ian to do what he loved so much—that is, represent the people who carry Australia in road transport. We are so much better for his contribution to our branch and our movement, a legacy that will continue to positively impact those working in the transport sector, those working at the union and, most importantly, our membership for years to come. He always remained extremely humble throughout his entire career, going out on a high as brand secretary. As he always likes to put it: not bad for a dumb truck driver, eh? Smithy: thank you for everything you've done, and enjoy a well-earned break. Citizenship 78 16:48 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I am physically here in the House of Representatives, but my heart is at home in my electorate. In particular, it is in a room where people are sitting down and about to become Australian citizens. I want to speak to them. What I want to say to them is: you are sitting in a seat that I, too, once sat in. In fact, many people who sit in this House on both sides have. That is the great thing about our country. You will hear about all of the rights and obligations that come with being a citizen. More than anything, it's about opportunity, and the opportunities are limitless. I know you know that. You know that because, by sitting there, you're in a place that has been very hard to get to. We think being elected here is hard, but becoming an Australian citizen is hard. You've had many rejections, you've had many forms returned, and you've had disappointments and delays, but here you are. I remember that moment, and there are two moments you'll all remember—the first is when the plane banks over Melbourne and you looked down and imagined all the possibilities of the future that you will have. When we came as migrants from Ireland, many years ago, we went through Customs, and my dad turned to us and said, 'We've made it!' Several years later, when we sat where you are now and became Australian citizens, he said, 'We've really made it!' It was because that thing which you're going to get tonight—that citizenship—is a unique gift that you have fought hard for. You becoming a citizen makes you equal to the people in this place, from the Prime Minister down the corridor to everyone else in this country. That is a beautiful, wonderful thing and I want to thank you for it. I also want to thank you for choosing Australia. You've come from all corners of the earth, but you picked this place. And you didn't just pick it because it's a piece of the earth—because it has a certain geography to it, although it is beautiful. You came here because you know that it stands for something. And it's about more than just standing for something, it's a place where people fight for what it means. Indeed, if you go down the road from this building, there are 103,000 names on the wall of people who fought and died for what this country means. Many of those names weren't born in Australia, just like you. Can I plead with you that after tonight, when you think of all the opportunities that lie before you, you think about being a volunteer? I know that there are so many ways to give back to this country, and that you're doing it now by becoming a citizen. For many of you it's about being a parent and teaching your children to be curious and kind. But in the room next to you are representatives from many organisations, including Rotary, the RSLs, historical societies, Neighbourhood Watch, the SES and the CFA—we have four of those in our area. One thing we know about volunteerism is that of course, it's about giving to others and serving others. But when you speak to volunteers, you know that they feel they get so much more in return—so much more. Because, when it's all said and done, we don't take assets with us. We don't leave much more behind than our family and the memories they have of us—and what we gave to make this country a little bit better than we found it. I know that you who are sitting there are the exact sort of people who can do that. You are resilient, you are determined and you are so welcome to our country. Congratulations! President of Taiwan 78 16:52 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I was privileged to visit Taiwan last week, alongside other parliamentary colleagues, to attend the inauguration of President Lai Ching Te. Taiwan is Australia's seventh-largest trading partner and the Northern Territory's second-largest export market, behind Japan. So working with Taiwan is in Australia's national interest and certainly in the Territory's interest. As a very important trading partner, Taiwan matters very much. There was a significant international presence at the inauguration, including from some Pacific Islands nations, with the Prime Minister of Tuvalu and a significant delegation from Marshall Islands to name a few. There were 500 delegates at this event, with over 30 international delegations. It was my first time in Taiwan, and I was very impressed by the professionalism of the program. The military ceremony on the day of the inauguration was polished, with Army, Navy and Air Force elements parading, which of course is normal for these significant events. There was a flyover by military helicopters as well, all of this being very normal. But Lai Ching Te's speech was measured, and called for the status quo in the Taiwan Strait to continue into the future. This is in everybody's interest, including Australia's. A memorable highlight was my visit to the Huikuang Guide Dog Foundation Taiwan. My father has been involved in training guide dogs for over 50 years, and helping Taiwan for 30 years. He sent Taiwan their first guide dog puppies and helped train their trainers. It started when he met Taiwan's former president Lee, who was the first promoter of a guide dog program, along with the Institute for the Blind of Taiwan, to better support visually impaired and blind Taiwanese people. Outgoing president Tsai Ing-wen was a big supporter, too, and wanted to adopt a retired guide dog. The Guide Dog Foundation provided three for her to choose from, and she took them all. The foundation needs more puppies, and I intend to help them acquire some from Australia. I was also impressed by a meeting with an NGO that works to counter misinformation and disinformation. In Taiwan, disinformation has been quite successful at swaying hearts and minds. This organisation's approach is to look at the methodology of how it spreads, to assist with targeting. They want to learn from Australia's experience with the same problem. Our unofficial relationship with Taiwan is not new; it is longstanding. Australia is a long-term, reliable supplier of energy, resources, food and services to Taiwan, but our relationship is about much more than us buying their technology and them buying our resources and energy. Our interests intersect across areas, including education, green energy innovation and investment, biotechnology, smart cities and multilateral affairs. Australia and Taiwan have grown people-to-people contacts in the arts, space, education, science, tourism, sport and disability, as I've mentioned with guide dogs. There are real opportunities for further deepening collaboration, which we can seize by better aligning our South-East Asia investment strategy with Taiwan's New Southbound Policy. As a fellow democracy and an island of 23 million people, Taiwan's future is a matter of direct concern to Australia. Australia and Taiwan share an interest in a rules based, open, inclusive and stable Indo-Pacific region. We support peace in the Taiwan Strait and oppose any attempt to change the status quo unilaterally. Shortly after the inauguration, China deployed warplanes staging mock attacks against Taiwan, in an effort to intimidate the Taiwanese. The PLA sent forces to the north, south and east of Formosa, encircling the island as it had previous drills. This is a spectacle that the Taiwanese people are used to, but it is clearly not in line with the peaceful status quo. Australia has a longstanding and bipartisan One China policy, but we must continue to reject attempts at coercion wherever they occur in our Indo-Pacific region. House adjourned at 16:5 8 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Thursday, 30 May 2024

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Archer ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 80 09:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Women deserve to be safe. On Friday afternoon, Jennifer and Gretl Petelczyc of Berkeley Crescent in Floreat were shot and killed by their friend's ex-husband, Mark Bombara. The shooter was trying to find his ex-wife, who had escaped the family home weeks earlier fearing for her life. The shooter's daughter, Ariel, has been telling me about her fears for her mother's safety in recent months. It's a heartbreaking story—too much for one person to bear. This event has torn apart two families and rocked my community. I've received so many messages from constituents who have been devastated by this tragedy. Disturbingly, I've also received a few messages from men in our community telling me they feel targeted by the response to this event and suggesting that female victims are to blame. This fills me with rage and deep, deep sadness. We have a huge problem, and we need a huge coordinated solution. Shockingly, the per capita rate of family and domestic violence related assaults in WA is about twice as high as in the other states, and they're just the reported cases. Violence is never justified, and women deserve to be safe. Constituents have told me since that they want to see change. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 09:31 to 09:43 Ms CHANEY 300006 Violence is never justified, and women deserve to be safe. Constituents have since told me that they want to see change. Here are a few of the messages I've received. One says: I have personally experienced domestic violence, my sister has, my best friend has, my female friends have and I am furious and exhausted. It affects all women, of all ages, of all socio-economic classes, education levels, race, culture. It is perpetrated by men of all ages, of all socio-economic classes, education level, race, culture.' Another says: Our street will be forever scarred by this incomprehensible act of violence and I feel we need to take positive steps forward to offset the negative flow-on effects in our community. The only way through this is together. And a third says: This is a national disgrace and a matter of life and death which calls for drastic and immediate measures. I am an 81-year-old woman, sitting at my computer at 4am, with tears running down my face. I can't accept that my great-granddaughter will grow up in a country that can't protect its women and children. My community is angry, exhausted and so, so sad. Making women feel safe will require coordination across federal and state governments, as well as change in our community. We need adequately funded services so we can look after women who have experienced violence. We need to protect women who have a reasonable fear of violence. We cannot let dangerous men have guns, and men must hold other men accountable, so that it's clear that violence is never the answer. The best way to honour the memory of Jennifer and Gretl is to stop this happening again. Women deserve to be safe. Wood, Mr Bill, AM 80 09:45 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Labor people are proud of the fact that ours is Australia's oldest and greatest political party, formed in 1891, 133 years ago. But Bill Wood had a special claim. He could say he had been a member of the Australian Labor Party for more than half its existence. Bill Wood had some other special claims to make. He served as a Labor member in both the Queensland parliament and in the ACT Legislative Assembly, and his electorates could not have been more different. In Queensland, he represented Cook, a seat which now stretches to the tip of Cape York and Barron River, which covers Cairns. In Canberra, Bill was among the first group of representatives elected to the new assembly in 1989. At first, he represented the whole city and then the electorate of Brindabella. Bill served in the Queensland parliament from 1969 to 1974 and in the ACT assembly from 1989 to 2004—20 years of service. Political life was in his blood. Bill's father, Les, served in the Queensland parliament, including a stint as Labor leader. Bill's identical twin brother, Peter, also served in the Queensland parliament. One of the reasons Bill and his family moved to Cairns was to avoid being accosted by people in the street asking 'Peter' to help them out. I first met Bill in 2010 when I ran for Labor preselection as a non-aligned candidate. Bill had no time for factions. Like me, he loved the Labor Party as a whole and didn't need to join any subgroup. Bill and his wife, Beverley, invited me over for dinner to offer their support and advice. I valued their wise counsel and was touched by their generosity. I felt they'd taken a special interest in me. As it happens, this wasn't unique. In a eulogy at Bill Wood's funeral, Senator Katy Gallagher spoke about how much she valued Bill's support, guidance and help as a first-time candidate. She later discovered that this was how he supported all new candidates. Like his senior adviser, Margaret Watt, he was a mentor to many. Bill Wood loved the arts. Through his time in the ACT assembly, he was either arts minister or shadow arts minister. He fought to ensure that money from the ACT casino licence auction went to the arts. When bushfires threatened the Nolan Gallery in Lanyon, he drove there and evacuated some of the paintings in his own car. But, however much Bill loved Labor, the arts or politics, there was only ever one true love: Beverley. Together, they raised their children: Andrea, Richard, Matthew and Wendy. When Bill was attending parliament in Brisbane or travelling for weekends in the Torres Strait Islands, Beverley would run the household and look after the children. They were an extraordinary double act. Vale, Bill Wood. St George Creative Art and Craft Centre, Mortdale Physical Culture Club, Georges River Softball Association 81 09:48 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks The St George Creative Art and Craft Centre is a really special place in the Banks electorate. Based in Penshurst, the centre has been there for more than 50 years. During that time, tens of thousands of local residents have learned about the joys of art and the creative capacity of art and, in the process, have made friends and made our community a stronger place. Last year, Georges River Council proposed an expression of interest process for the site at which St George Creative Art and Craft has been based for more than 50 years, paying a peppercorn rent. It was wrong of the council to do that; they shouldn't have done that. The centre—led by its president, Gilbert Sant, and so many other passionate supporters—rallied against that. I was proud to be able to support the centre, and I was very pleased that the council saw sense and has renewed the lease of the St George Creative Art and Craft Centre. There is nowhere like it in the St George region. It's a special part of our community. To Gilbert and everyone who makes the centre what it is, thank you so much for what you do, and may there be at least 50 more years to come. Mortdale Physie is an institution in our community, and Nola Heller has been teaching at Mortdale Physie for more than 60 years. Nola has been teaching at Mortdale Physie since President Kennedy was in office, and the passion that she brought in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, 2000s, 2010s she still brings today. It was great to visit on 7 May to see Janyne Walker, the secretary, and so many other members of the committee and people who are participating in the classes. We need to get that hall cleaned up. It's not quite in the condition it should be, and I look forward to the council assisting with that. To Nola and to everyone at Mortdale Physie: thank you so much for what you do. Georges River Softball is one of the strongest softball organisations anywhere in Australia. On 26 April, I attended their annual awards. It was great to see Daniel Russo, the president, and so many other members of the committee and present a number of Banks outstanding sporting achievement awards to: Myles Beale, Jet Nguyen, Skye Davison, Lexie Rare from the United Softball Club, along with Harrison McDonald and Rylan Moore. Dylan Raven, Dax Clarke and Mitchell Jones from Illawong Softball Club, and Layla Morgan, Hayden Russo, Mason Boys and Elliot Bottaro from State Christopher's Softball Club were all acknowledged because of their great sportsmanship and great play at Georges River Softball. Gorton Electorate: National Volunteer Week 81 09:51 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Last week, Australia celebrated National Volunteer Week, a time to recognise the invaluable contributions of volunteers across the country. Today I rise to share the story of two remarkable organisations in my electorate of Gorton and the people who run them. These organisations are the heart of their communities, and volunteers are their backbone. Firstly, I'd like to highlight the Caroline Springs Scout Group who I recently visited in Burnside Heights. Led by the remarkable Claire Mouser, whose dedication spans 13 years, this group has blossomed into one of Victoria's largest and most active Scout groups. Claire's leadership has been instrumental. Lately, her focus has shifted to the eldest youth section of the scouts, known as Rovers. Claire says this group, between 18 and 26 years old, have faced unique challenges because of the pandemic. She's guiding them as they reconnect, rebuild, push their way into the community and develop their adult lives. Claire's commitment extends beyond scouting. She is also a cherished member of the Caroline Springs RSL sub branch. The partnership between Scouts and the RSL has been symbiotic, showcasing the power of intergenerational collaboration and community spirit. Claire's efforts have not gone unnoticed. Her recognition as the 2024 Melton Citizen of the Year is a testament to her unwavering dedication and service. I also had the privilege of meeting Cynthia Frane and her fellow members of the Horseshoe Bend Community Group, a collective of local volunteers devoted to revitalising the site formerly known as Horseshoe Bend Farm. Through their tireless efforts, this group has been transforming the farm into a vibrant hub of community engagement and cultural enrichment. From working bees to educational workshops, they tirelessly collaborate with traditional owners to preserve and share the rich heritage of our land. Their outreach embraces schools, families, youth groups, aged-care and disability support organisations. They generously donate a significant portion of their produce to a local Foodbank. I'm proud to share that both these organisations were recent recipients of a volunteers grant by the federal government, a testament to their important work and the vital role volunteers play in shaping our society. As we celebrate these two remarkable groups, let us not forget the countless other clubs, societies and community organisations that rely on the selflessness and dedication of volunteers. They are the unsung heroes who labour tirelessly behind the scenes, enriching our communities, uplifting those in need. To all volunteers across my electorate of Gorton and indeed our nation, I extend my deepest gratitude. Your kindness, generosity and unwavering commitment embody the true spirit of Australian mateship. Together, let us continue to support and honour the invaluable contributions of volunteers, for they are the life blood of our communities. Cowper Electorate: VIEW Clubs 82 09:54 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper With a large electorate like mine, I make sure that I hold at least four mobile offices a month in different townships to given equal opportunity for a face-to-face chat. Generally, the topics brought to me on those days are concerning and quite often deeply personal, ranging from requests for help with problems surrounding government services to notifying me of issues impacting the local area. Occasionally, some people just pop past to give me some positive news. At last week's mobile office in Kempsey, my home town, I was lucky enough to get a visit from the delightful Dianne Fiddes, a passionate advocate for the Lower Mid North VIEW Clubs. Now, my dear old mum has been involved with the VIEW clubs for a long time. For those of you who are not familiar with them, VIEW Clubs offer a network for women to connect with each other in the community whilst at the same time aiding the work of the Smith Family in providing long-term educational support for Australian children and young people in need. Every week VIEW Club members across Australia come together and hear from a guest speaker and exchange ideas on the issues impacting their communities while also raising important funds to help support the Smith Family. Dianne popped in to update me on the great work that the local VIEW Clubs have done over the past year. Her region's club have so far sponsored 54 local children, with contributions of over $83,000 that have gone towards supporting them in their primary and secondary school education. That's included digital learning essentials and providing each child with access to the internet, an appropriate device and basic training in digital skills, which we all know are so important today. This is such a wonderful outcome and a testament to what determined regional women can do when they get together. I can personally attest that, en masse, the VIEW Club women are a force to be reckoned with, particularly after a few chardonnays at the group's events—South West Rocks VIEW Club ladies, I'm sure you know what I mean! But seriously, to every VIEW Club member: thank you for what you do in our community. Each life you have touched has been bettered by the experience, whether the children or the new members. I encourage anyone who wants to lend a hand while making some new friends to get involved. They're always looking for new members. Thank you, Dianne, for the chat in Kempsey. I look forward to hearing the updates, and I also look forward to the South West Rocks VIEW Club Christmas party. Inaugural Hasluck Volunteer Awards 82 09:57 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck Volunteers are the lifeblood of our communities. During Volunteer Week I had the great pleasure of launching the inaugural Hasluck Volunteer Awards to celebrate the dedication and achievements of our many volunteers and their essential organisations. I'm calling for nominations from the full spectrum of volunteer organisations and sectors, including emergency services, environment, multicultural affairs, youth, disability, community sport and online community forums, to recognise the tireless work the administrators do to support those communities. Just in case that's not enough, I welcome further suggestions from the community to ensure that no volunteer effort goes unrecognised. Already we've had many nominations, reflecting a wide range of activities, including an organisation providing food security to those in need by coordinating with businesses to prepare hampers that feed families for a week. They support domestic violence victims, new migrants and new community members. Another nomination is for a local working through the Lions Club and assisting their community in countless ways. Yet another is a nomination of an individual who coordinates and runs fundraisers focusing on environmental and community needs. My application form suggests using 100 words to describe the volunteer activities, but I've been sternly told that 100 words is simply not enough. I've seen nominations for someone who is running a multicultural centre welcoming newcomers and coordinating language lessons to help them stay connected with their homelands and cultures. Another nominee provides skill development to help new arrivals find work. Then there's the constituent who uses physical challenges as a platform for an array of volunteer activities, fostering connections across her community. There's more, including bushfire planning and preparation volunteers, sport volunteers and crosswalk attendants, who play critical roles for our schools. This short selection of stories highlights the remarkable contributions of our volunteers across Hasluck. But I know there are many more out there, and I'd love those nominations to flow through. I'm immensely proud to be part of a community in Hasluck that has so many engaged and committed individuals. I'm also proud that the Albanese government has committed substantial funds in the budget to support our volunteering efforts. One nomination described a volunteer as someone who 'embodies adaptability, stepping up whenever needed, even tackling unfamiliar tasks solo to ensure continuity'. This is a description of pure dedication. Nominations for the Hasluck Volunteer Awards are open until 1 July, with an awards ceremony to follow in August. I urge community members to visit my website and nominate the wonderful people they know and work with. We need to celebrate our successes and to recognise the quiet heroes amongst us. Kinsey, Mr Russell (Rusty) 83 10:00 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to recognise the work of Mr Russell Kinsey, better known as Rusty. Rusty, a cameraman with Prime7 News, was recently made redundant—a decision that I think was very ill considered by the management of 7NEWS. Rusty left the cotton industry 44 years ago and started work as a cameraman with Midstate Television, which finally merged and made Prime, and then, for the last few years, with 7NEWS. Over that period of time, Rusty had rubbed shoulders with royalty. He'd been involved in and witnessed nearly every major event that happened in the Central West and western New South Wales. Rusty covered events such as the Nyngan floods, and I believe that he actually had to go out in a boat and fly on a plane and a helicopter to be able to properly cover that event. Over the years, Rusty has been the anchor in that newsroom, and he has trained, or broken in—whatever term you would like—numerous young journalists. Quite often, their first job as a journalist was to be sent to the country. Rusty knew his way around. He knew how they could use their craft, and many of these journalists have moved on to much more high-profile jobs. They tell me that the list of journalists that Rusty trained is more than a page long. That's how many people he's worked with. I particularly would like to offer my personal thanks for the professional way that he has covered issues that I've been involved in in the last 17 years—in my time as, firstly, a candidate and, for the last 16½ years, as the member for Parkes. Quite often on a weekend, Rusty would be there on his own, holding the microphone, holding the camera and asking the questions always with a pair of shorts on. I never saw him even in the dead of winter in long pants. He is a real newsman of the finest order. He now will spend more time on his antique motorbikes, either restoring them or riding them. I'm going to miss the interactions I've had with Rusty. Enjoy your retirement, mate. You've deserved it. Budget 83 10:03 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt When it comes to the cost of living, our community is feeling the pinch. That's why easing cost-of-living pressures are the Albanese government's key priority. This budget delivers a tax cut for every taxpayer. That's 82,000 people in our community. Thanks to both the WA and federal Labor governments, every household will receive a $700 energy rebate. We're making sure that more money will stay in your pocket too with our investments in health. I'm conscious that, for many in our community, finding an after-hours GP on the weekend or at night is not only limited but often expensive. As a result, our local emergency clinic at the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital is very busy. Forty per cent of cases that go through that emergency department could be better treated at an urgent care clinic, taking pressure off the emergency department. That's why I'm so pleased that the Albanese Labor government is funding a new walk-in Medicare urgent care clinic that is completely bulk-billed with extended hours in Armadale. We're also funding a bulk-billed MRI service at Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital that will be up and running for all MRI scans in July 2025. We're freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions so no-one will pay more than $31.60 or $7.70 for those on a concession card. This is a significant investment in the health of people in the south-eastern suburbs of Perth. By the end of the year, we'll also see expanded mental health services in both Armadale and Gosnells, as Medicare mental health services will be rolled out to replace the existing Head to Health centres so that we have more specialist support available. And we're not just meeting the needs right in front of us today; we're laying the foundations to deliver a future made in WA in this federal budget. We're backing in Aussie innovation because making things here means more secure, well-paid jobs across our community. Speaking of well-paid jobs, we're also upping the wages for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, and further expanding fee-free TAFE. So many people in our community are working as teachers, nurses, midwives and social workers, and I'm sure you'll all remember the challenge that was paying the bills whilst doing your prac placement. As the son and brother of social workers and teachers, I know this very well. That's why I'm so glad to share that the Albanese government will pay you to do your prac placements to make qualifications in these vital industries so much more accessible. This is a budget for all Australians, and we're recognising other cost-of-living pressures too by increasing rent assistance by 10 per cent in this budget. That's an increase of 42 per cent since we were elected. We're doing what we can to ease cost-of-living pressures for you now and in the future. Tourism Exceptional Assistance Grant 84 10:06 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise on an issue affecting the tourism industry, particularly in the Port Douglas region in my electorate. It relates to the mishandling and apparent failure of the Tourism Exceptional Assistance Grant following the devastating impacts of Cyclone Jasper. When Cyclone Jasper hit, it left behind a trail of destruction that severely impacted on our local tourism businesses. On face value, the grant initiative that was received and was aiming to address the impacts felt by the effectiveness in tourism was very well received; however, the administration of these grants, particularly concerning our region's tourism accommodation providers, has been nothing short of a bureaucratic debacle. It's come to light that the applications from these accommodation providers, while initially appearing to be fully compliant with the requirements, now have been unjustly rejected. These are real businesses who are struggling. These are real families who were encouraged to apply, who have invested time, considerable effort and significant financial resources into a lengthy application process. The industry has repeatedly raised concerns about this, but they've been met with a total lack of empathy from the Queensland minister for tourism and member for Cairns, Michael Healy. You'd think that having a tourism minister based in your own electorate would be advantageous. Minister Healy has proven himself time and time again to be both an ineffectual member of parliament and certainly an incompetent minister. This isn't about ticking boxes or filling in forms; it's about delivering on a promise for those in dire need. It's about the survival of an industry that forms the backbone of Far North Queensland's economy. It's about supporting an industry that Minister Healy was once himself a part of for many years prior to his election to the Queensland parliament. Unfortunately, it's an industry he now appears to be content to turn his back on. I wrote to Minister Healy on 18 April requesting he intervene and review these claims by tourism accommodation providers. In his response to me, the only thing Minister Healy could do was deflect and blame his colleagues in the Albanese government for an overly restrictive application criteria. How about instead of looking for an opportunity to blame each other, you just get on with the job and fix the problem? There are many in the tourism accommodation industry in Port Douglas who are relying on this issue being resolved. I'd like to call upon Minister Healy, his colleagues in the Albanese government and their respective departments to do the right thing: review the criteria, overturn these rejections and ensure that this support reaches those very businesses for which it was intended. They are desperately hoping to be able to receive it so that they can continue the magnificent work that they do in Far North Queensland. Women in Sport 84 10:09 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Last year, the Matildas captured the heart of the nation. The most watched TV event was the Matildas. Women's sport was on the front page, not the back page. And what this demonstrated is what women can do and what they want. Creating a level playing field is what the Albanese Labor government is about, and we're literally doing this in the heart of the City of South Perth. The Albanese government is investing $5.5 million to build new change rooms and install lighting in parks and reserves across the City of South Perth. This will mean safer and better sporting and recreation facilities. It will allow more people to be active and more women and girls to fall in love with sports. Female sporting competitions will now be able to prosper in the area. This project will include all-gender facilities at six sporting grounds: Bill Grayden Reserve, Challenger Reserve, Collier Reserve, George Burnett Park, Morris Mundy Reserve and Richardson Park. We're also seeing the installation of sports lighting at the required Australian standard at Challenger Reserve, George Burnett Park and Richardson Park. The change rooms will mean that female athletes have access to shower cubicles, toilet cubicles and bench spaces. The truth is that some of these spaces look like they were built after World War II. These will be updated, fresh and exciting. New lighting will mean improved safety at local sporting reserves and an increase in training and competition areas available for female sport. Currently, 8,000 females participate per annum in sporting activities around these grounds. Some of the clubs that will benefit include the Trinity Aquinas Amateur Football Club, the South Perth Baseball Club, the South Perth United Football Club, Perth Pride FC, South Perth Rugby League Club, Southern Stars Touch Football club, South Perth Cricket Club, South Perth Junior Cricket Club, the South Perth hockey club, and the WASP Hockey Club. The City of South Perth has reported that substandard lighting and poor existing change rooms discourage participation of women and girls in sport. I'm delighted that the Albanese government has answered the call. These are some of the responses that we received from locals yesterday: "Thank you! The South Perth soccer club/manning sports halls have needed upgrades for over 30 years. It's great we finally can use them." "We couldn't be happier to receive this funding." "The funds are deploying widely across the City and that is excellent." We expect that the change rooms will result in an increase in participation of 30,000 women and girls per year. These improved facilities will be delivered through the Australian government's Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program. They expect them to be ready by 2025. I can't wait to see these facilities in action. Bring it on! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 282237 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 85 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 85

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025

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

Second Reading 85 10:12 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-25, to support the passage of the bill and to speak about the positive impacts of the budget and the government's overarching economic strategy for people in my electorate and indeed for the nation more broadly. I want to open with a couple of observations on the broader economic context that we find ourselves in, because that, of course, is always critical to the framing of a budget. That broader economic context is that we're coming out of a couple of years in which we have seen a global inflation surge. That inflation surge was caused by a number of factors, primarily international factors, such as the war in Ukraine and the impact that has had on energy prices, but also global supply chain factors coming out of the post-COVID international economic environment. That led to inflation rising, even before this government came to power. It's been a period in which Australia, like all advanced economies, has seen inflation rise. It's been absolutely critical that the central bank, the RBA, and the government put in place economic strategies to put downward pressure on inflation, because inflation is an economic phenomenon that eats away at people's standard of living. Inflation is an economic phenomenon that affects those who are most vulnerable. So it has been the centrepiece of this government's economic strategy over its first three budgets to put downward pressure on inflation and specifically to bring inflation within the two to three per cent band. A great deal has been achieved. If you look at the monthly CPI, it was over eight per cent in late 2022, and it has come down substantially. It now has a three in front of it. So, at a monthly read, it has come down by more than half. In quarterly terms, it has also come down by around half. So that's significant. We're not quite there yet. We need to get inflation within the two to three per cent band. Specifically, we now have a target of 2.5 per cent. We're not quite there yet, and inflation tends to be trickier the closer you get to the target band—the closer you get to the ultimate target. That's something we're seeing in a number of economies around the world, including the US. Yet, even though we have a little bit of work to do on inflation, it is critical that people continue to receive assistance with cost-of-living pain, because we know that people are still doing it tough. But what it means is that we have to have cost-of-living assistance that is targeted, proportionate and well calibrated, and that's exactly what we see in this budget. We see cost-of-living assistance that will be aligned with and support monetary policy and that will help this country see inflation continue to come down over the next 12 to 24 months to where it needs to get to. I want to talk about particular groups in my electorate—and, of course, these groups exist nationally—that will benefit from the cost-of-living measures in this budget. One of them is young people. My electorate is an electorate with many young people—38 per cent of my electorate is aged under 30—and I want to talk about the fact that there are a number of measures in this budget that will directly benefit people in that cohort. I talk to people in the community and I receive correspondence and emails, and I know that one measure that has resonated in my electorate and been very meaningful to people is student debt relief. HECS, from now on, will be calculated in a way where, instead of being based solely on CPI, it will be indexed based on the wage price index or CPI—whichever is the lower amount. This will take a lot of the edge off the indexation of HECS debt and is a very important measure. This will prevent increases of the type that we saw last year, when CPI was over seven per cent. This measure will be backdated to June 2023. What was particularly meaningful for me is that this measure alone will benefit over 25,000 people in Fraser. This is a very significant measure that will not remove but reduce the impact of a particular barrier to participation in higher education for those in more vulnerable situations. So that's a very significant measure, which, as I said, I've talked to many people in my electorate about and which resonates with them. Another one is prac payments: $319 a week for students during their placement studying important courses like nursing, teaching and social work. Unpaid placements, again, can be a particular barrier for those who want to follow particular career paths. We know that nursing, teaching and social work are careers that underpin our care economy and are particularly important for supporting many people in our society by providing critical social services. These prac payments will provide an incredibly important support for people looking to undertake these careers and will help us to boost numbers looking to undertake these careers. Health care and social assistance is, by employment, the largest industry in my electorate. It employs something in the order of 13 per cent of the labour force in Fraser. So these prac payments are going to make a big difference in encouraging more people to move into the vitally important sectors. The next thing that I want to talk about is fee-free TAFE and also training and the skills side of our economy more generally. When we talk about skills, apprenticeships and TAFE, we talk about individual stories, about giving people opportunities, about giving people the beginning of their careers and about people on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity. But we are also talking, at a macro level, about fixing up many of the supply-side blockages of our economy. This is an instance where we're talking both about the individual and giving people opportunities and about macroeconomic reform where we are fixing up supply-side blockages in a way that will put downward pressure on inflation and also put our economy in the position that it needs to be in in the longer run by developing the industries of the future. The Albanese Labor government is investing $90.6 million to boost the number of skilled workers in the construction and housing sectors. These are really important careers that have very long-term futures, but, as I said, they are also critical to the supply-side challenges in our economy. We know that housing affordability is a key economic and social challenge for our economy. It is vitally important that we bring more people into the supply side of the housing sector. We're also seeing 20,000 additional fee-free TAFE and VET places for skilled construction and housing workers, to create secure and well-paid jobs that will help us to reach our housing targets. More generally, we are seeing hundreds of thousands of fee-free TAFE places across a wide range of sectors. This is critical to young people in my electorate. As I said, it will give them the first step on the ladder. It will give them, often, their first opportunity in the workforce. It will also fix a lot of the broader supply-side challenges our economy is facing. We're also doing a great deal to support more people going into apprenticeships. We're increasing both the payments that go to individuals and the payments that go to employers. I was recently at an event on behalf of the Minister for Skills and Training, Brendan O'Connor. It was at a provider, MEGT, in my electorate. MEGT were celebrating their 700,000th apprentice—a remarkable achievement. But what we see is: the government's work in partnering with organisations like that and providing opportunities for young people to undertake apprenticeships is absolutely critical. It's absolutely critical for those individuals to get opportunities, but it is also critical for our broader economy. Finally, there are the tax cuts, which will benefit every taxpayer in our economy but, disproportionately, will benefit young taxpayers—in particular, those who are in that $18,000 to $45,000 earning bracket, who would have received absolutely nothing under the previously calibrated tax cuts put forward by the previous government, but will now receive over $800 a year under the new, amended, stage 3 tax cuts. On average, taxpayers in Fraser will receive $1,500 in tax cuts, but it's that young cohort in particular who will benefit more from the tax cuts as recalibrated in the budget. I also want to talk about this. In the budget there are the benefits for young people. There are also the benefits for the vulnerable, in all sorts of different ways. I think this is another critical aspect that's worth focusing on, because the responsible, targeted and well-calibrated assistance measures contained in the budget are really critical to providing assistance to those who need it, in a responsible way. One example is Commonwealth rental assistance. We are seeing a further 10 per cent increase to Commonwealth rental assistance, which builds on the 15 per cent increase last year. This is the first time in a long time that we have seen increases in successive budgets, and we know that this is an area where people are really feeling the pinch. So this is critical for people in my electorate. There's also the energy rebate. That will obviously benefit young people, the cohort I just talked about, but will also benefit people who are vulnerable, people on low incomes and people who are feeling the pinch more generally. A $300 rebate will particularly benefit those on benefits and on low incomes. Also, though, it's being provided as a subsidy—in a way that will put downward pressure on prices. Another aspect that I want to talk about is cheaper medicines. Pensioners will have the PBS cost of $7.70 frozen until July 2029. We are adding more medicines to the PBS. Residents in Fraser have already saved over $1.8 million from cheaper medicines because of our 60-day scripts. This measure is making a real difference to people. And that money is very significant for those on benefits and on low incomes. It's a very significant measure. I just want to finish off by saying that this is all being achieved in the context of a government that is providing cost-of-living assistance but doing so in a budget that has been crafted in a very responsible way because we want to make sure that fiscal policy and monetary policy are aligned. We've now seen the budget be brought into surplus for the second year in a row, a very significant achievement. It's been a long time since the federal government has achieved that. There is a $9.3 billion surplus forecast for 2023-24, the first time consecutive surpluses have been achieved in almost two decades. It's really critical to point out that this is being achieved through a very significant shift in the fiscal position relative to where it was when we inherited government. The budget position is forecast to improve by a massive $215 billion over the six years to 2027-28 compared to where it would have been on the fiscal position that we inherited. You just need to look at the position last year, with a $20 billion surplus, relative to tens of billions of dollars of deficit. This is being achieved by banking a very high proportion of the fiscal uplift that we've seen, and that fiscal uplift is being achieved largely through healthier workforce numbers, through higher participation rates, through lower unemployment and through higher wage numbers. To some degree, it's also due to higher resources prices, but most of that fiscal uplift is due to a stronger labour market. We are banking a very high proportion of that. Critically, we're banking a much higher proportion of that fiscal uplift than those opposite did when they were in government and, indeed, than the Howard government did when it was in office. This is putting downward pressure on inflation right now because our fiscal position is stronger with consecutive surpluses. It also means that the debt bill is tens of billions of dollars less over the upcoming decade because we're banking that fiscal uplift. So we're seeing fiscal and monetary policy working hand in hand, and this is being reinforced. In testimony that the House Standing Committee on Economics, the committee that I chair, received from the RBA, they reinforced the fact that fiscal and monetary policy are working together. We don't see this in every advanced economy. This is not something to be taken for granted. This is something that actually requires hard work. It requires finding savings. It requires banking the fiscal uplift. These are not decisions that are automatic. In fact, these are decisions that didn't happen under the previous government. In the previous government's final budget, zero dollars in savings were identified. Under this government, there have been tens of billions. The fiscal position is not something that just happens automatically. It takes hard work. It takes tough decisions. For me, as a representative of an electorate where there are many vulnerable people—many people on low incomes, many people on benefits and many young people—the fact that we've been able to achieve this while also providing those cohorts with support is incredibly important. That's why I'm so pleased to support this budget. It's a budget which not only provides support but is fiscally responsible. 10:27 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is a pleasure to talk about the budget and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, although it is a tough conversation to have because we need to be realistic and understand that, despite the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and those opposite talking about how Australians have never had it better and about how lucky they are, the reality is the Australian people are struggling through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory. All the data's showing this, whether it's insolvencies being up for small businesses or retail numbers being down. Everything is getting harder for the Australian people. Your bills are up 12 per cent for energy and 10-plus per cent for food. Rents are up by double digits. Everything's going up. Real wages over the two years of this government have gone backwards. The Australian people are struggling every day. They know it every time they put petrol in their car. They know it every time a bill comes in or they go to the supermarket. In the biggest cost-of-living crisis in Australia's history, at a time when families are stretched as never before, what is the solution that this Prime Minister, this government and this Treasurer come up with? Fifteen dollars a week, starting on 1 July. Fifteen dollars a week for the Australian people was their big announcement in February this year, which they've talked about for four or five months, to solve all the problems the Australian people had. They then worked out, after four or five months, that that wasn't enough and that they needed to do more. It took them six months to work this out. So what was the other solution they had to the challenges the Australian people have? Energy bill relief: $75 a quarter for 12 months, or $300 over 12 months. That's the second solution to the challenges the Australian people have that this government has proposed. Could you have a more out-of-touch prime minister, treasurer and government? It shows. The Treasurer is happy in question time to talk with pride about how he's been in 18 budget lock-ups. He thinks it's a good thing that he's been in this place in budget lock-ups for 18 years. The Prime Minister's been here since 1996. Having tenure here is nothing against the Prime Minister, but it shows that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the economics team combined have not spent one day in business. They have not spent one day having to look at their cash flow and work out how they're going to pay their workers. They have not had the challenge of looking at their personal budget and working out how they're going to make ends meet—how they're going to feed their kids and take them to sport—and that makes a difference when people are struggling. When you don't have that understanding, that's when you think $15 a week and $75 a quarter are going to solve the challenges for the Australian people. But it's even worse than that. They're so out of touch. If you're a single mum living in a rental, you'll get $300 from the government. If you're fortunate enough to own and live in five properties, you'll get a $1,500 rebate from this government. So $1,500 of taxpayer money will go to a person that owns and lives in five homes, but, if you're a single mum struggling in one home, you get $300. Yet this government thinks that's fair. They think that's equitable. It's just another example of how out of touch this government is. What they're looking to do—and they're doing it poorly—is to treat the symptoms of the cost-of-living crisis. They're not treating the cause, and the cause of this crisis is inflation. We saw yesterday that the monthly number for inflation has gone up to 3.6 per cent. It's two years into this government's term, and inflation is over a percentage point above the midpoint of the target band. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and those opposite will try to spin it and talk about global factors, but two years in—as the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, said herself—this inflation is homegrown. This inflation is a result of the decisions of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. They're making decisions that make inflation worse. They're also not actively working to bring inflation down. At best, this Treasurer talks about a neutral budget. Economist Warren Hogan said today: Now we are at a point where we are living in hope that inflation will go away, rather than making serious policy decisions to get rid of it. So that's what the Australian people have: a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are crossing their fingers and hoping that inflation will go down, because they don't have any answers to the economic challenges we face. We know they don't have any answers to the national security challenges we face. This is an out-of-touch government that's continuing to make poor decisions and is not prepared to make tough decisions. The sad part—the worst part about this—is that it's the Australian people that suffer. It's the Australian people that are paying the price every week, and you know it. You know it when you go to the supermarket. You know it when you get petrol from the bowser. This Prime Minister when he was the opposition leader had the gall to criticise the then Prime Minister when petrol was at $1.70. It is now consistently over $2 and sometimes as high as $2.30, and you don't hear a word about it from this Prime Minister. That one example sums up the hypocrisy, the lack of authenticity of this Prime Minister. He's happy to talk about petrol and blame the Prime Minister when it's $1.70, but when it's $2.30 a litre and he's in charge and has the ability to make changes there's silence, nothing, because he doesn't have answers to the challenges we face. This Prime Minister is a creature of politics. He loves politics. He loves spin. But politics and spin don't help the Australian people. Let's use that example of the former government and the increase in petrol prices. What did the former government do? They cut the excise in half in a temporary and targeted measure to provide relief to the Australian people. So the Prime Minister is very quick to criticise others, but he doesn't have any solutions to the challenges we face. It's not only on a national level that he's failing many communities. He's failing my community on a localised level as well. Phone communications is one of the most important issues in my electorate. We have a beautiful combination of suburban areas, National Parks and farmland going out into regional areas, but phone communications can be tough. This government in the budget has announced the conclusion of the Mobile Blackspot Program. The budget papers confirm that funding for the Mobile Blackspot Program ceases in 2026-27, with zero dollars allocated for 2027-28. The government has also allocated no funding in the 2027-28 budget for the Better Connectivity Program for regional and rural Australia or the Peri-Urban Mobile Program. These programs were put in place by the former coalition government. This government was happy to use the program to make sure that 80 per cent of funding from the last round went to Labor-held or marginal seats. They were happy to use that round of funding for political needs. But they're now going to cut that program for my community and many other regional and peri-urban communities. Let's understand what we're talking about. It's not an abstract concept. This program delivered phone towers for my community in East Warburton, Steeles Creek, McMahons Creek, Mount Evelyn, Reefton, Menzies Creek and Silvan and two towers in Chum Creek. This is making a difference to our community every day, but also, most importantly, it's a vital lifeline in emergencies. The Yarra Ranges council area that I represent, the electorate of Casey, is one of the most disaster-prone areas in the country, whether it's the Black Saturday bushfires, floods or storms. Disasters and emergencies, unfortunately, are a way of life for our community, but we know that reliable communications are a crucial part of our plan for survival. This government has ripped that funding from our community. They've also ripped funding from the Stronger Communities Program, which has been axed. This is a program that delivers for sporting clubs and for communities all across the Yarra Ranges and electorate of Casey. Over $1 million has been delivered to community groups over eight years to help them do what they need to do across sporting clubs, community groups and CFAs. I have two examples of how important this program is, but this government have decided to cut this program. The Yarra Glen Fire Brigade were able to purchase three new thermal-imaging cameras through this grants program. I had the opportunity to visit Bill Boyd, the captain, and some of the volunteers at the CFA to discuss what the cameras were going to do and the difference they were going to make. These thermal-imaging cameras are going to keep our volunteers safe. They allow them, from well away, to have a look at a dangerous area, to identify the hotspots that can't be seen by the naked eye and to make sure they're prepared to mitigate those circumstances. They also allow them to identify bodies, if required, in some situations. This funding has been ripped from our community by this government. Here is another example. The Kallista Village Market, unfortunately, had to close down during COVID. But a group of volunteers, led by Dr Miki and others, rallied around to get the Kallista township group back up and running and bring the village market back to life, and I had the honour of being there for its reopening. They were able to purchase marquees, audiovisual equipment—microphones, speakers—that they wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise to get the market back up and going. It builds community spirit, it supports small businesses that come to the market to sell their wares, and it brings tourists into Kallista to continue to strengthen that community. This is another community group that won't have access to this program moving forward because of the decisions of this government. This government talk a lot about community, but they just don't understand the regional and rural communities of Casey, of Victoria, of the country. It's a government that continues to make poor decisions at a national level and at a local level. It's a government that is prepared to politicise mobile blackspot towers. Of the towers that the government announced for Victoria in the last round, 100 per cent went to Labor held seats. Eighty per cent of them across the country went to Labor or marginal seats during the last election. The hypocrisy of this government is staggering. As I've said throughout this speech, it is the poor decisions and the weak leadership of this Prime Minister that is leaving the communities of Casey and the communities of Australia abandoned. The government do not have any answers to the challenges we face, and they have left the Australian people abandoned. 10:43 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Budgets are important. Each year when they are handed down the nation waits with interest to see what's in them. They are important because they set the foundations for the future, they address the immediate needs of the nation, they lay out the government's priorities and values and, importantly, they influence medium- and long-term economic outcomes. Let me say that stabilising the economy, ensuring that both the Australian people and Australian businesses have a stable environment in which to operate, is incredibly important in trying to secure our future. Likewise, the opposition's budget response is equally important because, as the alternative government for the nation, the budget reply spells out the priorities and values of the opposition. Labor's 2024-25 budget was responsible, fair and visionary. Importantly, right now, at a time of so much global economic uncertainty, the budget seeks to not only lower interest rates and inflation but also ensure that our employment levels continue to rise and that unemployment remains at the level it currently is. In contrast, the opposition leader's budget response was shallow. It was filled with empty cliches, and was lacking in detail or thoughtfulness. I hear members opposite criticise the Albanese Labor government's 2024-25 budget, but I hear very, very little in the way of detailed alternative strategies for the nation. I hear the general rhetoric that we always hear, as we've just heard from the previous speaker, but I don't hear the detailed response that the Australian people need to understand just what it is that the coalition would do if they were elected at the next election. That is important because this is a country where we value our democracy, and the democracy arises because people want to know the differences between the various parties, what they stand for and what it is that they will do. No government ever has the money to do everything that is needed, but every government has the ability and the responsibility to do the most and the best with what they've got. Global insecurity and climate change—both of which have major consequences for the nation and our world—are matters that individual governments have very limited control over, yet most of the priority matters for people across Australia, which the government seeks to respond to in the 2024-25 budget, have their origins in global insecurity or climate change. Cost-of-living expenses, which, I accept, are causing financial stress for many Australians and which the government's 2024-25 budget responds to, are largely driven by global events. Not surprisingly, cost-of-living support was a priority in Labor's 2024-25 budget with a number of direct and indirect assistance measures. The most significant of these, of course, is the Albanese government's stage 3 tax cuts with every Australian taxpayer—all 13.6 million of them—receiving a tax cut. In the Makin electorate, 90 per cent of income tax payers will get a bigger tax cut than they would have otherwise received from the coalition. Importantly, the 2.9 million taxpayers across Australia who earn between $18,000 and $45,000—and these are some of the people who are struggling the most and who would have received absolutely nothing under the coalition government—will, under Labor, receive a tax cut. This is a government that has a social conscience. The $300 energy relief payment for every household will provide some assistance in paying energy bills around the country, as will the $325 for the one million small businesses that will be eligible for the same relief. The maximum rate of rent assistance will increase by a further 10 per cent on top of the 15 per cent increase that commenced in September last year. There will be a one-year freeze on the maximum co-payment of PBS prescriptions and a five-year freeze for pensioners and other concession card holders. We are continuing the freeze on deeming rates for a further 12 months, and I know that that will directly impact many of those in our older population. We are cutting student debt for around three million Australians, including 19,648 in the Makin electorate, and capping the HELP indexation rate to the lower of CPI or the wage price index. There will also be a new prac payment of $319.50 a week for eligible students. There will be an additional 24,100 home-care packages. As all members who have been here for some time would know, home-care packages matter to families. They make a difference to the lives of the individual families that receive them. We know that, for pretty much the whole time during which the coalition government was in office, this was an area screaming out for more assistance. I still regularly speak to people who have been approved for a home-care package but simply can't get one because they're not available. This additional 24,000 packages will make a huge difference to meeting that need. Of course, there is much more to the 2024-25 budget than cost-of-living relief. An additional $477 million has been allocated to extra support for Australia's 340,000 veterans, 4,860 of whom live in Makin. I want to focus on this for a moment, because I speak with the veteran community in my electorate on a regular basis. So, $220 million of that delivers funding to implement simplified and harmonised veteran compensation legislation, delivering on the first recommendation of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It is a much needed step in responding to defence and veteran suicides. And $186 million will go towards employing another 141 staff, in addition to the 400 or 500 that have already been employed by this government, to make claims processing easier and to fix up the mess and backlog of claims left by the last coalition government. Again, when I speak to veterans, that is one of the most important areas for them, because the frustration that is being relayed back to me about their interaction with the department and the delays and times that they have to wait in order to have their claims processed is really a concern to them. I'm pleased to see that we've not only employed 500 staff to date but are employing another 141 to ensure that those applications are processed in a timely manner. Labor is indeed responding to the voices of our veterans. But, again, it is doing it in a responsible, step-by-step way. The second area I want to focus on is housing, because, again, we often hear the debate about housing both here in this chamber and throughout the community. I do not deny that there is some real housing stress out there in the community, as reported daily by various commentators and in the media. The reality is that both rents and housing costs are increasing, as are interest rates. The fact is that rental and housing costs and interest rates were all on the upward march when Labor was elected in 2022. Coalition members opposite don't ever seem to acknowledge that. The trend was already there—and it was there because of the nine years of neglect in so many areas relating to housing. So, by the time Labor came into office, certainly things continued to rise. I also point out that the largest increase in housing costs in this country occurred in 2021. It wasn't after Labor took office; it was before. From there, housing costs have continued to rise, and I accept that. The most effective way of dealing with the housing crisis is to increase housing supply. There are lots of other good ideas out there, and everybody talks about them and puts them on the table. But the reality is that if we want to stabilise the housing market, if we want to bring down rental prices, we have to increase supply. That is the simplest and most effective way of doing it. To do that, we need to build more houses, and Labor has committed an additional $6.2 billion in this budget, taking our total housing package to $32 billion since we've come to office. The reality is that building houses can't be done overnight either. It's something that will take time—and it will take time because of, again, their neglecting to get the number of tradespeople trained up in this country and because we have to go through the process of getting infrastructure built, allotments carved out and so on where land is available. So $1 billion of the money allocated in the budget will go directly into building the infrastructure that is needed for those new homes and into social housing. To help with the trades shortages, 15,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in construction will be funded, as well as 5,000 pre-apprenticeship places. Again, this is the sort of planning that should have been done years ago. If it had been, we wouldn't have these skills shortages today, and if we didn't have these skills shortages then the prices of tradespeople that people have to bear in the market today would not be exorbitant. But that's where we're at, and we have to deal with the situation we're confronted with. The coalition's simplistic response to Australia's housing crisis is to simply cut migration—and can I say, that is a simplistic response. Even if it was implemented right now, it wouldn't fix the problem, because it is a problem that we are confronted with right here and now, regardless of what might happen into the future with migration. But, nevertheless, that's the really simplistic response we heard from the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply. Managing and reforming Australia's migration system is important, particularly in planning for the future, but closing the borders will not fix the housing demands of today. Moreover, it was under the last coalition government's watch that the Australian population grew by three million whilst nothing was done about housing supply. Australia's population in 2013, when the last coalition government came to office, was 23 million. When they left office in 2022, it was 26 million. That was a three-million-person increase in this country, and that includes the two years or so when, because of COVID, our borders were closed. The reality is that Labor was left to deal with that population increase when it came to office. The last matter I have time to address in my remarks—quite frankly, there are a number of other matters I would have dearly loved to address—is to do with our health services. Again, across the nation, our health services are under stress, and that applies to every state that I get feedback from. Good health services are important for every Australian, and the Albanese government has continued to increase health funding, with another $2.8 billion in this budget, which will strengthen Medicare, make medicines cheaper, expand Medicare urgent-care clinics to an additional 29 sites, index the Medicare rebate on pathology tests, expand mental health services and also fund several women's and Indigenous health programs throughout the country. That's just part of what it will do, but it provides a snapshot of the priorities and values of this government. I'm pleased to see that in Makin, the area I represent, there will be a Medicare urgent-care clinic. This is one of the 29 that will be funded under this budget in addition to the 58 that have already been established. That clinic is important to my electorate because within my electorate is the Modbury Hospital, and the Modbury Hospital outpatients department is under severe stress. It's under stress because people use the hospital because they can't get urgent care at normal GP clinics after hours. So the whole intent of the Medicare urgent-care clinic is to provide that service after hours and, in doing so, take pressure off the Modbury Hospital, which will then be able to deal with, I guess, the more urgent cases that require hospitalisation. I thank Minister Mark Butler and state health minister Chris Picton, who came out to my electorate only last week and made that announcement about the new Medicare urgent-care clinic. In closing, this is a budget that is responsible, it's a budget that's been sensibly thought through, it's a budget that sets out a plan for the future and it's a budget that I believe shows that the responsibility of addressing the nation's economy rests with the government of the day, and that's exactly what this government seeks to do with this budget. 10:58 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina 'Nfp'—does that mean 'not-for-profit'? Well, if you google it and go to the Australian Taxation Office website, that's the first mention, talking about tax concessions and the like for those wanting to set up a not-for-profit. But, unfortunately, when you read Budget Paper No. 2 and turn to page 56, under the heading 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan—continuing delivery', 'nfp' refers to 'not for publication', and it's 'nfp' in 2024-25, 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28. It says 'nfp' in the lines relating to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Next to 'Total payments', there are dashes—dash, dash, dash, dash, dash. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not for publication. Why? If it is so important to the Australian Labor Party and, apparently, to Australian people, why, in Budget Paper No. 2, would the water buybacks be 'nfp'? It is because Labor don't want you, the people of Australia, to know how much they are going to spend on ruining river communities, on destroying those once-vibrant regional towns and cities. I live in the Murray-Darling Basin, and over and over again we see television advertisements paid for by taxpayer money from the department of climate change and others talking about 'our plan to protect, restore and better manage the Murray-Darling Basin for Australia's prosperity—a thriving, sustainable Murray-Darling.' I could go on and on but I won't. Well, that might all be well and good for those bureaucrats—I'll come back to those a little bit later—who sit on their shiny seats in Canberra, who think that our farmers are destroying the welfare of our river system and the livelihoods of those who live in the Murray-Darling Basin. Far from it. Unfortunately, our ministers are being led by the nose all too often by those public servants—we're going to get another 36,000 of them apparently—who very rarely get out of the bright shiny lights of Canberra and that is a shame. So what we end up with is 'NFP' in the budget paper when it refers to water buybacks. That could be code for anything but it is code for spending a whole lot of taxpayers' money on buying water back out of the system, just like earlier this year when we saw $205 million for 26 gigalitres a year. That 26 gigalitres a year is being used by farmers. That 26 gigalitres a year is growing food and fibre to feed and clothe Australians and many others besides. In the budget paper, it's 'NFP', because the government doesn't want our country people knowing how much they're going to spend. It will come with a very, very large cheque book. As soon as people see the Commonwealth waving a very large wad of cash, there will be farmers who will sell their water and those farmers will leave those river communities whether they're in Deniliquin, Griffith or Hillston or Tocumwal; I could go on and on. But they will leave those irrigation and farming districts of the southern Riverina, the Riverina and right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. It will have such an impact upon those communities, because the hairdresser will have fewer customers, the school will have fewer kids, the families will diminish in size, then the teacher numbers will reduce. The state school system will reduce the number of teachers in those classrooms. It will have an effect on the little cafes and coffee shops. It will have an effect right throughout, not just a rippling effect but a tidal wave effect in those smaller communities, and the smaller they are, the least they can afford to lose water out of their system. It's such a shame, but this is a government which shows scant regard for our agricultural communities. Today is a day of shame—it truly is—because today legislation went into the House of Representatives to shut down the live sheep trade. The Nationals, the coalition, sensibly, wanted to send it to a committee for further investigation work to be done, for further research. No, the government didn't want this. They just want to ram this through, like they do everything. No doubt, they will gag the debate. I'm actually pleased that I can speak on the appropriations bills this year, because last year we weren't given that opportunity, because Labor just cut it off. Of course, the coalition is never going to stop the appropriations bills because this is supply. I won't say 'confidence' because there is not too much confidence in the government at this time. But it does provide for Labor to have the opportunity to spend money on the sorts of things that it has a mandate to do. But when that mandate extends to NFP, they are not going to tell us and that is subterfuge. When it extends to $107 million to stop farmers doing what they have done for generations in Western Australia—that is, produce some of the finest sheep in the world and send them via ships, via boats, with the exporter supply chain assurance system in place to ensure that the sheep animal husbandry and welfare standards are first class, world class, internationally best standard. And yet, what we will see now, when we ban the live sheep trade—and we will—is that trade being taken over by countries who do not have the same welfare standards for their sheep. We saw what happened in June 2011 when, as a kneejerk response to a television program on the ABC—haven't they been in a bit of trouble lately!—about the Indonesian cattle trade. That had a marked effect on the cattle sales in Wagga Wagga. Now Wagga Wagga is a long way from where those cattle were, but there was a fear, and markets are run by fear, that so many of those longhorn cattle were then going to come south because there weren't going to be the export markets for them in Indonesia, so goodness knows what will happen when the live sheep trade is phased out. I did Paul Murray Live on Sunday night, and I do thank Sky News for coming to Parkes to promote the very best of what is in that Central West town. After the show, a young farmer pulled me up, bailed me up, in the Railway Hotel and he was vociferous in his criticism of Minister Watt. He was absolutely apoplectic about why the sheep trade was being stopped. He's a young bloke who's starting out, who's starry-eyed and bushy-tailed and looking forward to a career in agriculture. He knows, just like so many people in the Riverina and Central West do because it's a great sheep-producing area, that this decision by Labor will affect the price at the saleyards. Wagga Wagga and Forbes are the top 2 livestock-selling centres in the Southern Hemisphere. They're No. 1 and No. 2 respectively. Sheep, cattle, livestock are big part of our local economy. We don't need to have the sheep price plunge. It was bad enough last November, without being affected by the live export trade, when sheep were selling in Wagga Wagga for a dollar a head because of all sorts of influences and outcomes. We don't need our farmers to work for nothing. None of the public servants here in Canberra would work for nothing, but they're the ones who are making the calls and ministers, being led by the nose, are following them. Just last week, I had the good fortune to have Senator Deb O'Neill in Cowra to talk about the government funding for the swimming pool, which is being replaced at long last. It's been in operation for 60 years and Cowra deserves a new swimming pool—no question. The mayor, Ruth Fagan, was there. She's doing a good job as the new mayor; she's taken over from Bill West. I've got respect for Senator Deb O'Neill, I do, but she had this to say: 'Since coming to government, Labor has made a really big effort to ensure that probity in all the decision-making about how funding is allocated is enlivened by our processes. I was actually part of the panel, which was a multiparty panel, and we had Independents in there and people from all over the country. And while I'm happy to endorse anything of merit that you put forward from Cowra council, I would never be able to assess anything from within New South Wales, so that is the process. I looked at literally hundreds of applications from all around the country and on merit. Those went through an EOI process and into the next phase where'—and this is the important line—'the department made an arm's-length decision about meritorious applications.' The department! What I do find is that so many ministers, and you only have to look at the under-the-pump minister for immigration at the moment—who is running this country? Is it the bureaucrats? Bureaucrats who will never have their name on a ballot paper, who are faceless people. And while I've got respect for the process and I've got respect for public servants—I do. I was the Deputy Prime Minister for more than three years and Secretary Steven Kennedy and Secretary Simon Atkinson did a wonderful job in my portfolio area, as did the public servants under them, including Pip Spence, now the head of CASA. I have every respect for the role that they play, but it's not up to the public servants to run the country. It's the government. We are in a Westminster system. We've got a cabinet process. They shouldn't be, as public servants, deciding where regional funding is spent. The minister should have the final say because it's the minister who takes advice from, in this case, her members and members opposite—members across the aisles. The difficulty with that process is that Labor always carried on a treat about probity et cetera when it came to regional funding, yet all those regional programs—and the member for Bendigo would agree with me here, no doubt; the member for Corangamite would too—no, you will. Trust me. Wait until you hear what I have to say. They are totally oversubscribed. Regional members, you'll get a program worth, let's say, $250 million and you'll get $1½ billion worth of applications. So you can't satisfy everybody. You can't please everybody. Then, of course, it comes down to the question, 'Where are we going to spend the money?' As a minister, I endeavoured to do it in as fair a way as possible. But let me tell you: whilst you took advice from the bureaucrats, they didn't get the final say. The fact that Deb O'Neill couldn't have, wouldn't have or didn't have a say on those projects within New South Wales—because she's a New South Wales senator—I do find extraordinary. I did say I have respect for Deb O'Neill. She's actually a good friend of mine. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, she's a duty senator for Riverina and she was part of that process, member for Bendigo. But I find it extraordinary that we've got the bureaucrats making decisions, allegedly, in the immigration space. We've got bureaucrats making the calls on which regional towns will get funding and which regional towns won't. Then, of course, we come to the communications area, where the shadow minister for communications, David Coleman, stood in the dispatch box just on Tuesday and talked about page 74 of the Auditor-General's report, saying that 'in Victoria 100 per cent of the funds'—this is round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program—'went to marginal seats and 100 per cent of them are in'—wait for it—'Labor electorates'. Who would have thought! Then he was talking about New South Wales, again saying that '100 per cent of the funds allocated went to marginal seats and 100 per cent of those went'—where do you reckon they went?—'to Labor electorates'. This is shameful. That's what the shadow minister for communications said. The government must apologise, and I agree with him. This was totally a missed opportunity by Labor in the budget—a missed opportunity to protect our farmers, to support our farmers and to applaud our farmers for what they do. Why Labor is spending NFP money—that's code for hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back water to stop food production—is beyond belief. Why Labor is shutting out the sheep trade and having $107 million spent on that is appalling. And why Labor isn't addressing the cost-of-living issue, which began on their watch, is nothing short of abrogating their responsibility as a good government, but 'good government' and 'Labor' do not belong in the same sentence. 11:13 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It gives me great pleasure to rise and say a few words about the recent federal budget and not just how it impacts my community but how it impacts all regional communities. When we talk about infrastructure, when we talk about grants and when we talk about funding going to the regions, the one thing that I am very proud of in this budget is that it confirms the Labor government's approach towards transparency and towards ensuring that there is fair and equitable funding distributed across our regions. The one thing that the previous speaker forgot to mention in his rant about when he was minister and how he allocated funding was that, yes, he did make the final call on where a lot of expenditure went but it went to electorates that were National green and Liberal blue. I am a regional MP; I've been the proud federal member for Bendigo for the past ten years. And, in his time as minister, despite meeting, despite lobbying and despite having multiple groups approach him, their applications went in and not one of their projects got funded, because we are considered a red seat. Yet, the moment that Labor came to government and restored some integrity and transparency to the grants process—surprise, surprise!—our electorate did well. I am proud to stand here and say that the City of Greater Bendigo has been successful in receiving about $2 million to transform the Heathcote Civic Precinct. It has been awarded $2 million through the Growing Regions Program. This program was confirmed in the federal budget to continue going forward. Tomorrow, we will have our official announcement and launch of this project, where the city will step out how it will spend that funding in redeveloping and transforming the civic precinct. I'll have the opportunity to sit down with the mums and dads and young kids who are part of the story time which is run through the library. At the moment, it's kind of hidden down the back, and I'm really looking forward to the grant being able to open up that space. Heathcote is one of those towns that's slightly out of Bendigo but is part of the City of Greater Bendigo. And it's had a pretty tough couple of years. Every time we get big rain and then the flooding that occurs in our region, Heathcote gets cut off. So this project will be welcomed. It will really help to restore quite a bit of civic pride. Last week, there was funding through the Growing Regions Program towards the Bendigo Foodshare Food Hub redevelopment. The state government had already contributed $1.4 million; a number of local businesses and not-for-profit organisations had come on board; and now the federal government has come on board with this final funding piece to help to make sure that this project is done properly. Bendigo Foodshare ensures that all of our welfare agencies receive the food that they need to help people who are experiencing food insecurity and food poverty—and, unfortunately, that need is growing. Bendigo Foodshare do a remarkable job. They have a team of 250 volunteers. They are central in ensuring that all of our food-relief agencies, as well as schools and any others who are distribution points, have the food that they need. It was wonderful to walk through the work that has been done—and not just with Bendigo Food Share. I also want to give a shout-out to the architects involved, Y2 Architecture, and also to Fairbrother, who are building this project, on the way in which they've brought businesses on board to see this project become a reality. And I know that this new infrastructure will be welcomed. These are just two of the projects that have received the backing of this government since we've been elected. Community infrastructure is vital to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our growing communities. Bendigo is one of those electorates which, whilst named after a big regional city, is made up of many small towns as well. The Bendigo electorate is a growing area that has a lot of potential and opportunity. We have a growing manufacturing sector, with not just food manufacturing but also advanced manufacturing. Recently, I had the great opportunity to go out and catch up with the team at Hofmann Engineering. Our Bendigo facility is their largest manufacturing facility on the east coast. Most people would know Hofmann because of the work that they do in WA. In my meeting with them, I learned about their journey. They are transitioning from a lot of heavy metal manufacturing for the mining sector, the coal sector, into more renewable energy projects and other projects. And they have that capacity. They have this great story about how they recruit locally and grow their own, working with our schools and our universities to recruit local people to become part of their team. It is great to see how they are modernising and innovating and are recruiting locally. There are some other great announcements that have happened in my electorate recently. I'll tell you of one—a sad story that has become a positive story—and that is the support for our dragons at our Golden Dragon Museum. Many might remember that I've spoken at length in this place about the beautiful history of our Chinese imperial dragons in Bendigo. Loong is the oldest intact processional dragon known to be left in the world. He was at the Federation parade, so he has existed and paraded in Bendigo for longer than this place has existed—for longer than we've had a federal parliament and a Commonwealth of Australia. That is how significant Loong is. Sun Loong, which is the longest imperial dragon, paraded for a good chunk of time in our electorate. It too is a much loved icon of our region. Unfortunately, these two dragons as well as others were damaged recently after vandalism occurred. People from Melbourne came up and attacked a number of cultural and religious institutions and artefacts. I stand here with my community to condemn that vandalism and to say, without any shadow of a doubt, that it is not acceptable for people to drive into a region and just attack religious, community or cultural artefacts. I want to say that we all stand together. We have our multifaith, interfaith council, and whether it is people at the Great Stupa and at the Catholic Cathedral or our veteran community and the graves that were vandalised, this kind of attack is not on. I do want to recognise the leadership of our community in coming together to say, 'This was not us, and we stand together.' We have a big clean-up job to do. The fact that someone could come and attack so many cultural and religiously significant artefacts in our town has shocked people. I really want to acknowledge, out of this horrible moment, the leadership in our community and the people coming together. I want to thank all of those involved. To help with the work that is now going on, our government has announced $100,000 to help restore and repair our dragons. The budget itself is a responsible budget. It is something that really will help people in my region and ease the cost of living. There are tax cuts for every worker in my electorate. There are 66,000 people in Bendigo who will receive a tax cut. The $300 energy rebate for all households will make a real difference to people when they pay their energy bills over the winter and summer. There is an increase to the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance—a further 10 per cent. Just over 6,000 households in Bendigo will benefit from this. We're cutting $3 billion from student debt. There are more than three million Australians with a HECS debts and close to 17,000 in my electorate. I want to acknowledge the people who've spoken to me about this since we announced it and how it will help. These are people who aren't at uni today. These are people my age. These are people in their 30s and 40s who are almost at the end of paying off their HECS debt. They can't believe that they still have a HECS debt because of the nature of our higher education system. I do really welcome a number of the reforms that are in the accord and the changes they will bring going forward. Another big one at that will benefit people in my electorate is the freezing of PBS medication for the next five years for pensioners and concession card holders, including people on a seniors card. This is real cost-of-living relief that will help people. People have spoken to me about the budget since it was handed down during my various listening posts and at community events I've gone to. They recognise that it's responsible—that they could have had a bit more help, but this was measured, and it's the budget that we need at this time. So I really do want to recognise how the Treasurer has found the right balance in this budget. We are helping where we can, knowing that there's more that we could do, but not wanting to put that pressure on the Reserve Bank around interest rates. I want to commend the budget, and I encourage all those in this place to think about the change that it will make in our communities. 11:23 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane A federal budget is a chance for us to see what the government wants to prioritise, what it sees as the future of the country and what it thinks we can do without. This one sums up pretty well this Labor government and, honestly, politics in Australia more broadly. It's a story of tinkering around the edges. It's a story of talking a big game. It's a story of not doing anything to challenge the megawealthy and powerful in this country while desperately trying to get everyone else to believe that our current economic system is working well for them. Let's break a few things down. We've got a $300 power rebate—nice!—but it's not going to actually solve the long-term issues of price hikes due to mass privatisation and price gouging. We need publicly owned renewable energy where power can be sold cheaply to consumers if we are to have any hope of getting power bills under control. After immense pressure from the community and from the Greens, we have a change to how student loans are indexed. It's still going to leave people with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt when what we need to do is follow the lead of countless other countries around the world by wiping all student debt and making uni free once again. There's over $350 billion for AUKUS while we get massive cuts to the NDIS. There's just shy of $15 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The 10 Year National Action Plan for LGBTIQA+ Health and Wellbeing has precisely zero dollars allocated to it. There's a $1.30-per-day increase for someone on rent assistance, when average rents have gone up $46 a week and when we should be seeing caps on rent increases and massive winding back of negative gearing. This budget is bandaid solutions—tinkering around the edges—and it refuses to address the systemic causes of the massive social and economic issues we are all facing in this country. What we need is bold, progressive reform. That looks like having no new coal and gas, fully funding our state schools, getting dental and mental health into Medicare, having publicly owned renewable energy, taxing billionaires and big corporations properly, creating a public developer to build thousands of new homes and funding frontline services, just to name a few. These changes would not only drastically help people with the cost of living but also improve people's mental health and our environment at the same time. We are at a unique point in our country's history. People's faith in government is falling, poverty is still so high, and young people are losing any hope for a positive future. People from across Australia, particularly young people, are looking for a fresh start. They want a new social contract, a new deal. It is our responsibility to offer them one. We have a chance with every budget to right the wrongs of inequality, of poverty and of environmental degradation, and it's about time we actually do it. 11:26 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Labor's 2024-25 budget is delivering for Australians. From cost-of-living relief to women's health and renewable energy, it's all in the budget. It's also a budget that delivers for my community in Canberra, and that's something that we have not seen for a decade, because the previous government did not treat our community with the respect that it deserved or invest in the things that are important, either for our community and the challenges and opportunities we face in the way that all communities do or for our city as a national capital of our nation belonging to all Australians. Just this week, I've had the great pleasure of hosting three ministerial visits in my electorate relating to budget announcements, with the Minister for Small Business, with the Minister for Education and this morning with the Minister for Early Childhood Education. I want to talk more about those later in my speech. Our government is committed to supporting Australians through the tough time they are facing at the moment. We are actively working to make things fairer and more equitable. Our biggest priority is to ease cost-of-living pressures, and this budget is doing just that while also setting Australia up for the future. Australians are doing it tough right now. We've had a difficult 10 years under a coalition government, which ended with a global pandemic. Across the world, economies are still struggling to know how to deal with the fallout from 2020. But our government is taking charge, and we are ensuring that all Australians experience cost-of-living relief through our policies. From 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut—every single one. That's 13.6 million people around the country. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. In my electorate of Canberra, 78,000 people will receive a tax cut. We are also delivering $300 of energy bill relief for every household, meaning 10 million households across the country will receive a $300 rebate on their energy bills. Our government is also committed to helping one million Australians with the cost of rent by increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent and building on the increase we delivered in last year's budget. We're also providing more social housing, cheaper medicines and improved housing conditions for remote Indigenous communities. This is building on our commitments from previous budgets for cheaper child care, creating jobs and getting wages moving again. This is a budget that delivers for young people, including those studying at university or TAFE. Yesterday, it was my great pleasure to join the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, at the University of Canberra, in their Clinical Education and Research Centre, to meet with nursing students about the changes to university prac placements. I want to thank Deputy Vice-Chancellor Michelle Lincoln and her team, and the nursing students Brandon, Anna and Xanthe, who we met yesterday, for having us. In the budget, the Treasurer announced that the Commonwealth would be establishing a new prac payment from July next year. As we all know, practical placements are a compulsory and necessary part of many degree programs. They provide vital experience and training in a student's chosen field, preparing them for their future career. But almost always these pracs are unpaid. This means that students have been expected to turn up to their prac, often full time, and essentially work for free, with no or limited time to work outside of that. This has been a huge barrier to many, even those who are just beginning degrees that they would like to undertake. These placements are for some of the most critically important careers in our community and economy. I'm talking about nursing, midwifery, social work and teaching. These are the areas that will benefit from this new payment. I remember when I was at university how difficult it was for people needing to go away to a placement in another town or city to balance paying the rent for their current accommodation and their accommodation while they were away. This was also while they were trying to get leave, although most were casual and couldn't take leave from the jobs they were using to support themselves while studying. So this payment is about supporting those students to continue with these really important degrees that they are doing. It was great to talk about this yesterday at the University of Canberra, which is a key training institution in our region for nurses, teachers and social work students. It was great to talk particularly to the nursing students there about their experiences and how this payment would assist people. But this new payment isn't all we're doing in higher education. The government is also reforming the HECS system. We've all heard from students in our electorates about their legitimate concerns regarding their HECS debts. I understand their concern. HECS debts today are significantly larger than what they were when I studied at uni. Last year, the indexation that was made in line with the consumer price index was really difficult for people. Many saw the debt they'd paid off over the previous year reappear. It wasn't fair. So we've taken the decision to wipe $3 billion off Australians' HECS debts. In my electorate of Canberra this will impact approximately 22,670 students. We've also changed how indexation works so that each year HECS debts will be indexed at the lower of the CPI or the wage price index. This morning, I had the great pleasure of visiting Goodstart Garran and Assunta and the team there. I have visited this centre many times, but this time I was joined by the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Dr Anne Aly, to talk with the educators there about the work that they do and of course to chat to lots of the children who were starting their day there. As a mother who currently has one child in early childhood education and another who has been through early childhood education and is now at school, it really is humbling to see the work that the early childhood educators do every day to care for and educate our children and how much this means to families and our community more broadly. This work requires great dedication, skill and patience. It's a really special person that is able to do that job. Most of them that I have spoken to are so passionate and committed to what they do, so it's well beyond time that they received more recognition and better pay for what they do. I was really proud that our budget also included a commitment to increase the wages of early childhood educators. It was great to talk about that this morning with the team at Garran Goodstart and also with Ros Baxter, the CEO of Goodstart Australia. The government is investing in Australian skills. In Canberra, we're establishing the nation's first ever TAFE centre of excellence, right here at the CIT in Fyshwick. There was already a nation-leading electric vehicle training hub there, but for Canberra to host the very first of the national TAFE centres of excellence is, again, something I cannot imagine would have happened under the previous government and something that is great for not just our city but the region and even nationally. We've had students coming here to acquire those really important skills as we move towards having more electric vehicles on the road and needing the skills to look after those vehicles. This is a total investment of $24.1 million into Canberra which includes not only funding from the ACT government but also, I believe, around $18 million from the federal government to get that up and running. Canberra has one of the highest take-ups of electric vehicles, so that's particularly relevant to our city. The 2024 budget also delivers for small business. It was fantastic on Monday to join the Minister for Small Business, Julie Collins, to visit the Scott Leggo Gallery in Kingston, one of Canberra's most loved small businesses. It's run by my constituents, Scott and Philippa Leggo. People might be familiar with Scott's magnificent, beautiful landscape photography, which captures not just our city but the nation. You can go there to get a magnificent piece for your wall or smaller gifts, even jigsaws. It's a really great business. It was wonderful to have the minister with me there on Monday to talk to them not only about the pressures they are facing but also about the energy rebate that we're delivering for small business. This is a $325 payment for small businesses to help with their energy costs and it's expected that it will go to 18,000 small businesses across the ACT. It's part of $640 million of targeted support to small businesses in the budget. We're also extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business across the country so they can invest in what they need to make their businesses thrive. I want to take a moment to talk about the Canberra business community because this is another thing that many people in this place take for granted. We are nation's capital and we house the nation's Public Service, but our business community punches above its weight in terms of innovation. No-one is more passionate about Canberra than our small business community. It really is the small businesses that make Canberra such a wonderful place not only to live but also to visit and they give our city its vibrancy. I'm proud that our government is supporting small businesses in Canberra and around the country. This is a budget that delivers for Australian women. We're putting women and gender equality at the centre of our economic plan. We want to make women's lives safer, fairer and more equal. When you have more diverse voices, you get better outcomes and that's what this budget delivers. The Albanese government is the first federal government in the nation's history with a majority of women. You can see that in the issues that we talk about and the perspectives that we bring. In the 2024 budget we're bringing the total amount of funding to support women's safety and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children to over $3.4 billion since our government was elected. This includes $925 million over five years for the permanent Leaving Violence Program to deliver financial support for victim-survivors leaving a violent intimate partner relationship, as well as support services for up to 12 weeks. It includes $44 million in the next financial year to support the national legal assistance partnership and family violence prevention legal services, including additional funding to address community legal sector pay disparity. We know gender based and sexual violence is an issue on university campuses. To help stop this violence, our government will deliver $19.4 million over two years to establish a national student ombudsman to help to eradicate gender based violence from universities, and $18.7 million over four years to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. We have also committed $9.6 million over five years to further support informed policy advice to government to end gender based violence. This includes $4.3 million to further build the evidence base on pathways into and out of perpetration of domestic and sexual violence, and $1.3 million for a rapid review of targeted prevention approaches to violence against women. We're also delivering $160 million for women's health. Thousands of women around Australia are dealing with complex gynaecological conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis. Our government is committing $49 million to introduce longer consultations for these conditions on Medicare. I also just want to take this opportunity to congratulate the assistant minister for health on the wonderful work she has been doing in this area. Her consultations with women around the country about their experiences in the health system have really opened—what should I say?—a can of worms with women expressing the challenges that they have had in order to be taken seriously and to be diagnosed. It is really shining a light on these issues of which I think I can say all women have had some experience to varying degrees in the health system. The outcome is, of course, commitments like this, to delivering better for women and their health. We're also committing $5.5 million for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to develop a dataset on sexual and reproductive health and $1 million over two years for a miscarriage data scoping study. I'm running out of time. So which excellent measures should I talk about in the time remaining? I do want to talk about—as I've said, this is a budget for Canberra. But a particularly fantastic announcement for Canberra was $250 million of funding for the Australian Institute of Sport. This is a really important national institution where our athletes train. It was a world leading institution in the way that it brought together multidisciplinary approaches to sport and athletes all in one place. It has been neglected for too long, so I was really proud to join the Prime Minister, the Minister for Sport and my ACT Labor representative colleagues at the AIS to announce that much-needed funding, our government having already committed that the AIS would indeed remain in the nation's capital and have that significance as a national institution. It's also wonderful that the government has announced further investment into stage 2B of a light rail to Woden and an investment in the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, things that we would never have seen under the previous government. I'm very proud of the budget and that it's a budget that delivers for all Australians, including in Canberra. 11:42 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My mother was a World War II widow. Her husband, Jack Leonard, was killed in Papua New Guinea in 1943. My sisters never knew their father. My family has lived with this sacrifice and loss all our lives. Jack was one of the over 103,000 Australians who've made that ultimate sacrifice—those who have lost their lives, when Australia has supported our allies in times of conflict, address and attempted oppression. Our service men and women also fought and died so that Australians can be free, tolerant and live in peace in one of the world's greatest democracies—one that believes in the rule of law, in which we have the right to religious freedom. The deeds of those men and women helped define who we are as a nation, and it is a nation worth defending. Equally, we have to continue to defend our values and way of life to continue to be worthy of the sacrifice made by those who have given their lives and their families. However, I believe that every one of those 103,000 who fought and died in conflict would be as ashamed as I am and disgusted, not only with the divisive growth in antisemitism in Australia but also with the Prime Minister and Labor government's weakness and lack of leadership in dealing with this crisis that has allowed antisemitism to fester and grow in our communities. The Prime Minister has totally failed to provide the moral and political leadership against those who are actively inciting hatred and violence in Australia. How appalling is it that Jewish people living in Australia have never felt and never been as vulnerable, targeted and intimidated as they are right now? The hate preachers who've been allowed to get away with openly inciting antisemitism; the 'Jew, die' graffiti on a school; the repeated use of antisemitic chants 'from the river to the sea' and 'Intifada', deeply antisemitic terms not called out by the Prime Minister—Peter Dutton is right when he said antisemitism is not just a threat to one segment of our community; it's a threat to Australia's social cohesion and our democratic values. It is appalling that some of the worst antisemitic and hateful intimidation activists are coming from our university campuses, with the tacit support of weak university leaders or worse, Sydney University's Mark Scott openly rewarding antisemitic hate and vilification. Peter Cosgrove got it right recently when he said, 'Hitler would be proud.' After all, that's how bad antisemitism is in Australia. Anybody who is in any doubt needs to take a walk in a Jewish person's shoes. How much longer will Jewish students have to fear for their safety at universities? Again, we've seen nothing but weakness from the Prime Minister on this. The coalition government will cancel the visas of any student protesters involved in spreading antisemitism or supporting terrorism. We will not tolerate racism, antisemitism or public support for Hamas or terrorist organisations. I am deeply and profoundly ashamed that the Labor government chose, by default, to reward the designated terrorist group Hamas for its barbarous attacks on 7 October by voting for a resolution at the UN granting a unique form of UN membership to the State of Palestine. I was equally ashamed when the NSW Police simply watched the antisemitic protest at the Opera House. However, it pales beside this UN pro-Hamas and anti-Israel decision by the government. It's a decision that ignores the wisdom of Bob Hawke who said, 'If the bell tolls for Israel, it tolls for all mankind.' Labor has totally trashed Australia's historic bipartisan support for Israel—the only liberal democratic country in the Middle East—and Labor's UN decision does not facilitate a two-state solution. As I said, it is a morally bankrupt decision, further compounding the grief and vulnerability of Jewish Australians, whom the Prime Minister has let down. It's a decision that has, by default, rewarded Hamas for those appalling atrocities and the barbarity committed on 7 October—the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust: the utterly barbaric rape, mutilation, torture and murder of 1,200 mostly civilian women, men, children and babies, and the kidnapping of 250 hostages, 130 of whom are still in captivity or dead. Hamas has made it very clear that it will continue these attacks to annihilate the Jews and repeat those same 7 October attacks. There is absolutely no equivalence between Israel, which is a democratic country, and Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organisation. Israel does have the right to defend itself, but Labor's decision to, by default, support Hamas through the UN vote has undoubtedly severely increased the vulnerability and fears of Jewish Australians. The decision rewards and incites terrorist activity and rewards bullies. I've got no doubt it emboldened campus activists and other activists. It also completely betrayed our traditional allies, the US and the UK—relationships that are going to become even more important in the years ahead. Make no mistake: the Labor government voted against Israel but voted with Russia, China and Iran. That's a shameful and disgraceful decision and one that ignores our history of fighting for democracy, fighting for Australian values and fighting for what is right. It sends a dreadful message that the Labor government stands with those who use violence and intimidation to achieve their goals—certainly not in Australia's national interest or what Australians fought and died for. Australia's Prime Minister compounded this weakness by refusing to comment on the ICC proposal—weak and, again, totally out of step with our allies. The US unequivocally rejected the ICC's application, reinforcing the strong message that there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. I originally thought that the Prime Minister's weakness exposed him as a commentator and not a decision-maker, but I see now that, on the lack of response to the ICC, not only is he not a decision-maker and not a commentator but he is a spectator, and one who has set Australia on a divisive and destructive path not only with Hamas and antisemitism but also in total failure to stand up for Australia and our defence forces with China—weakness yet again, where he has given in to China's pressure. If you do that, they will simply take another step forward. That 'handsome boy' comment was not a compliment. It showed contempt and a lack of respect for a weak prime minister who failed to stand up for our Royal Australian Navy, HMAS Toowoomba and its divers over the deliberate sonar attacks. He failed to raise this directly with Xi Jinping when he had the opportunity. This is a prime minister who continues to demonstrate weakness with China, with not enough courage to directly raise the tough issues, which is what a prime minister should be doing on behalf of this nation. But this weak response further emboldened China to show its contempt for Australia and take another step forward with the dangerous and provocative intimidation from the PLA's jet firing flares at a Royal Australian Navy Seahawk. It put the lives of our RAN members at direct risk. They could have been killed. When will Australia's Prime Minister actually stand up for our ADF and for all Australians? As I understand it, no Labor minister at all has spoken directly to their Chinese counterpart about this incident. So Prime Minister, I've got a question. Would you have supported that UN vote that has by default rewarded Hamas? If the 1,200 women, children, men and babies who were barbarically tortured and murdered on 7 October, the 250 kidnapped by Hamas and the 130 still held hostage or dead were actually Australians—they're people no different to us, and we normally stand up for those in these circumstances—would you still be that cowardly commentator and a weak spectator, rewarding a registered terrorist organisation responsible for the atrocities with a UN vote? If it were Australians on 7 October, how would your government have responded to other countries telling Australia to show restraint in its response? I can tell you exactly what Australians would be demanding of us if the victims and hostages were Australians attacked on Australian soil. Prime Minister, historically and as we see currently, there are—nationally, globally—critical decisions that need to be made by the government of the day. They are decisions that are far more important than and far outweigh the politics of the day or an upcoming election—where Australia needs strong, capable leadership that makes decisions in the national interest, in Australia's interests, as well as in the interests of our allies. Prime Minister, it is your duty to act in Australia's national interest, to have the courage and conviction to stand up against political interests and pressures from within your own party and put the national interest first. It is the job of a true statesman. That is the tough job of a prime minister. On this count, Prime Minister, you've failed this nation, and your decision to support, by default, Hamas, China, Iran and Russia at the UN and failure to be strong in controlling the rampant rise of aggressive and escalating anti-Semitism in Australia is an egregious and unforgiveable failure. Talking about the problem does not fix the problem. Let's not forget that Australia and Israel are historic allies. Remember the extraordinary efforts of our Australian light horsemen at the Battle of Beersheba. Never forget that the legacy of the Battle of Beersheba by the Australian Light Horse Brigade was an Australian led victory that helped, in part, to return Israel to the Jewish people. I know what my mother's husband, Jack Leonard, and his World War II mates who fought and died for Australia would say about Labor's vote at the UN and the appalling failure to act on anti-Semitism. I know exactly what my mother would be thinking and feeling if she were alive. I know personally what my one living sister thinks right now: this is not the Australia my father died for. What we have now is definitely not the Australia that these men and women gave their lives for. I had the honour of laying a wreath at Tyne Cot on behalf of our service men and women. I also saw the cemetery at Polygon Wood. And I met the oldest Menin Gate bugler and thanked him most profoundly for the fact that they have played 'The Last Post' over 30,000 times. They're all volunteers. I looked at those 55,000 names on that bridge, and I thanked him for playing 'The Last Post' and for all his people. He was one of the oldest ones surviving. He said: 'You listen to me. At the time, it was like genocide when the Germans were rolling across this country. What we know here is that all we are and all we have is because of your Australians' blood on our soil.' That freedom and that right is what Australians should be continuing to fight for. 11:55 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor As the member for Lalor, there is no prouder moment than when standing to deliver a speech supporting our budget, the third budget of the Albanese Labor government, at a time when we know Australians are doing it tough. I know that in my community people are under mortgage stress and renters are struggling to find the funds to pay their rents. The children I talk to when I visit schools are relaying those things to me in our question-and-answer sessions. I've been the member for Lalor for 10 years. In the last few months when I've been to schools to talk about civics and citizenship, and it's come to questions and answers, there have been lots of young people talking to me about families that they know that have had some time being homeless. Young people are asking questions about inflation. I know how deep this goes, because I'm hearing it from primary-school-age children. That's why I'm so proud of this budget. It's a budget that prioritises easing cost-of-living pressures and it's been designed to help every Australian, not just some. It is a Labor budget through and through. It's a budget to support those doing it tough and to build the industries needed to power Australia into the future. As part of this budget, we are delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer in Lalor and giving every household in Australia a $300 energy rebate. We're wiping $3 billion in student debt and fixing the indexation issues around HECS. We're investing in new bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics in other communities; we already have one in Lalor. We're making medicines cheaper for people in Lalor. We're delivering the first back-to-back increase in rent assistance in more than 30 years, and I know what that means to some of the families in Lalor. It delivers for women. This budget delivers for workers, for young people, for families and for small businesses. It's a budget for everyone, coming off the back of two years of work to get wages moving and get inflation down. Those are the priorities of this Labor government. It's a responsible budget. The focus is on relieving financial stress—for families, workers and people across the country—without increasing inflation. The government is providing $3.5 billion in energy relief for all Australian households and one million eligible small businesses. We know that relief needs to be provided where it matters. From 1 July, more than 10 million households will receive a total rebate of $300 and eligible small businesses will receive $325 off their electricity bills throughout the year. One of the other headlines of this budget obviously is the relief for university students and for those who have studied. Our government's budget is making HECS-HELP fairer by capping the HELP indexation rate to the lower of either the consumer price index—the CPI—or the wage price index. This will be backdated to June 2023, meaning that those with a HELP debt will receive a credit. It will also ensure that HELP debts never grow faster than wages again. The government will cut $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. It's an issue that's important in my electorate. Lalor is home to one of the youngest demographics in the country, and this change will support 19,500 people who have a HELP debt in the community I represent. Another key issue for the people of Lalor that this budget helps with is the cost of medicines. We're investing $4 billion to deliver cheaper medicines to ease pressure on household budgets by freezing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment and adding more medicines to the PBS. Across Lalor, residents have already saved $2 million thanks to the Albanese government's commitment to delivering cheaper medicines. Those in our community who access PBS medicines are set to save even more following our freeze on the maximum cost to PBS medicines. We're also ensuring that pensioner and concession cardholders in Lalor won't pay more than $7.70 for their PBS medications for the next five years. That is a great comfort to those who are filling more than one script often. The actions taken by this government are again supported in this budget, delivering cheaper medicines for people across the community that I represent. In the area of health, one of the things I'm proudest of has been our government's work in making Medicare more available to Australians, and we've done that by tripling the bulk-billing incentive. I know, for Deputy Speaker Chesters's electorate, how important this has been in the area of Bendigo. Equally, it has been important in Lalor. We've strengthened the distribution priority area through recognising 700 areas with either full or partial DPA status, including Wyndham. This has been a game changer, because under those opposite we lost 30 per cent of our GPs when we lost our DPA status. This government has restored our DPA status, and those GP clinics are attracting doctors and assisting to train doctors and get them qualified in our community. It's absolutely critical, and I'm really proud it's something that this government has done. It means more skilled doctors are able to take their experience to benefit the lives of those living in regional, rural and remote Australia or, as in our case, in the outer suburbs in the growth corridors. Residents in Lalor have continued to reap the benefits of our government's investments and will continue to do so through this budget, with an additional 2,000 bulk-billed visits to the GPs in Lalor since November 2023. Our community will continue to access bulk-billed walk-in urgent care from the Werribee Medicare urgent care clinic, which, of course, was established when we came to office. Sixty-three thousand residents in Lalor accessed 168,000 pathology services last year, and the number of people accessing these services is significant. We are making sure that pathology tests remain bulk-billed by indexing the Medicare rebates for common medical tests—something that I know is important to locals. But the big news in this budget and something that I am really proud of is that in the city of Wyndham, which is home to the electorate of Lalor—where our community has for too long had to travel to Geelong or the city to access a Medicare rebated MRI or fork out hundreds of dollars from their own pockets—this Labor government has fixed that issue. Unlike the previous government, who continued to give more Medicare rebated licences to Geelong and ignore the west of Melbourne, this Labor government has made a commitment to provide four Medicare rebated MRI licences in the city of Wyndham, the first of which will come online in the coming months. This is a game changer for our local community. I know because I have been at our hospital, and, at one point during the time that those opposite were in government, I watched people be put into patient transport inside our hospital and be taken across the road to get an MRI and then have the privilege of paying $500 for that service, not for the transport but for the MRI, because it wasn't a Medicare rebated MRI licence. Now we will have four. That is a game changer for so many locals. One of the things I'm proudest of in this budget is the announcement around the increase again for fee-free TAFE. This is an absolutely critical part of the Labor government's priorities, and the impact it has in my electorate can't be understated. We're investing $88 million to deliver an additional 20,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, including 5,000 pre-apprenticeships, that will be for construction and housing. In an area like mine, where we build houses—it's what we do every day—this is critical. I know how many small businesses will be welcoming that news. It means that they can take on apprentices and that those apprentices will be able to afford this process. It's going to be a game changer for so many small businesses in my electorate. That, of course, is on top of the work that we've already done in the fee-free TAFE space across the last two years, with hundreds of thousands of people getting training, accessing training and joining our workforce. This budget is about priorities, but the most important thing about this budget is that it steps out what we will be doing in terms of investing in a future made in Australia. Budgets are about priorities, and this budget really tells Australia what this government is about. We're about ensuring that the good jobs of the future are created here in this country; that we become more than a quarry and a farm; and that, where we have resources, we are value-adding to those resources and ensuring that we have the skilled workforce we need to get these jobs done. Just as we are creating another 20,000 fee-free TAFE places and apprenticeships in the housing industry so that we can build the 1.2 million homes that we know we need across the next 10 years to ensure that our young people and other people can afford houses, we need to invest wisely in the Future Made in Australia so that we can position ourselves to gain the benefit of the opportunities of the decades ahead. There's a $22.7 billion plan for a Future Made in Australia. It will help us to be an indispensable part of the global economy as we shift to renewable energy. It will help us attract investment, make our country a renewable energy superpower, value-add to our resources and increase economic security. It backs Australian ideas, innovation and science. It invests in our people and our places, particularly our regions. It's thoughtful. It's a policy that will drive us for the next decade. This budget demonstrates a responsible Labor government doing what needs to be done to support families, communities and workers right now on the ground but with an eye on the future, ensuring that as a country we are making the most of the opportunities presented to us and the opportunities that we have already in this great country. 12:07 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Prior to the last election, Prime Minister Albanese promised that mortgages would be lower and energy bills would be reduced by $275. In fact, everything was supposed to get easy. Can I say that in my electorate of La Trobe it's tough. It is really tough. Families are doing it tough, especially in the growth corridor that includes areas like Clyde North, Pakenham and Officer, where we're having all of these new houses built. The average mortgage has gone up an incredible $35,000 in one year, so people have to come up somehow with $35,000, and it is super tough. I can't see things, sadly, improving in the near future. When it comes to inflation, which is what's causing the rise in interest rates, Australia's inflation is worse than that of the US, Singapore, Germany, Spain, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, South Korea, Canada, France and the entire euro area. What makes it worse is Labor's weak economic management, including an extra $315 billion in spending, a 5.4 per cent fall in productivity and their renewables-only emergency policies. Under Labor, prices have increased by 10 per cent for many essential items. Housing is up 12 per cent, rent is up 12 per cent and insurance is up a massive 26 per cent. Can I just say how difficult that is, especially for small business. I'm hearing this all the time. I was speaking the other day to a gentleman, one of my Indian friends, Nav, who owns Star Motorworks, and he was saying his business has been broken into twice over the weekend. On one occasion, I think, $60,000 worth of items were stolen. He said it's happening in the whole area. You can imagine what that means when it comes to getting insurance renewed. Premiums rise, and it's just going to get worse and worse. Electricity is up 18 per cent when it was supposed to come down, as Prime Minister Albanese announced on, I think, 85 occasions when he was opposition leader. Gas is up 25 per cent. When it comes to rents, why are rents increasing? When you look at immigration, Labor's making the housing crisis much worse by bringing in 1.67 million migrants over five years. In terms of the houses being constructed at the moment, there's only one premises being built for every five migrants coming in. So, again, in my electorate of La Trobe, it's making it exceptionally difficult. When I went down to Casey Hospital and spoke to the nurses there, I asked them how are they were going bringing in overseas nurses. They said that that was not the big issue; it was actually trying to find accommodation for them. I know some migration agents were kind of excited when Labor first came to power. Under Home Affairs and the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, all these education visas were being quickly approved. They thought it was fantastic. They said, 'These are all being approved.' The same migration agents are now saying to me, 'It's a horror show.' The reason is that, out of the roughly 2,400 migration agents and certified lawyers—when I was assistant minister in the Home Affairs portfolio I looked after the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, whose job it is to look after registered migration agents—700 notices have gone out to migration agents and lawyers in cases where someone has maybe applied for a humanitarian visa or it's been found that a student visa was issued based on false documentation. What they've found out, in hindsight, is that when the Liberals and the coalition were in government the checks and balances would have been done before the person arrived to make sure that there was no false documentation. Now the onus has been reversed to put it on the education agent and the migration agents to have done the checks beforehand. So we've now got over 700 of these notices being served. And, if you look now, Labor has banned students from certain states in India from making applications. The states are Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Kashmir, to name a few. Can I say that the Indian community is outraged by this. Now, when things are tough, we have $172 million being spent on advertising campaigns—stage 3 tax cuts, the ute tax. People would have seen them at bus stops, on the radio and on YouTube. This is on top of the $450 million that was wasted on the failed referendum. What really annoys me is this: in the 2022 budget, the Albanese government cut $50 million from the safer communities program for high-risk youth. This was a program we put in place under the previous government. My background is in the police force, and I got to see troubled youth. Those kids, who find it really tough to stay at school, are all around the country. Under this program that we put in place, grassroots organisations and groups could apply for funding of up to $1.5 million over three years. It really helped. There were three criteria: firstly, to keep kids in school; secondly, if they'd left school, to find them education or training to get a job; and, thirdly, if they're in youth detention, to have a mentoring program before they came out to make sure that they didn't go back to gangs et cetera. It was a ripper program. One hundred and thirty-three applicants were funded. Sadly, the program has been cut for all of these organisations right around the country. Parents of youngsters who had been going down the wrong path in life and who had been receiving very special support from youth workers or being kept at school with teachers are devastated. I remember Les Twentyman's program. Sadly, Les passed away this year. Les appeared before the inquiry I chaired that resulted in the report No one teaches you to become an Australian. Les said, if you want to make a difference for youth, put money into youth workers. I think that 30 per cent of applicants to the program were from Indigenous communities. So all of that has been scrapped. Like I said, we have money being spent on an advertising campaign, $172 million, to tell us why the stage 3 tax cuts are good and why the zero tax plan is good and we're cutting $50 million from helping our youth. Where are the government's priorities? In La Trobe we had the Officer train station car park cancelled—$15 million. That's gone. Sadly, $650,000 had already been spent on the design and planning of that car park. The Narre Warren car park in the seat of Bruce, $15 million, was scrapped in 2022. Narre Warren is a very fast-growing area in the seat of Bruce. I congratulate our candidate, Zahid Safi, an Afghan. He's a great guy and he's been out and about. He couldn't believe it when I told him, 'You know what, there's supposed to be a car park going here and it's been cancelled.' It's just a shame. I caught the train for 17 years when I was in the police force. You just want to get to the train station, park your car and get on the train. Down in Narre Warren, they have to drive everywhere; it's an absolute crying shame. Then we had Wellington Road upgrade and, again, $110 million was ripped out of the budget in 2022. I acknowledge the member for Casey. Wellington Road is a very dangerous road. As a former police officer, I looked at the statistics and, sadly, there have been 72 serious collisions in the last five years. I've had people send me emails when family members have tragically died on that road. It is a dangerous road. The ridiculous situation was that I went to three councils—Casey Council, Yarra Ranges Council and Cardinia Shire Council—to get an estimate of how much it would cost to duplicate this road from Glenfern Road right up to Clematis, about 25 to 30 kilometres. I don't think there are many telephone poles around there. There are no gutters. They said the top estimate would be $220 million, so we decided to go halves with $110 million. Then the state Labor government came along and said, 'No, it's actually going to be $900 million.' That was an insane price increase, so that was scrapped. One of the points about Wellington Road is we had the Ash Wednesday bushfires back in 1981. Cockatoo was devastated in those bushfires. Lives were lost. Wellington road is the main escape route there and it is still a single road. We haven't had major fires up in the Dandenong for many years. We had the Bunyip Road fire a number of years ago which wasn't too bad and we were very fortunate with the Black Saturday bushfires. I know that the member for Casey raised this with the CFA when it was pointed out to him. If there is a fire there and trees fall over the road and the road is blocked, you've got gutters on the side which are sometimes a metre deep where people can get trapped. If there's a fire there, many lives will be lost. So it's not only a dangerous road when it comes to traffic but also a very dangerous road when it comes to bushfires. The Sealing the Hills project was $300 million to Yarra Ranges Council and Cardinia Council. Can I say how unfair it is that people are living in the Dandenong Ranges on dirt roads and, if there's a fire there, some of guttering on the side could be a metre deep. We started that program in partnership with the councils and also a local residents payment scheme. That program was going to seal 164 roads in La Trobe. It was already under way. It was doing great. What happened? Again, Labor came in, scrapped the funding and are now putting it to Daniel Andrews' rail project, which I think is going to cost $200 million. It's an absolute crying shame. A project which did survive was the Clyde Road upgrade, an extra lane from the train line to across the Monash freeway. Again, I've got the estimates from Casey Council. It was going to cost $70 million to build. Then state Labor came back and said, 'No it will be $250 million.' We then had a review for 18 months. I have no idea why the transport minister, the member for Ballarat, put this in place. All of the workers left, everything stopped, but I was hearing they were still getting paid. That road project is now in the vicinity of $250 million. The same happened with the Pakenham Road upgrades from McGregor Road and Racecourse Road. So all the workers went off again, I think for another 18 months. They're all back there again; I see the CFMEU flags up there. But, again, local council estimated that project to be $70 million, and it blew out to $400 million. So it's really tough out there for residents in La Trobe and right across the country. I've been to many budget speeches, in both government and opposition, and I can say that you could tell it wasn't a good budget when the Labor staff members came into the gallery. It was very subdued, because they knew it was not hitting the mark at all. Looking at the response by opposition leader Peter Dutton, people are agreeing that we need change. And I hear Labor member agreeing, too, and I thank you for that. We need change, and it has to come quickly. Bring this election on. 12:20 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide It's a great pleasure to be here to speak on our Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, and I do so because I feel very proud to belong to a Labor government that has delivered, in consecutive budgets, a surplus, as well as delivering measures to make sure pressure on the cost of living is moved downwards—things like a Future Made in Australia, which will benefit our future economic growth as a nation. To have a good economy you need good future economic growth and products that we can make here in Australia to export as well as use locally. And, as I said, this was the second consecutive surplus that's been delivered in many, many years. Of course the budget centrepiece, I suppose, which will really bring cost-of-living pressures downward, is the tax cuts. Under this government and under the announcements made in the budget and previously, the tax cuts will deliver, for someone earning $130,000, for example, $2,600 per person. Someone on $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,500. And approximately two million workers who earn under $45,000—the minimum that they can earn—will be better off under this government, whereas under the previous government's proposals there was nothing: not a single dollar in it for people earning under $45,000. That will assist people in this current economic climate. The energy rebate of $300 per household will assist people with their energy costs. And of course there is the largest investment ever, by any government, in housing. An extra $32 billion was put into our investment in housing to assist with the current housing crisis that we have. We know that the first port of call in anyone's life is getting a roof over their head. That is the beginning and the foundation of any structure in life. First you need to have that security of knowing you have somewhere to live, a roof over your head. We know that is so important. That's why we are investing $32 billion in housing. And of course there were the announcements of the urgent care clinics—adding another 29 across the country, hopefully one in my electorate, which will assist in getting those hospital lists down and freeing up the emergency departments. We've already seen some operating in Adelaide near and around my electorate, already putting downward pressure on emergency departments. We've seen the biggest investment in bulk-billing in history, unlike from the previous government, under which rebates didn't go up, and we were seeing the copayments continually increasing. But we've now had the biggest investment in bulk-billing in Australia's history and are seeing those copayments going downwards. And, as I said earlier, we will have a Future Made in Australia. In my electorate some great infrastructure projects are taking place, which have been going on for quite some time now. For example, the North-South Corridor, which basically starts in the northern suburbs and finishes at the end of the southern suburbs, in metropolitan Adelaide, has had a lot of work done to it. I've just got to add a bit of history here so that this chamber is aware of how all of this started. This was an announcement by the Rudd-Gillard government back in 2010. I clearly recall turning the first sod with the member for Grayndler, now Australia's Prime Minister, back in 2012 or 2013 in the section that was in my electorate. I'm pleased to say that work has begun between that area of South Road on Hindmarsh through to Crowder Park, which will see a tunnel underneath where the current South Road is. Hopefully that will continue and will free up a lot of traffic. We've also seen announcements for the Marion Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive intersection in Cowandilla, in my electorate. This intersection gets so congested, so this is a great announcement by the federal government, together with the state government, to free that blockage up with infrastructure works there. And, of course, the Grange Road-Holbrooks Road-East Avenue works to assist with congestion as well. One of the infrastructure projects taking place in my electorate is the Cross Road-Marion Road tram crossing. It was announced under the previous government, but nothing was done. It was an election promise in 2013, but 2013 came and went. Then 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019—they all came and went and not a thing was done. It took a Labor government to come up with the funding and the investment of billions of dollars, which will assist the traffic in that area, which is right on the border of the electorate of Hindmarsh, the electorate of Adelaide and the electorate of Boothby. These are real actions that are being taken by this Labor government to assist people's lives. Whether it be energy costs in giving that rebate of $300 or more money for Medicare or tax cuts: all these things make a difference in people's lives. And as I said, tax cuts will be affecting 13.6 million people. People across this country will receive a tax cut. This includes 93,000 people in the Adelaide electorate. Every single taxpayer will receive a tax cut. The average tax cut for taxpayers in my electorate of Adelaide will be approximately $1,540. That is the average tax cut to every person in my electorate. Labor's tax cuts will deliver a bigger tax cut for Middle Australia to help with the cost of living, to put downward pressure on the increases in costs of living. Labor's tax cuts will provide greater tax relief to low- and middle-income taxpayers from 1 July 2024, which is coming up soon. A majority, 90 per cent, of women taxpayers will be retaining, on average, an additional $707 per year compared with the previously legislated tax cuts. As I said, we've also increased the Medicare levy low-income thresholds from 2023-24, ensuring more than one million low-income taxpayers continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy rate. And there is the $3.5 billion in energy bill relief for all Australian households and one million eligible small businesses. A big issue in my electorate is HECS and the HECS-HELP relief for students. We know that the government will cut $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. This means the change will support 29,157 people within the seat of Adelaide who will get this HECS-HELP relief for students. The Albanese Labor government has invested almost $4 billion to deliver cheaper medicines to ease pressures on household budgets, and by freezing the PBS, which is assisting people, the PBS co-payment, and adding more medicines to the PBS. What does this mean for the residents in the federal seat of Adelaide? We have already saved $3,742,669 thanks to this government's commitment to deliver cheaper medicines. Everyone in the federal seat of Adelaide who accesses the PBS medicines are set to save even more. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 It being 12.30, the debate is interrupted. The debate will be adjourned, and a resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next sitting day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future date. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Lieberman, Hon. Louis Stuart (Lou), AM 105 12:30 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Indi is a Federation seat, and there have been many, many members for Indi. As the current member for Indi, I acknowledge what an enormous privilege it is, and I stand on the shoulders of those who went before me. Today I rise to offer my respect, my thoughts and my condolences to the family and friends of one former member for Indi, the Hon. Lou Lieberman AM, who passed away on 17 May in Wodonga. Lou was a much respected, active member of our border community. Prior to entering politics, he worked as a solicitor and barrister and was part of the local consultative council for the development of Albury-Wodonga National Growth Centre's decentralisation plan. More recently, Lou served as chair of Albury Wodonga Health from 2014 to 2018. I first met Lou when I was a young matron at the Chiltern Bush Nursing Hospital in the 1980s, where he was attending a community meeting. He was the local state member, and I remember Lou there as constructive, kind and compassionate. Lou was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly as the member for Benambra from 1976 to 1992. Under the Victorian premierships of Rupert Hamer and Lindsay Thompson, Lou served as minister in the portfolios of local government, planning, mines, and minerals and energy, and as Assistant Minister for Health. He resigned from state politics to contest the 1993 federal election. Lou was elected the member for Indi for the Liberal Party in 1993 and re-elected in 1996 and 1998, before retiring ahead of the 2001 election. In this place, Lou was a member of the House of Representatives Privileges Committee; the Industry, Science and Technology Committee; the Family and Community Affairs Committee; and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He served as chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee and the Publications Committee. In 2016, Lou was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the parliaments of Australia and Victoria through a range of portfolio responsibilities and to the community of Albury-Wodonga, who loved him dearly. Thank you, Lou, for the significant contribution you made to public life and your dedication to the development to our border communities. I also wish to thank Lou's family, particularly his loving wife, Marj, for the love and support provided to Lou in his service to our community. I also have the thoughtful comments from another former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, which I'd like to share today. Lou Lieberman played a significant role in Cathy's life, and she's grateful to have had the opportunity to know him and benefit from his wisdom and experience. Lou offered Cathy career advice and would always ask her about her family. Lou's and Cathy's professional paths crossed many times, first when Cathy was working as a research assistant for the then member for Indi, Ewen Cameron. At the time, Lou was state member for Benambra. They met later, when Cathy was working as a rural community consultant and Lou was the federal member for Indi. They met often to discuss local issues, agriculture, the future of rural communities and the importance of community leadership. When Cathy was considering running as an independent in the 2013 election, Lou was generous with his knowledge, sharing his experience of being a representative. Lou's advice to Cathy was to remember to always put the constituent first and not get carried away by the 'big theatre' in Canberra. What good advice! I could not agree with him more. He was also very explicit, telling Cathy that electoral competition is important for a healthy democracy but stressing that he could never vote for Cathy because his loyalty would always be to the Liberal Party. It's a shame about that, Lou. As the member for Indi, Cathy would occasionally run into Lou in Wodonga—Lou out for a walk and Cathy connecting with constituents and business owners in the main street. The interaction between the two would draw a crowd of people who, in turn, would reminisce with Lou, before turning to Cathy and telling her that she had big shoes to fill. Generously, Lou would reply that they didn't need to worry because Cathy was doing a good job. Such was the man. That praise meant a great deal to Cathy. She remembers so clearly Lou's care for people and how he put the needs of constituents first. Among his many qualities, Cathy found Lou to be a good and gentle man, and I would agree. I know, as Cathy did then, that our border community is all the better for Lou's work, his contribution, his generosity and his kindness. Vale, Lou Lieberman. May your legacy continue. Adelaide Omonia Cobras Football Club 105 12:36 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Sport, as we all know, is Australia's national passion. From a young age, many of us commence playing sport in kids teams and progress through. Some progress more quickly than others who are much slower, like myself. I think I'm still progressing! My football days are far long gone. It's supporting your local grassroots clubs and teams playing in national competitions right through to those professionals from a very young age, and it creates a sense of community. That's why I am very delighted that the Adelaide Omonia Cobras soccer club, based at Weigall Oval in Plympton in my electorate has received a $200,000 Investing in our Communities grant, which I supported them to receive, to provide the club with a new electronic scoreboard, a timber viewing deck and perimeter fencing around the main oval. The perimeter fencing is crucial as it's a mandatory requirement for the club to be compliant when playing in Football South Australia's State League 1 and higher divisions. Prior to having this perimeter fencing, the club was reliant on temporary fencing and was spending a considerable amount of time with volunteers and money each season to erect a temporary fence each game and then dismantle it immediately afterwards. The scoreboard will ensure the club is well equipped to display accurate time keeping of matches, score results, goal scorers and, where possible, replays of goals and other match events. The display is also capable of broadcasting videos and movies et cetera, so the club is thinking and talking about hosting movie nights in and around the oval for its members and the local community. The Adelaide Cobras soccer club is a proud club with a long history. It was established in 1972 by the Cypriot Australian community of South Australia. The main objective was to provide a social outlet for young migrants back then. The word omonia in Greek means 'unity with its surrounding area', so the club name, Adelaide Omonia, signifies the City of Adelaide and the surrounding communities and suburbs. It's a very appropriate name. I give credit to and congratulate the president, Simon Panayi, who has been in the position since about 2013. He has done incredible things down there with Peter Gonis, the secretary. He's one of the longest-serving presidents in the club's history, and Peter Gonis, the secretary, and the board are all united and are a very hard-working team. This club is very significant for my local community. We know through sporting events that football is increasing in popularity across the nation. I'm told that the largest club based participant sport in Australia at the moment is soccer—whether you're under five or over five. This makes it ideally placed to support the lifelong physical, psychological, physiological, social and cognitive health and wellbeing requirements of Australians. The Cobras football club has over 300 players. Over half of them are juniors coming through the ranks—kids as young as those in the under-eights. There's a range of teams under the Football South Australia banner. There are the seniors' teams, including senior women's teams, the women's teams, the juniors and the MiniRoos. There are also senior amateurs competing in the Collegiate Soccer League. I can also inform the House that the senior men's Adelaide Cobras side are currently sitting in sixth place on the Football South Australia state league. They have a must-win home game on, this Saturday, against fourth-placed western suburbs rivals Fulham United. This is the first season the club has hosted a senior women's squad. That team is in sixth place. They'll play the FC Summit women's community team on Sunday at Anembo Park. Women's soccer is growing. I believe that, in all of our electorates, we've seen a growth in women's soccer since the Matildas did so well at the last World Cup. That's why it's important to support these clubs and to support women's soccer. And tomorrow night, the Matildas are playing in Adelaide at the Adelaide Oval. I'm delighted that this $200,000 grant has enabled the Adelaide Cobras to set themselves the goal of promotion to the Football South Australia RAA National Premier League. They're able to play their home games at the now competitive Weigall Oval, which has been developed, and the fence will assist them. Queensland: Office of the Public Guardian 106 12:41 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt In recent months, I've been in receipt of several disturbing accounts from members of the public who have recounted their experiences with Queensland's Office of the Public Guardian. These stories they've shared with me paint a deeply troubling picture of an organisation that, instead of safeguarding the vulnerable, appears to be exercising control and coercion, with an alarming lack of transparency and accountability. In all my years, I've never encountered a government-sanctioned entity that operates with such a veil of secrecy, acting seemingly as a law unto itself. This issue has been raised before. The public broadcaster, the ABC, on Four Corners, has previously published exposes on this very issue. But it seems that, in the years since this media attention, very little scrutiny has been applied and, accordingly, very little has changed. In fact, in my estimation, things have deteriorated even further. Last week, I issued a press release expressing my concern regarding the OPG's actions. While the release did not receive widespread media publication, it was shared amongst the very community who are suffering at the hands of the OPG. Since then, my office has been inundated with correspondence from individuals across Australia, sharing their harrowing experiences with guardianship authorities in the broader system, including the Public Trustee and the various state based tribunals and how they all interface. These accounts reveal a disturbing pattern of total overreach, where individuals under guardianship orders are isolated and find it impossible to regain control or where loved ones are entirely shut out. Shockingly, these guardianship authorities are quite willing and able to weaponise the financial resources of those under their control to quash any legal challenges, effectively silencing dissent and perpetuating their control. The OPG will readily sell property and other income-generating assets to fiercely defend its right to control this person's own life. For loved ones, it's a catch 22. Do you pursue the matter? Do you take it to the Supreme Court and, in the process, leave yourself and your loved ones penniless? It's not just those subject to OPG control who have raised concerns with me. I've also been approached by multiple staff of the OPG. They've suggested to me that the organisation is totally dysfunctional and clearly should not be charged with making such critically important decisions about people's lives, especially when it struggles to manage its own internal affairs. It's no wonder that those under the OPG's control are facing tragic outcomes and are finding themselves powerless, without recourse. The secretive nature of the OPG, shielded by privacy laws, makes it nearly impossible for families, advocates or even elected representatives like me to intervene or seek clarity on behalf of those affected. This lack of transparency and accountability is grave injustice to the individuals and families who depend on the state for protection and support. It is evident that the system is broken. The alarming stories that I've heard are not isolated incidents but symptoms of systematic failure that require immediate attention and comprehensive reform. I appreciate that this is a very difficult area for legislators and bureaucrats to get right, and there will no doubt always be people who are dissatisfied, but it's clear to me that the OPG and the systems of support that are in place to enable them are entirely flawed. No-one is taking responsibility and, I suspect, no-one wants to be held accountable for what appear to be routine injustices, but we must do better for those people who are subjected to these orders. Once you're in the system, you're trapped and powerless to escape. In a democratic society, this is a terrifying prospect, and it's something that we have to address without delay. When I've been contacted by traumatised families and I've reached out asking simple questions of the OPG, they just say, 'We don't have to answer your questions,' and they hang up. They shut down and refuse to be held accountable. I think it's an absolute disgrace. They need to be held accountable for their actions. Eastern Community Legal Centre, National Reconciliation Week, Chisholm Electorate: Community Events 107 12:46 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I want to congratulate the Eastern Community Legal Centre on 50 years of service to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. This is an historic milestone. The Eastern Community Legal Centre provide crucial free legal support to people in our community. Their team are so passionate and so dedicated, and they help an astounding number of people. Their work goes beyond legal services. They're also focused on prevention, community outreach and support. They're a truly interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary centre. Our community is better because of the Eastern Community Legal Centre. I will always advocate for the centre and the exceptional work that they do. In National Reconciliation Week, it is important for each of us to consider how we can walk towards a better future for First Nations Australians. Part of reconciliation is understanding our history and confronting the injustices of the past. This year's theme is 'Now more than ever', and this serves as a reminder to all of us in this House and in our communities across the country of how important it is to make progress towards reconciliation. We all have a part to play. I'm proud to be part of a government that is focused on achieving better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is a really important week. I note that the House has been lit up in colours to recognise this important week, and I hope that, as we celebrate and reflect on this week for years to come, we see true reconciliation come closer to being a reality. I recently had the pleasure of attending a community lunch with the Circolo Pensionati Italiani di Oakleigh e Clayton. This is a brilliant group of retired Italians in our community. It was a really beautiful lunch. I felt very privileged to be there, and I felt very welcome. As someone with Italian heritage, I ran into some old family friends too, which was lovely. I want to thank the group for their great hospitality and kindness, for all of the work that they do connecting people in the Italian community in the south-eastern and eastern suburbs of Melbourne to one another, and for creating such a wonderful atmosphere for people to participate in. They have regular community lunches and dances, and these are really important for keeping older Australians in our community—and Italian Australians in particular—connected and active. It was really special to have lunch with everybody, and I look forward to visiting again soon. I did promise that I would attend a dinner dance in the year ahead, so I look forward to doing that. I have many fond memories of attending Italian dinner dances when I was a kid, so this will be very special too. Chinese Australians in my community in Chisholm are preparing to celebrate the Dragon Boat Festival. This is a really special time for coming together, for enjoying dumplings with one another and being in community. I want to wish all Chinese Australians—not just in my electorate of Chisholm, but right across the country—a very happy Dragon Boat Festival. May your festivities be filled with joy, laughter and cherished moments with family and friends. Duanwu jie kuaile! Australian Political Exchange Council: New Zealand, New South Wales: Northern Tablelands By-Election 108 12:49 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'm on the committee that helps organise the political exchanges between this parliament and various other countries across the world. I think there are about six or seven other countries that we have regular political exchanges with—generally newer members of parliament or maybe even people who have aspirations to be members of parliament. I was very pleased that, the week before last, I was able to invite the delegation from New Zealand that were here in parliament to have a day in Dubbo. I always get a little bit frustrated that, when our visitors come to this country, they get to look at our capital cities but don't get to look at the regions. So I was really pleased to welcome: Rima Nakhle, who is a member of the National Party; Reuben Davidson, a member of the Labour Party from up in Christchurch; Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, who is a member of the Labour Party but also represents a Maori seat; and Greg Fleming, from the National Party. So it was a bipartisan group from New Zealand. In their visit to Dubbo, they managed to visit the Royal Flying Doctor Service, where they saw the valuable work that that service does. I think the New Zealanders were quite impressed by the areas that were covered by the flying doctor and that Dr Shannon Nott, who is the lead physician for the Royal Flying Doctor Service south-east region, was able to also address the group. They also caught up with Mike Sutherland from Australian Strategic Materials and talked about the importance of the rare earth and strategic minerals that are going to be so important for our future that are going to be mined in the Dubbo area. We caught up with Mayor Mathew Dickerson and the general manager, Murray Wood. I think the highlight for the group was going to REDI.E, which is an Aboriginal employment organisation run by CEO Peter Gibbs. They got a real insight. It was interesting because one of the people they spoke to was actually a Maori who has been living in Dubbo and training young Indigenous people to shear sheep. Part of their success is that young Tyron Cochrane from Goodooga actually went to the shearing competition and won the junior Golden Shears in New Zealand, beating the Maoris for the first time, I think, since about 1961 or 1962. His partner at the time, Jolie Orcher, from Bourke, came third in the wool rolling. So they were able to understand the importance of these young people—some of them quite often from disadvantaged backgrounds—and they heard about a young lad from Walgett who at the age of 15 desperately wanted to be a shearer and how he shore his first 100 and then ultimately went to New Zealand as well. It was a great visit because they got to understand the scale. We did do a bit of socialising and had bit of a gossip at the Commercial Hotel Dubbo as well. It's really important that those are the relationships we build with other parliaments around our region, and you do that over a period of time in a personable way. I'm a little bit concerned to hear that REDI.E is under threat of having their funding cut, and I've reached out to Minister Burney today to see if we can do something about that. They are a successful organisation, and they have about 1,000 people that they care for. They've done things like the Wilcannia store. They've taken it on in partnership with outback stores. They've done the same thing in Goodooga. They do a great job. To finish up, I'd like to also mention that my friend Brendan Moylan has been preselected from a very strong field in the by-election for the seat of Northern Tablelands following the resignation of long-term member Adam Marshall. Brendan is a family man from Moree—with three children and a wife—a lawyer, a much-respected man and a man of character who is his own person. I think he'll be a fantastic representative should he be elected for the seat of Northern Tablelands. He's a down-to-earth, good fellow, and I'm wishing Brendan all the success in the by-election that's coming up in about the middle of June. Cybersafety 108 12:54 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Children of the current generation have had lives interrupted. Gen-Z endured the isolation of the pandemic lockdowns and became involuntary pioneers of en masse online schooling. Big tech performed a crucial role in keeping our children's education going, but it also had the undesirable side effect of weaving its way into every aspect of our children's lives. The experiences of children during the pandemic were not identical. For some, connecting with new people online was a positive experience, but too many were bullied, groomed or traumatised by adults and anonymous peers. While children from disadvantaged backgrounds struggled with a lack of technology during lockdowns, those with access became more connected than ever—but, in some cases, dangerously so. Kids were unsupervised in the digital playground during COVID, with no guardrails and no fences around the schoolyard. Things had to happen quickly and, in their haste, boundaries became porous or even non-existent. We were doing the best we could to keep some routine in our children's lives, but we unwittingly traded off their privacy. The apps that allowed them to learn at home not only knew how they performed academically but also harvested information about their friendship groups; their sexuality; the movies, music and clothing they liked; and their hopes, fears and insecurities. Big tech has little interest in retreating from its position within the lives of our young people. The data harvesting, on a massive scale, is too delicious to give up. When you think about it, do social media companies ever act altruistically? Do they see themselves as having a duty of care to their users, especially their young users under 18? There is a clear demand in the community to understand and address the experiences of online bullying and harassment and mental health impacts. Meanwhile, though, children have access to violent, extreme forms of pornography and misogynistic content that is detrimental to their mental wellbeing, fuelling harmful attitudes about women and girls. In addition to our legitimate concerns about the mental health of our children, they're being exposed to unregulated dirty products sneaking through social media that couldn't be treated and promoted in the same way through mainstream paths. There are some who rail against any restrictions on access to social media, but I don't accept the simplistic, sinister binary that either we have free speech or we have safe kids. We've successfully introduced measures to keep our children mentally and physically safe without encroaching on the liberty of others. We accept the need for movie ratings and know instantly what G, PG, M or R means. There are rules around advertising junk food, gambling and what we consider adult content during children's television time. We've introduced laws to stop our children getting nicotine vapes sold to them at shops, and we have laws for bike helmets, swimming pool fences and child car seats and safety standards for a range of other products to keep children safe in the event of an accident. The content being dished up to our children online, on the internet, is no accident. I'm proud to be part of a government introducing a suite of online measures to keep our children safe. I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister and other colleagues, including the Attorney-General, Minister Rishworth and Minister Rowland, in bringing a number of initiatives to fruition. These measures include a pilot of age assurance technology to protect children from harmful content like pornography and other age restricted online services. The outcomes of that pilot will inform the existing work of Australia's eSafety Commissioner under the Online Safety Act, including through the development of industry codes and standards. The government will also introduce legislation to make it clear that creating and sharing sexually explicit material without content using technology like artificial intelligence will be subject to serious criminal penalties. The Albanese government is taking action. We as individual parents and citizens can be part of the broader solution. We have a chance to lead by example by making it our business to be media literate. We can start with a simple statement that there are many opinions but only one set of facts. We can still respect people's right to their own opinion, but we must be clear that they are not entitled to their own facts. We must understand the information, disinformation and misinformation our children are exposed to if we are to guide them towards news sources they can trust. It is within our control to educate ourselves, and encourage our children to educate themselves, to spot fake news. Our children are the first generation to live their lives online. There's no going back to the pre-mobile-phone, pre-iPad and pre-internet days, but we cannot allow the digital world to dictate the way our kids interact and compare themselves to each other or to set false expectations for their lives or manipulate their perception of reality. We need to get tech working for our kids and not the other way around. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00